 Okay, hello everyone and a very warm welcome to today's IED debates where we're looking at climate adaptation and disaster, resilience, budgeting and expenditure. My name is Juliette, I'm the events officer at IED and I will be providing some tech support as we go through. That's it from me on housekeeping. So I would now like to introduce our moderator for today's event, Paul Steele who is IED's Chief Economist. Paul, over to you please. Thanks Juliette and apologies for the purpose of this webinar, I'm actually invisible because my camera is not working but you can hear my voice so I am here, I promise you. So we have a really exciting session today. I just want to, as Juliette says, encourage you to introduce yourself in the chat, a number of people are doing that. We've got people from Lagos, people from Guatemala already introducing themselves, people from Germany so just send a message to everyone or hosts and panellists and then we can see where you are. They're with, as Juliette said, be translation into Spanish and English so please select the translation interpretation button at the bottom if you want the interpretation. And then just to give a bit of context before Mathieu launches in, this is about budgeting. Those of you who work in finance will know that budgets are crucial because they're the key instrument of government policy and then we're trying to address hopefully in the audience of this webinar three communities who don't often talk to each other. Obviously the disaster community, the climate community and the finance community. So the idea of this debate series of IID is very much to promote debate and in this case it's a very lively debate between those three different communities but I'll stop there and hand over to Mathieu from UNDRR. Thank you. Thanks a lot Paul and good morning, good afternoon to everyone. I hope you can hear me well. I don't know why I'm saying a black screen so I hope you can see me. Can you see me? Yes. Great. No, and thanks a lot. I'd like to maybe just start this webinar by acknowledging the work that we have been doing with many organizations who are presented today because it's been a joint effort obviously led by IID but together with a lot of UN members from the UN system, governments official and international organizations. So I just wanted to start by acknowledging their contribution to this work that we are discussing today. So I am based in the UN office for disaster risk reduction, UNDRR and we are the focal point of the Sendai framework for disaster risk reduction. And the Sendai framework as most of you probably know is the major international agreement on disaster risk reduction that was agreed on in 2015 and which is one of the milestone agreement of the UN with the various agreement with the agenda for sustainable development. And in this agreement one of the priority that governments have recognized is the importance of investing in disaster risk reduction and specifically mentioned their desire to encourage policymakers to allocate a budget for disaster risk reduction and to really mainstream disaster risk reduction in public policies. And so this is why we as UNDRR started engaging on this work which is about as Paul was mentioning about how do you measure track money flowing into disaster risk reduction. And from a public point of view from a government perspective. And this is really key because we are today facing a dual reality. And one reality is that the number and the severity and frequency of disasters is increasing very rapidly. We see that from the example from flooding in Pakistan, from health care in Turkey and Syria, from the wildfires in California and Australia. And we at UNDR are estimating that the number of disaster will increase by 40 percent, four zero, between 2015 and 2030. So we are really seeing an increasing frequency of those disasters with, of course, dramatic consequences on human lives and but also on the economies of countries hit by those disasters too. So there is really a need to step up our work and really try to prevent this disaster and prevent hazards to transform into disasters. And so that's one of the reality we're facing. The second reality we're facing is that the investment that are geared towards disaster risk reduction is largely insufficient. And again, if I want to use one example, if we look at the the share of official development assistance, ODA that is allocated to disaster risk reduction, it's actually a tiny bit. Only one percent of ODA is allocated to disasters and a much vast majority of this one percent is for emergency and response and only a small fraction, four percent of this one percent is for prevention and preparedness. So it gives you a sense of of how little actually is allocated to this priority. And and there is a question of why this is happening and why we are not seeing higher higher investment in this in this space. And one of them is because, of course, from a political point of view, sometimes it might be tempting to prioritize investment that are more visible, like new infrastructure or that are really urgent needs that you have to face while investing in disaster risk reduction is very important, but it's less visible and has positive impact in the long run. So does not have immediate visible impact, although very important long term impact. And so that's one of the reasons why there is a risk that investment in disaster risk reduction is under prioritized. And we know from from studies that it's actually not the best way to spend money because money spent on prevention is actually leads to a lot of positive benefit over time. So we, for instance, on infrastructure residents, one dollar invested in infrastructure residents is expected to lead to four dollars of benefits down the line. So there is a very strong business case of why we should invest, but this is this is not happening at the level that that we should we should be seeing. And we think that this tool that and this work that we are doing with with ID can help address part of this issue. Trying to see measuring how much of the budget is allocated to disaster risk reduction has the potential to really make sure that disaster risk reduction are at the core and are well considered when governments are actually preparing their budgets, making budget allocation decisions that can help to identify where money is not being invested, where they should be invested. It can help also facilitate the discussion with government partners like government partners to mobilize additional investment for disaster risk reduction. And so I think that's where this this tool is is partly important that we are we discussing today and I'm really looking forward to the to the discussion today with you to really advance this work. And so with this, I guess I am handing back over to to you, Paul, for for the very interesting panel that we have today. And and again, thank you for all of you that are participating today in this in this webinar. Thank you. Right. Thanks, Mattia. And maybe I could ask Juliet to just share the slide with our panelists. So, yes, we have a very esteemed panel, Sonmi Choi, with Daza climate specialist. Then we have Lena, who's a disaster specialist, and Yassine, who's a public financial management specialist, and they'll be presenting first on the work that we have been doing with you and DRR support. Then we have from government Nazira Dista from the Mozambique's Ministry of Economy and Finance, and then hopefully Xavier Pava Sanchez from the National Unit of Disaster Risk Management in Colombia. So with that, I'm going to invite the audience of which we have over 100 people, about 114 people to to answer the question of of the 40 countries reviewed for this project. How many do you think are are engaged in integrating disaster risk reduction and climate adaptation approaches? So you can tick one box, either four countries out of 40, either 13 countries out of 40 or 24 countries out of 40 or 36 countries out of 40. And I should say, in order to the hosts and panelists cannot vote in case they know the answer, but please tick the box and we'll give the answers in a minute. So you have a couple of minutes now to just think about that. To what extent are countries making this integration, which Mathieu mentioned, which needs to take place as much as possible to to have a coherent response to both climate and disasters? Juliet, can you see how many have we got a quorum of responses? Yeah, we've had about 60 percent of people have responded and it's slowing down a little bit now. So perhaps I'll end the poll and we can share and discuss those results. Right, please do. OK, so 21 percent of people said it was four countries that have integrated climate and disaster strategies. Forty eight percent said 13 countries, almost half. Then a quarter said 24 and six percent said 36. So the right answer was 13 out of the 40 countries. So half the audience got it right. But the more important point is that only about a quarter of the countries that we reviewed are actually integrated in climate and disaster strategies. So there's clearly a long way to go on this on this conversation and debate. So we'll be looking about how to advance that in the course of the next hour or so. So with it, without further delays, I'm going to invite Sonmi, Yasin and Lena to make their presentation on the work we've been doing. Sonmi will kick off with 10 minutes on paper that we've just published. Then Yasin will talk about the methodology for taking work forward in your country. I see we have a number of people working all over the world. And then Lena will talk about what we're calling a taxonomy, but it's essentially a set of definitions for how to classify disaster and climate expenditure. But Sonmi, over to you to kick off. Great. Thank you, Paul. Just check. Can you hear me clearly? Yeah, yeah. OK, great. Thank you, Paul. And thank you, Matthew. And thank you for all the participants for joining the issue paper. As you can see the cover page here, we have just launched. This is actually a result of really collective effort with over 10 experts across Africa, Asia, Pacific, Europe, Central Asia, and Latin America and the Caribbean. And obviously, with huge thanks to value of input from the country representatives and the technical advisory board members, we have consulted for this study. So as you can see, we zoomed in on public finance, climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction. And we provide an overview of the latest global and country level trends in tagging budgets and tracking public expenditures on climate and disaster resilience. As we have already seen, disaster and climate risks are rapidly increasing. We are seeing some impacts now unprecedented level of impacts and irreversible in many parts of the world. We need to accelerate comprehensive climate and disaster risk management at a greater speed and scale. For this, we urgently need adequate, predictable and coordinated disaster and climate change adaptation finance. Given the importance of public finance for climate and disaster resilience, we need to improve the data on the availability, the quality and effectiveness of public finance on disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation. So we started by reviewing the commonalities, overlaps, as well as differences between disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation. We have seen that despite many significant commonalities, there are disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation. CCA communities have developed risk assessment and risk management approaches and financing mechanisms mostly separately from each other. So there is very limited evidence of achieving coherence between DRR and climate change adaptation on the ground. However, we as we see that there is an increasing call for an integrated approach to DRR and climate change adaptation. So we looked at the global frameworks that are related to DRR and CCA and we note that there is progress, there has been progress in defining, measuring and reporting DRR and climate change adaptation related finance and actions as we could see, for instance, from the work of the UNFCC Standing Committee on Finance, OECD.REAL, as well as DRR Policy Markers and the EU Taxonomy on Climate Delegated Act. However, while we note there is a lot of progress made in advancing climate or grain budget tagging and tracking, there is no currently no standard definition or widely used methodology for coordinated or integrated climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction, budget tagging and tracking. Despite all the commonalities and overlaps that we have just touched upon earlier between climate change adaptation and DRR. In addition, we also note that climate adaptation finance has gained huge importance at the international level. However, we see that DRR finance, disaster risk reduction related finance, has no clearly defined or quantified global targets for the international community. After taking stock of the global and regional level frameworks and trends, we examined over 40 country experiences in tagging budgets and tracking public expenditures related to disaster and climate change adaptation with a particular focus on their interlinked aspects between DRR and CCA. Countries have undertaken climate and DRR related budget tagging and expenditure tracking with multiple objectives in mind, mostly to increase budget transparency and accountability and to track and monitor for decision making and budget allocations and to identify financing gaps and available resources. In most countries, responsibilities for designing and implementing climate and disaster budget tagging initiatives were shared between the ministers of finance and ministers of environment. Across all the countries we examined for this study, there was a lack of clarity on the exact role and level of involvement of disaster risk management agencies in designing climate budget tagging initiatives. Country definitions and scope of DRR and climate change adaptation expenditures also varied widely within and across different regions. But the majority of countries reviewed for the study follow objective or policy-based definitions and capture both recurrent and investment expenditure. And most countries capture multiple sectors given the cross-sector nature of climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction, and they include subnational level expenditures. Transfers to public-private entities, mainly state-owned enterprises were also identified in a number of countries we have reviewed. We have taken a very in-depth look at how the overlaps between DRR and climate change adaptation are addressed in the countries. The overlaps and common objectives are recognized in various degrees in different national policy frameworks. For instance, at least 13 countries, mostly from the Pacific, have adopted a joint climate change and DRR strategy or action plan. We see that in the EU, there has been a lot of progress also to define the overlaps and commonalities between DRR and CCA, especially at the level of policies, strategies and investment planning. For instance, most EU countries are implementing measures to ensure that investments are resilient to future disaster risks through environmental impact assessments and national risk assessments now include primary considerations. At the same time, reporting guidelines on disaster risk management also consider climate change adaptation strategies. Beyond this strategic and policy level integration of DRR and CCA, we also found the emerging experiences in pursuing integrated approach to DRR and CCA in the process of public expenditure review and budget tagging reforms, in particular in a number of African countries. Among over 40 countries we have reviewed, there is only one country that tags negative contribution to climate objectives annually. A few countries in Europe were found to assess the harmful impacts of subsidies. In the case of climate and disaster resilience finance, subnational level and local level coverage is a particular importance. As we know that DRR and climate change adaptation and cementation largely lies at this local level of governance. So the important role of local governments in climate adaptation and DRR finance is clearly demonstrated in the Philippines and other countries we have examined on this study. In our analysis, we also found some emerging practices in capturing privacy-related expenditures and revenues. Many countries in Europe and Latin America apply climate tags to transfers to state-owned enterprises while there seems to be limited evidence in African Asia. But several countries in Europe and Latin America have experience with issuance of sovereign grain bonds, which included DRR and climate change adaptation-related expenditures. In most countries, climate-related budget reporting captures budget allocations rather than expenditure. As we know whether or not this budget tracking reports expender to review whether they capture only allocation or include expenditure can make a huge difference in the accuracy of reporting on how much is actually spent on climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction. In terms of classifying and estimating relevant budget lines, countries normally would use either a binary approach or rely on a relative classification or estimation approach to distinguish whether a program or activity is fully or partially supporting climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction. Most countries reviewed under this paper use relative estimation approaches and weights to classify shares of total program as climate change adaptation or DRR related. And these are often building on the OECD doc rear marker or the climate expenditure review methodology. Importantly, most of the countries analyzed across different regions do not still have a standard of pegs or codes to reflect consistency with DRR and climate change adaptation policy. To our knowledge, none of the countries we have reviewed has an operational process for budget tagging and tracking in place to reflect common policy objectives and overlaps in expenditure across disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation. These findings reveal still a huge political, institutional, capacity and technical challenges related to climate and disaster budget tagging and public expenditure tracking. Based on this analysis of global and country experiences, we are proposing under this, as you can see in this issue paper, a set of recommendations to enhance the effectiveness and benefits of climate change adaptation and DRR related budget tagging. One of the first recommendations and an important factor of success is about political will. So the motivation and the decision to design and implement climate and disaster related budget tagging should be backed up by strong political will and should be linked to national policy and legal frameworks. The leadership by finance and planning ministries is essential for ensuring this public expenditures are consistent with national climate and disaster policies and taking and tracking initiatives. We have to also be very mindful of the fact that budget tagging and expenditure tracking alone cannot improve DRR and CCA finance and policy effectiveness alone on its own. It is important to consider complementary measures when planning and tagging and tracking initiatives such as integrating climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction into environmental impact assessments or long-term fiscal sustainability analysis or cost-benefit analysis. And another important factor that we strongly recommend is to have a very clear institutional arrangements and an accountability framework. These are critical success factors, especially given the overlaps between climate change adaptation and DRR and the cross cutting nature. So the well coordinated integrated DRR and CCA budget tagging and tracking can help identify areas of convergence thus improve the coordination and reduce duplication. For example, just to say three minutes left. Yeah, thank you. gaining broader public support is also very important, especially, for instance, to a wider engagement with civil society groups building political pressure for meeting the DRR and climate change financing needs. And adequate capacity development support is also critical as a part of the climate change and disaster budget taking and tracking initiative and for the guidance and targeted capacity development so at the level of line ministries and local governments is also critical factor. We see that the based on the review, we see that there's still a huge need for more robust and clear definition of expenditure on climate and disaster resilience, especially important for tagging secondary and indirect climate and expenditure. In some cases also the benefit we have seen that in some country expenditure reviews, the benefits of positive expenditure could be actually outweighed by the harmful effects of negative expenditure. So we see there is a clear need at the global level to consider how negative expenditure can be better identified and tracked. Finally, my final point is just to highlight that this work on climate change adaptation and DRR budget tagging and tracking is directly relevant to loss and damage finance discussions. Addressing loss and damage would require a comprehensive risk management approach connecting DRR, climate change adaptation and humanitarian actions and with a better understanding of the limits to adaptation and unavoidable loss and damage. Integrated and coordinated budget tagging and tracking of climate change adaptation and DRR could actually be helpful in terms of supporting countries capacity to reduce avoidable risk and also relieve financial constraints to tackling unavoided risks. So this will be a critical contributor towards transparency and accountability in loss and damage finance as well. I will just conclude that whether international cooperation is critical needed to strengthen this coordinated DRR and climate change adaptation tagging and public expenditure management initiatives. And we look forward to partnering and exploring collaboration with different international partners going forward. Thank you. Great. Thanks, Sonmi. Really comprehensive presentation and you're able to download the paper and get all the details from that. You'll see the 40 countries review that Sonmi referred to. But one of the key points Sonmi made is the importance of capacity development on what is, as you will see, a relatively technical subject. Although, as Mathieu was stressing at the beginning, it has a very applied practical need in the real world for increasing disaster prevention finance, given the huge payoffs of that compared to the enormous costs of disaster response. OK, so the next presentation will be a little bit shorter by Yasin, who's a PFM consultant of public financial management consultant based in West Africa. And she'll present on a methodology which you can hopefully apply in your own country for taking this work forward. So Yasin, you have five minutes. Thank you for a good afternoon, everyone. So as Paul mentioned, we will present the methodology that we're suggesting for a coordinated budget tagging initiative at the Dresden School, D.R. and D.C.A. So at the starting point, it's important to see that as a how to guide and respond to the experiences, practices and lessons learned from the countries that were analyzed in the issue paper. And it should also be read with the facts from the me that will be presented next by my colleague Luna. So one two points before getting into the elements that are to be taken into consideration for the methodology is to acknowledge that this reform is a costly one and it's important for countries to understand that they need to assess the expected benefits from adopting this coordinated budget tagging initiative and compare it to the cost in terms. So we've come up with seven elements which we can kind of follow from the presentation on the issue paper and these elements next slide, these elements should not be read as in a chronological order, but rather as overlapping overlapping elements that are to be undertaken. So the first one is on leadership and coordination and entails on knowing what are the institutions that have a DOR and what are their exact mandates? What are the roles? How do they work together? And more importantly, which which institution takes the lead in designing and undertaking such an approach? The second element which I can see is flowing in the Q and R is on definitions. So what are we counting as someone at? What are the how are the international definitions of DOR and DTE adapted to local context? And what are the areas of overlap? And when we look at scope, what is the level of packing that we're looking at and how what type of expenditures are we including? Are they only positive or negative? And how does this joint approach of packing DOR and DTE? How does it fit in with packing other prospecting in a sector such as gender or children's rights? The third element is on the objectives. It's important to acknowledge that different stakeholders will have different objectives. And all these objectives need to be taken into account. And also there needs to be a highlight on the value added of the joint approach. And as you said, how does the DCBT fit in with other international initiatives? Fourth element is on reporting and dissemination. So this is what are we how? What are we reporting in what format? How does the reporting fit in with the budget cycle? And how do we disseminate the results that we have? Who do we disseminate with? Do we disseminate it to and how often do we do so? Other fifth element is on capacity assessment. As Paul mentioned, a capacity is a key point of undertaking DCBT because civil servants or even practitioners are at the forefront of that. So it starts with first affecting what are what are the capacities that are existing and then putting it in place, the capacity building plan. This the implication for this is that depending on the capacity you have, then you will limit or expand the scope of the tagging that you want to implement. Sixth element is on confidence and phasing. So content is most mostly on the methodology that is used for the tagging. There are several methodologies that could be used and we'll go a bit further on that in the next one. And the phasing is on acknowledging that this is a complex reform and it's at a crossroads between the budget, PFM, the PFM cycle, environment and climate issues. So what and disasters and disaster as well. So it's important to start maybe with a pilot and then add on, build on an increase on the scope that's being undertaken. And the last point and the last element is on monitoring and learning. So there needs to be a clear plan for monitoring, monitoring, learning, knowledge, management approach with really specific aspects that describe how is this? How are the results relevant? Are they effective or are they efficient? What is the sustainability of these results? And most importantly, what's the impact of this joint tagging initiative on different elements such as poverty reduction or even other budgetary objectives? And what are the lesson lines for our country? So as I've said in conclusion, these seven elements are key factors to take into account when a country is designing or undertaking a joint tagging on DOR and PCA. Thank you. Great, thanks, Yasin. I have a really clear explanation of the proposed methodology. And I should say that while the report that's on me presented at the beginning has now been completed and is available for download, this methodology is still in draft. So if you feel anything's missing or you think anything's could be improved or you think it doesn't fit your country context, please tell us in the discussion and comment section, which we'll have in a moment and we can amend the methodology accordingly because we want it to be as practical and useful as countries as can be. Now we come on to this issue of taxonomy. How do you define when you're trying to do combined climate and disaster budget tagging or you'll see in the presentations the CBT acronym or how do you define what is a climate expenditure or what is a disaster expenditure? A couple of the questions you'll see in the chat relate to this. Have you analyzed in your research whether countries include transboundary cooperation? And then second question from Fiona is were the obvious differences between countries as what they classified as adaptation? So clearly, participants on this webinar are interested in this issue, which is at the core of this methodology. So now, Lena, you have five minutes to very quickly introduce what is quite a complicated and emerging taxonomy also still in draft. So we welcome comments, Lena. Thank you, Paul, and thank you, Yasin. So this taxonomy aspect of the project relates most closely to that sixth element that Yasin spoke about, the content part of the methodology. So it should be seen as an integral part or a supporting element of the methodology as a whole, really. And the taxonomy specifically as such aims to support comprehensive budget tagging. So it aims to provide some of the clarity, as Paul mentioned, about the common objectives and overlaps versus differences in climate change, adaptation and disaster risk reduction, budget allocations and to support the budget tagging and expenditure tracking processes. It's really meant to be a practical tool that supports users, for example, in ministries of finance who aim to do this on an annual basis as part of the budget cycle or external advisers or review processes that aim to assess and track public expenditure against disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation, which could be done also not as an annual exercise, but as a one-off evaluation or review process, for instance. And so it aims to serve those different purposes. The content of the taxonomy and how it's defined and developed is really based on a review of existing approaches of taxonomies and classifications and methodologies that are already in use that focus either on climate change adaptation or mitigation or disaster risk reduction expenditure. So, for example, Sonmi mentioned the OECD duck Rio marker and our policy marker, the EU taxonomy. And so these are all approaches that already exist that we've reviewed and that we've used to that we are now in the process of using to define and flash out this taxonomy and as Paul said, is quite a technical and a complex exercise and is work in progress. And we're aiming to have a version of this available in May. So if you are specifically interested in the taxonomy aspect, please do get in touch. We'd love to engage in exchange as there are other initiatives ongoing, trying to do similar things or relating to this sort of work. So please do do reach out if this is of interest. And I won't go into all of the technical details, but I will briefly present the four cornerstones that we are using to define and shape out the taxonomy. So again, this is based on the issue paper and the broader methodology approach. And these are the four aspects of four cornerstones that we based on this review felt are particularly important to reflect in the taxonomy so that it can be useful and that it can be that practical tool that's helpful to do disaster, risk reduction and climate change adaptation, budget tagging and expenditure tracking in practice. The first cornerstone is that the taxonomy which together with the methodology as a whole need to address political demand. So it should in its language and its approach linked to disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation strategies globally. So we're using the Sendai framework, of course, and the Paris Agreement as the global reference points for recognizing that there is national and regional policy and plans in place that this would potentially need to speak to and be adaptable to as well. It should help strengthen evidence to build confidence against international funds and also if possible, include provisions that can help display the negative expenditure or expenditure that does no significant harm in a way that's constructive, as Sonny highlighted earlier in her presentation of the issue paper findings. The second main cornerstone is that the taxonomy would need to support credibility of the approach overall so that it would help encourage common approaches, common meaning great contribution towards greater coherence at the global level in how climate and disaster budget is tagged and expenditure is dragged. But without being too prescriptive, so with this with this inherent flexibility so that it can be useful and adapted to different country contexts. It should respond to a need for clarity and this need for definitions on what is common DIR and climate change adaptation versus what responds to either or the other policy objectives. And it should also, as far as possible, include arrangements to avoid greenwashing and overestimation of disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation expenditure to support credibility and accountability. The third major cornerstone is that it should align with available capacity. So again, the major point in the review of global experience as part of the issue paper is that between countries, but also within countries between ministries and between the national and local level, there can be quite a lot of differences in terms of the the capacity of the resources available to implement these sorts of exercises. So a priority in the design of the taxonomy is to keep it simple. We're using this DEC plus term to indicate that we're building on the OECD DEC real marker and Disaster Risk Reduction Policy Marker as an approach, but expanding this and providing various options to expand it in different directions based on countries needs and objectives for disaster and climate budget tagging and tracking. And a core component of the taxonomy will be a reference table with a lot of practical examples that aims to help guide the user in how to classify different types of activities and expenditures and to simplify classification, essentially. And as much as possible, we're also aiming to build on existing budget reforms. And then lastly, the fourth major cornerstone is that it should set a manageable scope. And this is, of course, very closely related to available capacity, but also to the objectives of why the country or another entity, another actor, might be interested in implementing this sort of exercise. And so flexibility really is the key guiding principle in how the taxonomy is designed to be able to respond to different objectives and be applicable at different levels of government as well. So practically how we're doing this or what we're doing in the taxonomy is to have a core approach, a core system that's kept relatively simple, but with different building blocks or add-ons that provide options so that the user can choose from those building blocks specific elements that they might want to look into more closely with regards to where budget allocations go either as part of DCBT, so as annual disaster and climate budget tagging and tracking, or as a more extended potentially budget public expenditure and institutional review that is maybe not done annually, but that could look into some of the finance elements in more detail and so could have different requirements and therefore we're providing options for how the core approach could be expanded in those directions. So I'll leave it at that. Again, if this is something you're very interested in, specifically please do reach out and I'll now pass back to Paul to hear more about country experiences in detail. Thank you. Great, thanks, Lena. And as you said, please reach out to us and the team if you want to engage more. So now we're very pleased to have with us two senior colleagues from government who will give their brief perspectives before we open it out to hopefully an interactive audience discussion and I'm actually gonna try and call upon some people in the audience to comment. Maybe starting with Sheila Patel. So Sheila, if you can be ready with your comments, I'll give you a couple of minutes once we open it out for discussion. So, but before that, we're very pleased to have with us Nazira from the Ministry of Finance in Mozambique based in Maputo. So hopefully your internet will be strong enough for us to even see you in Maputo and you can share with us your experiences, the disaster management focal point in the Ministry of Finance. Nazira, you have the floor for seven minutes, please. Good afternoon, everybody. First of all, I'd like to thank thanks the organizer for giving Mozambique the opportunity to participate in this event and especially to be able to share of the other countries in this field. As you know, Mozambique, do it to this geographical location. The local cross-line in the existence of extensive areas of altitude CA level. And it's a country that is cyclically affected by extreme events, such as a throw, floods, storms and the tropical cyclones. This is an aggravated and recent guess by increasing regularity and the phenomena. In the last 40 years, 25 particles have gone of a very, very intensity have hit Mozambique, such as 56% of which were category three and rating from to 154 km per hour within km per hour. So in recent decades, the impact of extreme events have been significant with implication for the state budget, social and economy welfare, causing the government's efforts to economically develop between the country. The states do the challenges in recent years. The government has been carrying out a series of reforms. We put disaster risk management, which is a national priority because adopted disaster risk reduction and prevention policy, such as a national climate change adaptation and mitigation strategy for 2013 until 2025. And the other policy I can mention now, disaster management fund, that was approved in 2017, which include amongst revenues, the allocation of at least 0.42% of tax revenue annually in the state budget. So regardless of the planning and the budget it costs Mozambique, this activity is developed by the national directorate of planning and budgeting, which is based in the Ministry of Economy and Finance. This directorate has a long vision to develop methodology on the process of planning and the budgeting. Throw a single methodological guide to deal different sector, whether at central, provisional, digital, even municipality level, on how they should plan their action, including cross-cutting action, where the aspect related to the risk, reduction in adaptation, climatic change, gender sustainable development goals and on integrations. So the Ministry of Environment in our country is the sector that coordinate and plans the action related to the climate change adaptation and the Institute for Risk Management, the one that coordinate and plan the action for disaster risk reduction. And these actions are easily visualized. In 2010, Mozambique started with the process of programming action based on program, which means programming and budgeting by program, as a way to facilitate the process and the faster effectiveness, efficiency and relevant of public service as well as monitor the action carrying out other to achieve the objective set out in Barrios National and the international instrument that country has ratified. The planning by programming is a strategic adopted in order to identify the budget involved in the various programs, including the transversal programs of which the action for the adaptation mitigation of climate change and the DRR are passed and also a call happened to embrace these calls integrated them within the Asian day, second, Monday. However, it was found that at the time of planning only the coordinated center the Ministry of Environment is the one that plans and coordinate action to respond to the CCI and DPR programs and other sectors such as health education and other ones even though they carry out action to respond to this aspect to not plan this action in the program making it difficult to access the budget plan and is included in the program. We understand that the process of taking and packing of nation budget involved for programming action especially action in various such as gender SDGs care and DRR for example usually this international support as they are covered by international agreement and targets. In our country the process of budget packing and packing of action related to climate change adaptation mitigation and DRR has not yet been initiated. The country still does not have appropriate means to classify and track the budget in a coherent way and would need some learning training and exchange of experience with other countries that are already implementing this issue in order to allow better control from the planning process to action and especially if this action are carrying out meet the objective set. Currently we do not have control to the budget involved in the CCA and RRD we can only visualize the program in the specific set therefore at the level of the Asian Minister of Environment and also at the nation disaster reduction management. These are the sectors that plan and coordinate this activity. The other different systems although they also carry out activities related to the CCA and RRD a bit difficult to visualize and track. In parallel to this last year the country starts with the targeting process in issue related to the data that respond to the sustainable development goals and national determinate contribution. It is a process that is still in experimental phase. In spite of having the end of the action the balance is still outside of the system is done separately from where the data may not be at some point. So in some ways our state budget contemplates disaster research action but not in a way that is so it's our expectation that in the medium country will adopt methodology for some taxonomy to facilitate the tracking of the CCA and the RRD on one hand to ensure budget coerence and support fiscal transparency and on the other hand to help track specified policy. So this is our yes Mozambique thank you. Thank you so much Nazira for your clear and frank assessment of both the challenges and the way you're hoping to over cover them in Mozambique. So now we're pleased to invite Xavier to join from Colombia to give his experience maybe you could turn on your camera if you can Xavier and share with us your experience and please be as quick as you can given that we have a limited amount of time and we want to maximise discussion so Xavier could you share your experience please. Thank you very much Primeiro I want to share with you the experience in Colombia we have been developing for the estimation of resources was from what has been done in the development of the resources and financing of the reduction of disasters disaster risks the way that we materialise the climate change and the situation and the important financial resources to answer the humanitarian question of many expenditure that have been demanded in the country to establish a strategy of financial protection that includes actions such as retention transfers many of those in terms of what would be credits and insurance and also these resources allocation allowed us to see not only we have new resources but they are regulating in the national system system but start to develop a planning of the public finance these are very important thing incorporates the question of risks and the strategic planning these are projects that has to do with the subject of planning of investment and of organisation this is the Tejka planification is a long term in the country that allows projects about the climate change that has a lot to do with the planning operative the process of formulation and execution in relation to the projects it's included the variable of risks that we guarantee that the investments that are done and in specific projects we have a variety these are the things that are developing in our country today we do a balance according to the markers and indicators to invest national on international most part of it is done directly to projects of managing risks and disasters and specifically recovering to invest in the recovery of the risks we manage in an important way the national union that I represent and in the last years manage to get an important value and resources for the managing of risks not only to solve problems, structural problems but also the prospective risks what we are wanting today is to reduce the risk the CAA is what guarantees that these investments or expenditure be effective sustainable nowadays more than ever we have it clear that we need this and we have in this government in Colombia more than we should are articulated with the climate change and all the actions of risk reduction and the recovery is our focus on the adaptation not only with such we want to solve the problems there but also the structural problems in nature to resolve the inequality gaps and the poverty which are the fundamental causes of this we are in a logic that we have a cycle a cycle of risk mitigation professionals that want more investments more more more fiscalization and we have been having a complete situation many times they talk about the scenes about many resources and the risk system corruption that's why one of the strategies today about the public investments got to do with this aspect includes correct planning and social participation and something to look after the investments the assignment of resources in an organized and planned way is effective not only in terms of costs and benefits but cost efficiency so that these measures resolve in an effective way what we call today corrective or reactive investments that are to solve the problem we are going to this is an important part of what we've been doing we think that this experience is really can be done with the participation of other countries and with the subject we can't see the investment on managing of risks and the actions of the climate change is something that we see it's very complex very great many times livers with no action the investments that need to be done in a planned way and you have to find a middle point in what we're doing and you have to you have to search for this middle point search for investments that can solve the problems and that once you see the problem but also to be aimed at solve the problem the population that need generally the balance that we've been done in Colombia many times great inversions investments is produced in services in benefits they are very reduced as this is something that seems to be very good about this thing not only about the assimilation of the financial and how this public expenditure is converted in an effective way to sort out the structural problems that today more than ever establish needs to develop and if you need me I'm here if you need it if you have any question thank you very much really interesting to hear how in a complicated political setup this approach provides some sort of rational allocation of resources so now thank you for listening I know we've given you a lot of material but now this is your chance to contribute to the discussion so please ask your questions you can also raise your hand in the if you want to speak Paula I see two hands up I don't know if you're seeing them okay let me see Wasabi is one so we've heard from him already who was the second one there are two people in the attendees David Benjamin is one and then the second name struggling to pronounce it correctly but Jagannata I believe so David Benjamin would you like to go first please and introduce yourself Yes hi I am a entrepreneur in Norway and we build systems that help with disaster risk reduction by using nature-based solutions so my question is directed to the IIE especially I'm wondering how they put into the criteria for their taxonomy the efficacy of the actual measures that are evaluated how is efficacy measured because that's quite complex Good question David thank you we won't answer that straight away we'll just see if there are any other questions from the audience so Shivarangini I don't know whether you're still on the line from the OPM team based in India are you on the line Shivarangini would you like to answer your question Thanks for waiting Yes my question on the Q&A box but thanks for the opportunity this has been a very interesting sharing of some preliminary findings of a global review so thanks for taking the effort today my question is around whether the study team had an opportunity to observe while they focused on reviewing countries on DBT that is Disaster Related Budget Aging or policies that integrate DRR into planning and budgeting whether the team actually observed any significant difference as to inclusion of pre versus post disaster related expenditures or even planned allocations so along the DRN cycle so there is a pre disaster preparedness or risk reduction initiatives or mitigation initiatives and post disaster response rehabilitation recovery oriented initiatives so whether the team actually observed anything distinctive about that in the coverage of what countries integrate in the name of the DRR mainstream Thank you so much Shivarangini then we have Jagannathat Jagannathat Do you want to go ahead? Okay Thank you very much I have a very simple question as a practitioner in the National Disaster Management in India way back in 2010 I got trained as a master trainer in disaster management in NADM National Disaster Management and I have been following COP 2627 as a virtual invitee by UNDP my question is very simple unless there is a validation of these plannings they are very good planning strategies are there very good but I want to say that 1991 was watershed in community enabling that is IUCN UNEP and WWF came up with a document called Caring for Earth a strategy for sustainable living and I am a student of UNDRR for a long time with best practices documented so well so my question is very simple shouldn't we think of taking these theoretical very nice you know knowledgeable and practical plannings for a validation wherein we look at the civic societies and also the endangered population I can close by saying that Swedish International Water Institute 2021 when we had a WMO I was invited for some reviews of the nature and community based initiatives we come very clearly there is certain rhythm of the local stakeholders especially the academics the local bodies and voluntary groups lot and lot a lot of convergesies taking place I think we need to thank you Jagannath sorry in the interest of time I am going to have to stop you there so we get to my point very simply we should validate it thank you thank you Jagannath I think it is a very good point and I think Sheila if she had been here would have also stressed the importance of community engagement and I think our next question or commentator David Satthwaite is well known on this community based issue so David over to you to ask your question or give your comment hi there can you hear me yeah we can well as a friend of Sheila Patel going back 30 years I will try and answer for her as well as for me where is money going to come from for adaptation well in informal settlements which house maybe a billion and a quarter people it is their investment their community investment their individual investment and the local government investment is a hugely important many of the cities you know cities didn't get mentioned many of the city governments with the best disaster risk reduction didn't need national government or international agencies they did it themselves as part of their responsibility as governing the city perhaps most remarkable funding for grassroots organizations is local funds established in particular cities in which they can draw where they meld very nicely upgrading for informal settlements with provision for disaster risk reduction and oh how are risks changing with climate how do we add those so we've got lots of fantastic examples I'm not sure we learn from them great thanks David and it's good to have a community perspective in the context of a very national approach which I think maybe has been taken so far but the final person I'd just like to invite is someone who works in the UK on the climate committee I saw from the UK climate committee are you still on the call and would you like to comment in the context of what's happening in the UK as a developed country and whether any of this work is relevant to you I can't see their name unfortunately okay so maybe we've had a set of questions of a lot of community issues a lot on this issue of whether what the data is telling us about the spending on disaster preparedness as opposed to response which was the framing that Matt you're set out and then the efficacy of the interventions so I'm going to invite maybe the IED team Sonmi, Lina or Yasin would any of you like to answer maybe just one of those questions each Sonmi would you like to go first thanks a lot and thank you so much for all the very thought-provoking questions and comments given the scope of this study we could not really get into the detailed analysis of each country's adaptation and DRR related budget tags and codes in terms of the content as a response to the question from our colleague I think it was OPM India they how the disaster risk and management related expenditures were captured so from our country reviews the current level is basically the climate change adaptation related budget tagging in most country cases do include disaster risk reduction related actions for instance an example would be disaster risk management is identified and suggested as a category of climate change adaptation expenditure which it would include early warning and emergency response systems and these are included as part of the climate change adaptation budget in some of the countries and for instance in the case of the Philippines DRR and climate change adaptation are included as part of the disaster budget as well as climate change budget guidelines for local governments across different sectors whether it's food security or health so interchangeably used however as we noted and the recommendation there's definitely a need for a much more robust and fair definition and standardized methodology for capturing both climate change adaptation and DRR and across the different areas of the disaster risk related budgeting processes of disaster mitigation preparedness as well as response and recovery there's definitely a need for a more robust and standardized methodology for countries to use and to be able to for us to be able to also compare different country level data that's maybe some of the responses we can give yeah thanks Yasin would you like to pick a question maybe the one on communities if how the methodology could pick that up in a future iteration or whether it's beyond the scope okay Sean on the community yes I think it's a very important point and when we talk about institutional arrangements I think we should maybe widen the thinking and not think about only public institutions but also look at organizations that are non-governmental whether they're international organization or NGOs or community groups and see how they can be integrated into the discussion this is something that come across in other countries experiences and the voice of non-government actors is being taken into account especially for reporting and also accountability in budget management thanks Yasin and then finally Lina would you like to respond take this question on efficacy of interventions yeah sure I'll just make a quick addition also to what Sonomi said and this question about pre and post so we didn't look at this specifically in detail as part of this review but I think Mathieu mentioned a couple of figures in his introductory remarks actually so what we know from global databases that record international aid spending is that this the aid money really is queued towards response rather than risk reduction and preparedness activities and so within the OECD duck classification framework for example there is a categorization for how to split that up and it's not something that we did in detail as part of the issue paper but it is certainly something that's been discussed in depth and different options are being considered for how we can reflect this in the taxonomy approach so that at the country level we can support greater transparency on where the money goes along the disaster risk management cycle as well so that's a well noted point and something that is very much part of the discussion on how the taxonomy and the methodology evolve and then this other point that was raised by David I think on the effectiveness so this is something we've been discussing under the headline or the categories of whether we're proposing outcome based classification or objective based classification so are we categorizing an activity based on what its stated objective is at the start of the activity or what its eventual demonstrated outcome will have been and as I mentioned as one of the cornerstones this issue of practicality and being able to implement the taxonomy and use it in the context of differing different levels of capacity what we are proposing as the basic the kind of core approach is an objective based classification because as David I think himself mentioned that the outcome based approach is a much more complex one and one that is likely not feasible as a standardized element or something that's done on an annual basis for example as part of the budget cycle at least not in all contexts and so but recognizing the importance of the effectiveness issue or understanding effectiveness and ensuring that there is accountability on that and as well one of the add-ons that we are proposing in the taxonomy is to basically look at this as an outcome based classification if the user decides that that's the objective and that's feasible and feasible approach to do for example in the context of a one of public expenditure and institutional review process where additional capacity can be brought on and where more time is potentially also available to implement that exercise and so the standard approach is objective based but we are providing options for how the taxonomy could be used in an outcome based classification approach. Great thanks Leena and I noticed there are a bunch of questions in the Q&A which many of which have been covered in the discussion but if the panelists Leena particularly Leena Yasin and Sonmi want to type in answers in the closing few minutes to the questions that would be good in the chat box or in the Q&A box rather. Now we have three more minutes left so Mathieu over to you to give the final closing remarks. Thank you Paul and thank you for the discussion I think it was extremely interesting to hear the views and thank you also for the participants who asked questions I think it's always helpful to have that feedback and helps us to further improve what we're working on. In the closing what we are envisioning from now is of course trying to see work on the two future elements of the work that is related to budget tagging and tracking which is as you mentioned during this call the methodology and the taxonomy which is really about how to bring this to country implementation and I think that's what we are planning to do at UNDR is to work with a selected number of countries where the methodology is developed once we have the taxonomy in place to really trying to pilot or work with countries who are interested in this topic to apply this methodology and benefit from it. So we of course have regional offices in different region in Africa in Asia and others who are planning to carry on this work so it's very important that we get this methodology and taxonomy right so we can really maximize the benefit for countries using it so we are really looking forward to work on these next steps and we will try to incorporate as much as possible any feedback that we will be receiving between now and then so with this I think it's been a really great opportunity and a great engagement so we will be organizing further events when we have those additional document ready for sharing so please stay alert and try to participate in future events that will be organizing on this topic so that will be my closing but thanks again for everyone who was here with us and for the IED team for the great work and as well for all my colleagues who have contributed to this and other international organizations who also have been participating actively in this discussion thank you and of course again to the country representative who were here today thank you okay so goodbye everybody have a good day evening morning thank you bye bye