 Hi there, welcome to the recorded webinar of Money Where It Matters, ensuring climate finance flows to the local level. Today you're going to be hearing from myself and my colleague Sam Green. We both work at IID in the climate change group and we focus on issues of climate finance. The webinar is going to last about two and a half hours and it's going to be divided into three main parts. And the webinar is loosely structured around IID's Money Where It Matters framework, which is split into different elements. In part one we're going to offer an overview of the climate finance landscape and some of the systemic issues and potential solutions. We'll also outline in part one one of the elements of the Money Where It Matters framework, namely the journey that sets out four stages of a local institution's climate finance journey considering the decisions that they may need to take in the different contexts and the different capabilities that they may need. It also outlines the roles of support partners who can help build bridges between different actors at different levels. Part two of the presentation will look at another element of the Money Where It Matters framework, the four integral building blocks for effective local finance. My colleague Sam will be doing part two. And the final part of the webinar will focus on another part of the framework. This is the 15 good practices that underpin and strengthen the building blocks. I will go a little bit faster over some of the slides in order to keep to time, but these won't be integral to the learning objectives. And we'll send out a slide deck to anybody who likes it. My email and Sam's email is at the end. So if you'd like a copy of the slide deck, please do get in touch with us. So let's move to part one. What do we understand by climate finance? In 2015, the International Climate Negotiations under the UN at United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of the UNFCCC in Paris delivered a historic global agreement that set the objective of keeping global warming to below two degrees above pre-industrial levels and to pursue best efforts that keep the temperature rise to below 1.5 degrees. The Paris Agreement bills on the UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol recognises the obligation to take action on climate change by all countries, developed and developing. The agreement requires all countries to identify and implement their best, ambitious efforts on climate change mitigation, adaptation and finance and to communicate them to the UNFCCC through their nationally determined contributions or their NDCs. The Paris Agreement's long-term goal on finance marked the first time countries in the United Nations Climate Negotiations set a collective goal reflecting the full scale of effort needed on finance to address climate change. This slide simply sets out what we mean by climate finance. Essentially, this is money from various sources that is to be channeled into climate change activities. Now, there are a couple of key things I'd like to point out from this diagram and I understand this is quite complicated, but we're going to zoom in on specific parts in the next two slides so you can see what I'm talking about. Looking left to right of the diagram gives a high level overview of the various sources of climate finance and where it is being channeled. Now this is a 10,000-foot view looking at the international landscape. The report from which this diagram was taken by the Climate Policy Initiative shows that there has been a steady increase in the volume of climate finance but these figures represent a small share of the overall economic transition required to address climate change especially given investment in fossil fuel projects continue to surpass investments in low-emission climate resilient infrastructure. So there's a couple of things I'd like to point out. The first is that in terms of the provision of climate finance the majority is coming via private sources. Public climate finance accounts for about $215 billion whereas private sources accounts for $326 billion. Now this challenges the notion that it's generally governments and climate funds or public climate finance that is mainly being mobilised to fight climate change. The second key point from the diagram is that the volume of finance being channeled into mitigation dwarfs that being directed towards adaptation. You have $537 billion for mitigation compared to only $30 billion for adaptation. Now this is concerning as there's a dire need for money to flow into adaptation. According to the UNEP adaptation gap report in 2016 the estimated cost of adapting to climate change in developing countries could rise between $280 and $500 billion per year by 2050. Let's now look at how the money is actually flowing from the international levels down into projects. This slide again shows the complexity of the climate finance and the architecture of public institutions involved in raising, channeling and deploying finance for climate related activities. Now my apologies if this isn't terribly clear and it looks quite complicated but in a way that actually makes the point. The climate finance architecture is extremely convoluted and there may be and there are many many institutions involved. During the past two decades the number of international funds providing climate finance has grown with each new fund responding to different needs that emerged at that time. This reflects a general trend consistent with development finance. Now this proliferation of funds creates a diverse but complicated landscape of funds but it also means that there are huge question marks around the efficiency and the effectiveness and whether climate finance can genuinely support the necessary transformation to low emissions climate resilient societies. Funds do not always operate with optimal efficiency due to unclear divisions of labour while an abundance of rules can make navigating this climate finance architecture quite challenging for many countries and for the implementing entities. So moving on from the last diagram on the overall climate finance architecture this diagram here is a simplification of the current transaction chain. This shows the way in which climate finance is flowing from the international level into a country and sets out the systemic issues that are hindering both the quantity and the quality of the finance reaching the local level. We've used a plumbing analogy to demonstrate some of the issues we've identified in the way in which money is flowing. At the very top of the climate finance chain are the primary donors which sit at the international level but also bilateral donors too. This is the pot of money from which finance will ultimately be drawn down. The subsequent steps detailed are the different transaction points across the climate finance chain and the different active groups at each of these transaction points. The pipe junctions represent intermediaries in the system. Under the current system these intermediaries are largely the UN agencies and the multilateral development banks as well as some national entities. These intermediaries are crucial for enabling finance to flow but the donors and the experts in distant headquarters decide on how it flows and siphon some of the finance offered for administration costs. Now this will reduce the amount of money reaching those at implementing local action as well as predetermining how this finance is actually going to be spent on activities on the ground. Now this slide simply captures some of the challenges that business as usual presents and because we think these are important to bear in mind before we move on to the next slides. Money is not reaching the local level. With only $1.10 committed from climate funds for local level climate action climate finance is failing to get money to where it matters. Not only this but there's a gender dimension as well and there's limited opportunity for the engagement and participation of grassroots women, women's organizations in the climate finance processes. Now this is evident across the whole project cycle. In short we need to reimagine the climate finance system. By 2018 public multilateral climate funds including the adaptation fund, the climate investment funds, the green climate fund and the global environment facility have included explicit gender policies and or a gender action plan. We have increased accountability mechanisms integrating gender equality principles. The internal policies of these mechanisms adopt principles of stakeholder inclusion with different approaches to enhance the meaningful engagement of women and gender-related groups. These efforts aim to provide a space for women's organizations to engage with the funds as stakeholders. However the burden still remains with the women's organizations to adapt to and meet the demands and the structures of the finance mechanisms rather than the other way around. Evidence suggests that the inclusion of women improves the effectiveness and the efficiency of technical assistance and development funding. It also helps provide social justice and it can help alleviate poverty and increase global sustainability. It also improves the impact of dispersed climate finance. Now these outcomes provide a justification for the engagement of women's organizations from perspective based on the results. However the effective engagement of women and gender-related groups is in line with human rights obligations of multiple multilateral processes including the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women. The IPCCC and the mandates under UNFCCC and under the SDGs. There are many limitations to women's organizations. For example perhaps a lack of capacity to engage directly with the funds and even to engage indirectly. Now this often requires political connections and the basic technical skills to demonstrate one's expertise and the ability to contribute to substantive climate action and results. Receiving direct access to climate finance would enable the expansion and a debt to the work already being done on the ground to help enhance gender equality. The opportunity for groups and organizations to apply their gender experience and their expertise to additional and larger projects across climate-relevant sectors is also invaluable in advancing an effective approach to gender-just climate action. Prompting systemic change in addressing climate issues. Delivery mechanisms are transparent and accountable governance management and financial arrangements that facilitate local adaptation either by helping local actors prioritise adaptation actions or by channeling flexible finance into local actors' hands for their own adaptation investments. These mechanisms are based on the subsidiarity principle where local development and adaptation decisions are made at the lowest effective level unless it would be more effective to do so at a higher level. This allows those with most knowledge and experience to lead the decision making. Delivery mechanisms should strengthen local actors' capabilities to consider climate risks over different timescales. They should also help shift incentives so local actors can make choices that perform better over longer-term horizons and cost-effectively aggregate local adaptation actions at scale. Because climate change impacts vulnerabilities and socio-economic situation varies different delivery mechanisms will suit different contexts. There's a number of different delivery mechanisms that can help communities prioritise their adaptation investments and these can come from the state, the private sector and civil society. This diagram shows how the climate finance system can be reformed on the right of the diagram contrasted against the business as usual on the left. We'll dive into this in a bit more detail in the following slides but I wanted to show you the full picture before looking at the different paths in a bit more detail. We need to move beyond small isolated community-based adaptation initiatives We must focus instead on developing and strengthening institutions and the mechanisms that we use to deliver a facility sustainable locally led adaptation solutions at scale as well as interact with different levels of governance. All parties should work together to create an enabling environment to incentivise locally driven climate finance and action in scale and quality. This should focus on helping poor and marginalised people make informed decisions through deliberative processes. Now this can include working to create governance arrangements that allow for money to be channeled to the local level more efficiently or perhaps putting in place policies to ensure that this can happen. This part of the diagram shows a whole of society approaches required. Because climate change impacts vulnerabilities and the socio-economic situations vary as I mentioned different delivery mechanisms will suit different contexts. There isn't going to be a one size fits all approach and there's going to be a different mix of different mechanisms as dictated by the context. Essentially several delivery mechanisms at either states, private centres, civil society can help communities prioritise adaptation investments. Countries can coordinate or convert their responses because no single mechanism will deliver resilient people, places and economies on its own. For example, adaptive microfinance may only be effective if combined with other mechanisms like devolved climate finance funds. Different mechanisms can also strengthen others. For example, grassroots mechanisms can help improve social protection programmes vulnerability targeting. Based on our research and outreach over the past few years, change is needed. This slide sets out some of the proposed principles for a reformed climate finance system that will lead to good practice and the detail here is going forward there needs to be some evidence of inclusion of these principles in climate finance. There needs to be some sort of bar or a yardstick by which to measure this move towards business unusual. I'll quickly provide a little bit more detail on each of these. Finance should be patient and predictable. Countries need regular, predictable allocations over at least seven years to build effective institutions that can develop, test and adjust delivery mechanisms to support governance and investment in effective local climate action. Building an open and accountable climate finance system will allow local partners to innovate in tackling the underlying drivers of climate vulnerability. Flexibility to learn and adjust. Delivery mechanisms are needed to seek to enable this whole of society response to the underlying drivers of vulnerability and the adverse impacts of climate change. We must invest in experimentation and not just look for elegant solutions. Learning rapidly from clumsy solutions will help create agile delivery mechanisms that can adapt to rapidly changing context. When I talk about clumsy solutions, I mean adaptation at the local level rarely follows a path that's set out in a log frame in a linear and logical fashion. Rather, there is the need to incorporate failure and iterative learning along the way. Ensuring the delivery mechanisms have the authority and the resources to make decisions at the right level and healthy monitoring evaluation learning budgets will help deliver context-specific solutions. Donors should therefore commit finance based on the assurance of the governance structure rather than the expectation of specific results. Ability to risk-seek and incubate innovation is going to take time to develop effective delivery mechanisms that can support the governance of an investment in distributed climate action across the country. It's also going to take time and trust to develop an understanding between the different stakeholders with the different interests. So there's a bit of a chicken and egg situation going on here. Donors will often only release financial support as partners have proven their track record in financial management and results delivery. But many developing country institutions struggle to meet, for example, the GCF requirements so cannot develop a track record. Accountability mechanisms should enable learning and adjustment to checks and not control, aiming more towards learning from experience as a sign of success. Donors should commit long-term to incubate strategic delivery mechanisms with the potential for transformative action, strengthening core institutional capabilities to meet benchmarks. So I'm going to talk about this a bit more in the following slide. Robustness in the face of climate futures. Climate finance decisions should be supported with climate information integrated with local and technical knowledge systems. Considering the possible range of climate futures would minimize regrets of poor investment or maladaptation, leading to decisions that value flexibility and agile enough to respond to changing conditions. Investing in low regret options that are effective against all climate futures will help build redundancy into systems. And to offer transformative potential, climate finance must support robust decision making. Convergence across interventions. Delivery mechanisms need to support local action at household enterprise and landscape levels. Layering them will ensure they operate effectively and help us learn what works collectively. There's evidence of efforts to coordinate projects, but these should be more effective collaboration within specific places. Local and national government structures and producer and grassroots organizations offer a framework for strengthening coherence across responses, which should support rapid learning and maximize the impact and efficiency of climate finance. There's strong evidence of what we call a missing middle in finance provision. On one end of the scale, we have small grants for innovation and the other end you have larger investments for proven approaches. But very little finance is available for incubating, nurturing, fostering innovative approaches to support early growth learning and adjusting with experience to help nurture these local institutions and help them build this track record. To ensure that we move away from business as usual, small grants can refocus on building long-term vision for whole society responses and enabling experimentation of what will work. They should support the processes that enable meaningful engagement across stakeholders, finding synergies and resolving trade-offs to create political momentum towards transformative action. Medium grants can focus on incubating strategic delivery mechanisms that integrate local and national actors and enable cross-sectoral collaboration, building their capabilities on track records so they can access larger and longer-term finance commitments. And all climate finance providers should commit to building systems for the long-term response that is needed to tackle the scale of the problem. They must prioritize investments in the agility of country institutions and in accountability systems that enable learning and adjustment at every level. Essentially, intermediaries should aim to work themselves out of the job within a given timeframe, leaving behind a strong legacy of capable institutions. So how can climate finance best support local organizations that work with communities? What does the finance need to do at the different stages to strengthen institutions to access more climate finance and deliver better quality finance to the communities with who they work? So the next four slides are going to set out a journey that local institutions can evolve along if given the correct support. As the institution evolves through the different stages along this journey, the institution will develop different capabilities and become more mature in order to draw down and manage larger sums of climate finance. Both local institutions and donors need to understand the options for strengthening capabilities of different types of organizations. Now this can include the type of finance for each stage of development and partnerships that can help them develop faster. As I talk through the different stages of the journey, I'd like you to think about where your own organization is and where it might sit on this journey. So let's look at stage one. This is often where communities will collectively organize and establish local associations to respond to different development climate challenges. These groups may establish a bottom-up fund to pool community time, labor and financial resources, which they will then use to support their social mission. This phase is central to establishing the funds organization structure and its objectives. It's essentially what it is setting out to do. Stage two, this is where an institution begins to formalize its governance and develop basic fiduciary systems and it begins to clarify its strategic focus. It can focus more on influencing local to national policy processes to strengthen its resource rights and access to service. While this enables it to build relationships with broader stakeholders and to provide resources, it also needs to develop and publish simple procedures to increase the transparency of operations and decision-making. At this stage, primary donors and large intermediaries are not yet providing funding because they consider the fund or the institution system still to be too risky and too small-scale. So brokers who can recognize the potential that needs to be unlocked can support this phase of development with small grants and a greater risk appetite. These brokers might include philanthropic organizations that have a higher risk appetite or perhaps a more progressive donor. Support will typically include investment and capabilities for that institution. The third stage is where local institution has now formalized and strengthens many of its procedures and establish a track record in delivering impact, which it may present through a theory of change, outlining its strategic approach to delivering impact. Having a theory of change improves frontier fundability to engage with the state and to negotiate for formal rights to land, resources, services and policy change that are going to support its endeavours. At this stage, there may be consideration of environmental, social and gender standards in the different policies that the local institution has drafted to guide its operations. This can be useful as it will likely help increase the ambition and inclusivity of different investments beyond their original purpose. The institution may still struggle to get direct funding from primary donors or from the large intermediaries due to their lack of proven track record. So most finances therefore still likely to come through layers of intermediaries. The local institution may therefore still work with other organizations such as larger NGOs or philanthropic organizations to help them translate and communicate their impact effectively to the donors and help navigate the multiple layers of intermediary bureaucracy. This is the final stage of the journey and this is the stage where the local institution can access and blend a range of financing resources to distribute to the local groups. It offers financial products and institutional support to the communities to whom it works that reflect the local needs. At this stage, the institution can be regarded as being quite mature and it should have the ability to aggregate community action for more strategic impact. This should give large donors confidence to start investing directly. So that brings part one to a close but before we move on to part two, these are the key points from part one. The amount of money going to mitigation is much larger than adaptation despite the huge need for adaptation finance. The way that climate finance system currently works does not really help money flow to the local level. In order to tackle climate change effectively we need a response from the different spheres of society including state-led, civil-led and private sector mechanisms. There's currently a missing middle in the provision of climate finance where medium-sized grants will help build the longer-term capabilities of local institutions. And as we've just seen, different institutions are at different stages based on the capabilities and require different types of support. I'm now going to hand you over to Sam for part two. The second part of this webinar focuses on the building blocks and barriers to the flows of climate finance to the local level. We're going to use a number of case studies as an example along the way including the DEMMA fund and the Babasu fund both based in the rainforest in Brazil and devolved climate finance approaches which have been piloted by the governments of Mali, Senegal, Kenya and Tanzania. This diagram shows the nature of money where it matters building blocks using the analogy of a plant that you'll see is a recurring theme in this presentation. This diagram really tries to pinpoint the entire money where it matters framework in one diagram and the top half identifies the building blocks of climate finance which is what the focus of this section of the webinar will be. The bottom half breaks up those building blocks into a number of principles that will be operationalised by funders and by those seeking to access climate finance that the framework argues will enable climate finance to flow not just in larger quantities but to deliver impact more effectively. So on the top you can see four leaves and those leaves stand for four building blocks. Building trust, shifting incentives, aggregating local action and building long term. So the building blocks for effective local finance emerged from a series of interviews and a workshop held with stakeholders from across the chain of climate finance delivery and they were tasked with identifying what are the major challenges and barriers to the flows of finance to the local level. And you'll notice that I've talked about barriers. We used to call these the four barriers but we realised that actually by addressing these barriers you actually have the fundamentals of good quality climate finance and the potential for scaling up with greater quantity of climate finance. So those barriers became building blocks. So I'll take each of those in turn. Trust is really central to flows of climate finance and it's worth recognising that there are different kinds of trust needed in the effective delivery of climate finance. So the problem is typically finance providers and that's both public and private sector and local institutions are distant from each other. They have limited contact for various, sometimes internet connections are not strong enough or other priorities dominate in a local setting. And it can be difficult for finance providers to be confident that their money will be managed in the right way. But it's also a problem that transparency and accountability measures need to be very clear and they need to go not just upwards towards the donors but also downwards towards the communities that the climate finance is intending to benefit. So perhaps we'll start with the most classic problem of trust and one that we often tend to associate with first is the upwards focus. The transparent accountable financial management and decision making processes to finance providers to let finance providers know that their funds are well managed and fairly allocated. So this refers to audit processes of audit proper fiduciary standards and financial management. All these are essential if a local institution is going to be able to manage a large scale of funds effectively and that involves all of the other administrative qualities that are necessary to not just manage that finance but report on it effectively. But there's another challenge here with trust which is the downwards accountability and ensuring that the stakeholders who are going to be affected by climate finance have a say in how that climate finance is going to be spent. And that is a level of downwards accountability or devolved governance. And that's going to mean decision making processes about how climate finance is going to be used. It includes many stakeholders and advisory bodies. It's also going to necessitate a level of meaningful community representation, collective voices that can inform decisions and ensuring the institutions are accountable to beneficiaries. And this isn't just an issue of accountability. It's also an issue of good quality. Sustainable local projects require input from many stakeholders in order to navigate the challenging local politics that might be a play and to ensure that marginalised groups are properly represented. All of this is part of building projects that are financially trustworthy but also more trustworthy in their decision making processes and more inclusive in their decision making processes. These are both central to high quality. A second building block is aggregation. So the problem here is that local adaptation requires lots of small projects. Adaptation, climate change impacts affect different areas in different ways. And there are a whole range of different social or cultural or economic factors which might change the way a particular climate hazard affects a particular location. And that means adaptation is going to necessarily be very context specific. Probably what's often needed is a number of small adaptation projects that take place across many local delivery partners. Now, for a climate finance provider that's delivering large quantities of funds particularly if it's delivering it with investors from the global north, that's going to come with quite a high degree of transaction costs to monitor and manage all of those individual small locally relevant projects. So what is needed is delivery partners that are able to take large scale funds and handle them aggregating the funds into one place that is a local organisation. But that organisation also needs to have the relevant contacts and local knowledge to disaggregate that funding downwards to local context. And this is important because it really ticks the box of a particular principle called subsidiarity. This idea that decision making is made at the lowest appropriate level. Now that can enable solutions to be tailored to communities it tries to seek away so that local stakeholders can have a say in how that finance affects their particular context. So organisations that are needed that can aggregate funding sometimes from multiple sources so from various public sources of finance for example from the Green Climate Fund but also bilateral donors or other multilateral funds as well as private finance providers who might be investing in a project that can deliver some kind of return or even those ones that are impact investors offering a different kind of climate finance. So organisations need to be able to handle those funds aggregate them in one place and have the local knowledge to disaggregate them downwards to those many small projects. But there's another challenge here which is also important and it's aggregating information effectively. A large scale climate finance provider simply can't handle all of the details of every small project in every local context that can be very difficult to manage. So an institution needs to be able to have a robust method for understanding the impact of all of those small projects aggregating that impact together that information together and reporting it back to the climate finance provider. They need to be able to summarise the overall impact of a fund across a large number of small projects and communicate it well. And crucially they need to be able to do it with evidence that is robust and needs to be effective mechanisms in place for monitoring evaluating impact and learning from that impact. So aggregation can be of funding that it has to go downwards and of information so that it can be reported upwards. And obviously effective information flows reporting upwards can help climate finance providers be confident that they can renew funding for second and third phases of projects or commit to longer term projects which are more beneficial and have more potential to be transformative. To give an example of the decentralized climate finance funds these are public sector adaptation funds. The idea being that climate finance comes into a government's treasury and is channeled using the public financial management system to local government authorities. The aggregator of the funds here is the local government authority. It can aggregate climate finance from for example the Green Climate Fund as well as its own domestic finance or any national level climate funds. And it can disaggregate those to a number of different communities each one represented by elected community representatives. Now the devolved climate finance funds is a commitment to investing in public good investments and 90% of the funding is allocated for investments and 10% for administration and monitoring, evaluation and learning. So the local government authority aggregates funds with it using public financial management mechanisms and disaggregates them through to a number of smaller projects within the areas within its remit. At the same time they've also built their capacity to carry out monitoring and evaluation from all of those different individualised projects. Collect that together and report back up the chain so that further funding can continue in the future. The third building block is long-term capabilities. The problem is that often skills and capacities to understand climate risks and climate finance or other particularities that are necessary to deliver high quality climate finance such as gender or skills in monitoring and evaluation and learning can be in short supply and as well the financial management capacities of some organisations need further work. So building long-term capabilities is absolutely crucial for ensuring effective flows of climate finance. Now there are a number of different ways of thinking about this. Firstly, on the technical side it's necessary to have continuous iterative learning monitoring and then continue to learn again. So monitoring and evaluation should feed directly into learning and improvement from the future and that learning needs to build on the understanding and experiences of those who are participating and have a stake in the flows of climate finance in a local area. So an institution needs to commit to learning from its successes and also its failures. A second area is through learning from peer organisations and that goes from local to national level. Working with networks of like-minded organisations can really help to build skills and this can often be a lot more effective than maybe more traditional fly-in, fly-out models of international consultants to deliver a capacity building training and then leave again and often that capacity does not last. Building institutional connections between local organisations can be a much more robust and sustainable form of local capacity building. Finally, thinking about learning not just climate risk management and the technical side, but also project management and reporting. Getting these fundamentals right are really important for contributing to the building block of trust that was mentioned earlier. Some of the learning that has come from our work is that investing more in the capabilities at the beginning before the funding flows even starts can get greater results later on and what that implies is a donor might need to offer greater funds for institutional strengthening and capability building at the beginning of a project so that when funding flows those institutions who have become involved are ready to manage and handle that funding effectively and obviously the value add comes later on every year that goes past where funding is channeled through a local organisation adds greater value to that investment that's made earlier on. Now finally, it's worth recognising that the fourth building block is shifting incentives for a better enabling environment for the delivery of climate finance. Now this is something that is broader than just what institutions can do and the problem is currently the rules and directions of climate finance are not incentivised to deliver funds to the local level. Incentives are typically for short term projects that are directed by the climate finance deliverers or global north governments or their intermediaries often multilateral development funds and multilateral development banks currently there are not enough incentives to enable direction setting by those who are going to be recipients of climate finance and short term projects have the problem in that they do not encourage ambitious climate change adaptation. It's very difficult to deliver transformative change when you only have a one or two year project only have a one or two year project to deliver it with particularly if your projects are in rural areas which are more challenging to access more challenging to build relationships with communities. So incentives need to be shifted and that's at both national and international level. So at the international level it's important that we build a shared purpose around predictable sustained long term investments that focus on strategic opportunities and not short term objectives. Now that might also necessitate taking some risks or recognising that mistakes are going to be made and mistakes are essential in the learning process. So those who are offering climate finance need to recognise that longer term strategic opportunities could be far more beneficial and transformative. That's going to need strategic collaboration between to bring that about that's going to need strategic collaboration or partnership of a number of different stakeholders making the case that a different approach to the delivery of climate finance is necessary. Now at the national level the effective climate change adaptation also needs effective enabling environments and policies in order for it to work. Now there is a policy advocacy element to this which is particularly important. If climate change adaptation is going to take place at local level the communities are going to need to be able to be empowered to manage the resources or the infrastructures that are then produced in a way that suits local priorities. So governments for example could support local resource rights or create opportunities for communities to make decisions and be flexible based on local needs and knowledge and the nature of climate risks and hazards at local level. By way of example the Babasu fund in Brazil struggled with the problem that local government authorities were not prioritising climate finance but Babasu recognised the Babasu nut on which the fund is based around has an economic value and they used that to gain leverage with the government to get them to recognise that climate finance and recognising the challenges of climate change could enable a better economic value addition to the Babasu nut itself. So local organisations can use collective action mobilising communities to advocate for an improved policy environment that can help the effectiveness of adaptation. Now that might be through advocacy but it also might be through a level of activism and strategic thinking is needed to work out what is the best approach to shifting incentives in all of these areas. So to summarise some of the takeaways from this section there are four main building blocks to enabling climate finance to flow to the local level the first one is trust in local institutions and trust goes upwards in terms of reporting to donors with strong financial management and reporting but also downwards ensuring that decision making includes stakeholders who are going to be affected by that climate finance being made transparently and accountably second aggregating finance and again thinking both upwards and downwards so aggregating finance at the appropriate level so that it can then be disseminated downwards to the local adaptation projects that are needed and sharing information upwards to all the necessary scales based on effective monitoring and evaluation processes that are robust and appropriate context relevant capabilities of local institutions deliver climate finance and these can be through peer learning through targeted capacity building approaches and through monitoring evaluation and learning built into the nature of institutions and the way that they work and finally we need effective enabling environments that support long term funding and flexibility in both the broader climate finance landscape and the way that it structures the delivery of climate finance but also in the enabling environments that ensure that adaptation is going to have an impact at scale and that can come through activism or advocacy so I'm going to hand over back to Barry now, thank you very much we're now moving into the final part of this recorded webinar before we go on I just want to take a slight step back to put things into context as was mentioned at the beginning of the webinar this is the final element of the money work masters framework these can be considered the operational design features or the choices that a local institution can incorporate to ensure that one it is in a better position to attract climate finance and two to deliver climate finance effectively for the communities with which it works as indicated by the red box here these are the good practices or the principles that have been identified as addressing the barriers and the challenges cited to financing locally led action in part two we looked at the plan above the ground now we're going to look at this section below the ground these routes represent 15 principles of operational practices that organizations can strive towards and implement in order to access climate finance many of these elements are operational practices the donors and agencies will be looking for including the climate finance funders but operationalization of these principles will also help an organization ensure they're serving the needs of the communities with whom they're working some will have more importance for certain types of institutions and some will have less importance that is to say not every single one of these practices will have relevance for your organization I'm now going to go through each of these to give a little bit more detail and we'll give real-world examples from the 4K studies which IID undertook before I move on however I want to make clear that these are not intended to be prescriptive as Sam outlined in part two to ensure success frontier funds need to build internal and external trust devolved multistakeholder governance is a key element in developing trust this will see decision-making devolved to the lowest possible level where action is sensibly taken and it will help ensure agility and responsiveness inclusive decision-making and advisory bodies with meaningful representation and community representatives provide local credibility and downward accountability and create a drive to solve local challenges NGOs and local governments can provide technical support but the community must have a leadership role and it must get the support it needs to develop a shared vision an example from the research that Sam mentioned is the Gungano Fund whose governance structures have representatives from the community constituency that it serves but it separates those from the financial approval to avoid any conflicts of interest the Zimbabwe Homeless Peoples Federation Gungano Urban Poor Fund which is set up to empower collective action it collects individual savings Gungano Fund community loan officers administer loans and regional committees oversee resource distribution as well as building trust this has helped keep administration costs down skilled facilitation is building capabilities within your organization to be able to ensure that the voice of local communities is going to be heard both within that organization but also externally for example the Gungano who are part of the global network of slum dwellers federation slum dwellers international or SDI SDI facilitates exchanges where members can learn from each other in terms of local innovation and upgrading in financial management and data collection and enhancing settlement resilience to climate change institutions must also have transparent and accountable systems with operational procedures that are useful for and focused on community needs ensuring transparency in operations for example by publicizing rules and the roles and the responsibilities of its members and the decision making advisory bodies will give external credibility to the rigor of the operations and it helps build accountability a good example of this from our research is the women formed interstate movement of the Babasue palm nut breakers this is in Brazil this is a social economic movement across the Brazilian Amazon and the Savannah partners to support the movement's establishment and collective action has also helped the movement set up the Babasue fund to invest in sustainable development interventions that protect the Babasue forest the Babasue fund have helped ensure transparency by posting organizational documents on their website for public viewing they also have community representation in their governance bodies and clear decision making criteria the demo fund has introduced accountability workshops to enable oversight monitoring and peer-to-peer learning between different communities on project delivery local organizations must be able to provide the right type of support for local actors priorities but also combining impact of multiple small interventions to create a compelling narrative that will justify flexible and predictable funding from primary investors they need to offer bespoke, flexible and simple finance that reflects local needs the cost local contacts vary keeping the administrative cost low will allow communities the agency to shape the fund is crucial for effective aggregation bespoke financial products like the Gangano funds tailored loans for slum upgrading and emergency finance to respond to extreme weather events are designed for a specific purpose and respond directly to local needs and to their knowledge it is important to collect and report results that tell a compelling story systems can be put in place that summarise overall impact in a meaningful way to the donors because delivering finance to a range of communities and local enterprises in response to local priorities mean they have very diverse results articulating the climate benefits of local priorities can be a challenge particularly for adaptation and the resilience of development a theory of change is a very useful tool in this respect partnerships can also help mobilise data on results the ways that support local processes demonstrate aggregation in a way that is useful to donors an example is a local NGO called phase supports the demo fund with the data system that outlines all individual investments on the demo funds website the Amazon fund which is one of the demo funds primary donors is interested in protected forests and agro forests so it tracks the demo funds contribution to reducing deforestation improving capabilities and financial and project management and reporting is crucial to improving the reach and the scale of local finance capabilities can be built by the institution itself but will typically be assisted by other stakeholders such as NGOs and philanthropic organisations or indeed donors or funders there are several important capability considerations when thinking about mobilising more climate finance or designing a mechanism for disbursement local institutions should be able to develop incrementally learning from what works and what doesn't work in a journey towards good practice emerging funds or mechanisms should be grounded in delivering local priorities and collective actions the need to support the innovative and the innovative approaches and test what works and local institutions should be provided with the correct data and the tools to be able to make the best decisions initiative learning and adjustment will often deliver better legacy of results rather than relying on the opinion of experts who are not explicitly involved on the ground investing early in practical capabilities especially for project management and for monitoring which donors will be looking for will help deliver returns of impact and efficiency this may initially take up a large chunk of investment but this is critical for establishing effective systems and learning from experience where a local institution has patient risk tolerant support they will develop faster and bring in other donors and will influence wider stakeholders more quickly for example the demo fund spends 75% of its non-investment budget on technical assessment this is largely to build communities project management skills but it expects this to reduce over time the capabilities and capacities develop peer-to-peer exchanges and other mutual learning platforms with peer organizations are useful for sharing experience on tackling climate challenges through financial and technical innovation and for influencing the strategies as part of SDI slum dwellers international for example the panel are able to participate in exchanges where its members learn from each other and in terms of local innovation in upgrading financial management data collection enhancing settlements resilience to climate change strategic exchanges with similar organizations of wider stakeholders at local and national levels can help build a network to influence government investments and policies as well as meeting the immediate needs of local communities local institutions are well placed to shift the objectives of local regional and national investments to better respond to immediate needs as well as longer term strategic opportunities for climate and resilient development considerations include the collective agency for influence and collective actions of communities or of that institution worked with the demo and Babasu funds investing in organizations advocacy and organizational development actively supporting peer to peer learning to enable them to replicate the success the Babasu fund successfully influenced government investment so that's the end of part 3 which was the final section before moving on to close these are the main things that I'd like you to take away from this final part of the webinar not all the best practices will be relevant I don't get overwhelmed but rather consider which are the most relevant for your organization and which ones you're already doing thank you very much this is the end of the webinar but please do see the email addresses and contact details here if anything you have heard and seen and resonate or if you'd like some further information please do drop myself or Sam and we will be happy to correspond and to get back with you with further information and clarity but thank you very much for watching