The World Bank’s Action Plan on Climate Change Adaptation and Resilience (Action Plan) sets out multiple specific targets. Although a full assessment of the Bank’s efforts to meet these targets would require on-the-ground monitoring and in any case await the release of the Bank’s full climate data through FY2025, BIC has used the Bank’s climate finance project list for FY21 and project documents for a snapshot of whether Bank projects are aligned with its own targets. We extracted all projects with adaptation co-benefits before using a keyword search to identify potentially relevant projects in the Action Plan’s thematic areas. While this demonstrates significant Bank activity in these sectors, and over half (191 of 348 total) fell within the five themes of the Action Plan, only a third (66 of 191) of projects in those themes were, according to project documents, designed to meet Action Plan's commitments.
Here’s what we found, as presented in those sources:
On Disaster Risk Management, with just five relevant projects, the World Bank will need to significantly increase access to hydro-meteorological (hydromet) data and early warning systems (to reach an additional 250 million people in at least 30 developing countries) or support hydromet agencies if it hopes to meet its commitments.
On Water Security, we found 15 projects that, according to project documents, will provide financing to advance the Bank’s goal of supporting at least 100 river basins with climate-informed management plans and/or improved river basin management governance. Many of the projects are designed to provide Water Supply, Sanitation, and Hygiene (WASH) infrastructure and services. While this is appropriate given the countries’ needs, we are concerned by the use of gray (vs. green) infrastructure and a relative lack of attention to whether it would be climate-resilient.
On Coastal Resilience, we identified projects in nine (of 20 target) countries that if implemented as planned, support the commitment. The projects financed under this theme include financial support for the construction or rehabilitation of infrastructure, bans on degrading coastal activities (e.g. sand mining), and creation of policies improving the resilience of coastal areas. While the latter two appear well- designed for sustainability, the Bank’s infrastructure support again appears to prioritize gray infrastructure over green. Yet gray infrastructure interventions can be maladaptive due to their high cost, capital (vs. labor) intensity, fixed nature, and need for maintenance. Moreover, their construction and maintenance is typically carbon-intensive.
On Financial Protection, we identified projects in 13 (of 20 target) countries with financial protection instruments, such as cash transfers, and financial sector regulatory reform, including the development of disaster risk financing strategies. A major concern is whether these are designed to be sustainable and go far enough to protect vulnerable populations, including marginalized groups. Reforms to incentivize more adaptive practices in sectors needing financial support, such as agriculture, are largely absent. Without such changes, it is questionable whether these efforts, even if successfully implemented, would improve resilience beyond the short term.
On Forests and Integrated Landscape Management, we identified financing intended to protect close to 27 million hectares (ha.) of forests in 13 countries, against a five-year target of 120 million ha. in 50 countries. Implementation in this sector requires strong capacity on-the-ground, and will need to be maintained throughout the period covered by the Action Plan. It is also important that the Bank offer more forest and integrated landscape management projects to the countries most threatened by deforestation, as much of the existing work is in dryland countries.
Overall, while the Bank appears, according to project documents, to be financing projects that are aligned with its Action Plan commitments, our key finding is that, at the project level, the lack of information related directly to the commitments makes it hard to evaluate whether targets will be achieved, even if projects are successfully implemented. Accordingly, and in line with recognized principles for effective adaptation, we offer the following recommendations for the Bank to apply across sectors:
- Publicly disclose the calculation of climate co-benefits for each project. Include climate change mitigation and adaptation co-benefits analysis in project documents as part of the Environmental Impact Assessment. This analysis should quantify estimated benefits and not just the incremental costs.
- Provide clear definitions and targets. The Bank should clearly define the terminology used in the adaptation commitments. For example, it would be helpful if the Bank provided more clarity on sources, level, and duration of financial protection
- Address the Worst Risks. A “risk-based approach” means prioritizing climate impacts most likely to happen and to be dire for the geography and communities.
- Prioritize the Vulnerable and Marginalized. The best way to protect people from climate impacts is to start with those who are under the greatest amount of threat. The Bank should consider the impacts on marginalized communities and report results disaggregated by group.
- Work with Nature. While it is good to see the ambitious commitments on forests and integrated landscape management, nature offers solutions in other sectors as well. The Bank should do more to prioritize ecosystem-based approaches across its adaptation work, including disaster risk management, water security, and coastal resilience.