Step 6.4B: Detailed screening

The rapid screening process (Step 6.4A) will produce a list of finance solutions that are deemed “realistic”. The detailed screening process reviews this list to identify those to include in the Finance Plan. The screening is based on 20 questions that can be scored from 0 to 4 (lowest to highest) using the criteria in Table 6.2. Note that certain criteria may be considered more or less relevant to different finance solutions.

The detailed screening should be undertaken by experts with a reasonable knowledge of the finance solutions. They can be drawn from the BIOFIN team, Steering Committee and technical advisory group (see Chapter 2) as well as from external organizations and academia. These experts should receive background information in order to perform any scoring (see Steps 6.2 and 6.3).

The responses or scoring can be compiled through selfadministered questionnaires, face-to-face workshops, or both. Once solutions are scored, a ranking should be produced. A cutoff can be set for inclusion in the Plan. The scoring should be cross-checked with literature reviews and by an expert panel, and publicly validated. The Finance Plan will provide a diverse mix of solutions, and this scoring should be seen only as an input to the final list of solutions.

Table 6.2: Detailed Screening Criteria and Scoring Guidance

Questions Indicative marks for scoring (0-4) Score
  1. Is there a positive record of implementation?

  • 0

    None

  • 1

    Ongoing pilots – results unclear

  • 2

    Successful pilots, functions poorly

  • 3

    Currently functions moderately in country

  • 4

    Currently functions well in country

 
  1. Will it generate, leverage, save, or realign a large volume of financial resources?

  • 0

    No, or an insignificant volume

  • 1

    1 percent or less of current expenditures/finance needs

  • 2

    1-5 percent of current expenditures/needs

  • 3

    5-15 percent of current expenditures/needs

  • 4

    Game changer, > 15 percent

 
  1. Will financing sources be mobilized in a timeline compatible with needs?

  • 0

    No, delays expected

  • 2

    Moderate likelihood of being mobilized in alignment with needs

  • 4

    Yes, forthcoming and compatible schedules

 
  1. Will financing sources be stable and predictable?

  • 0

    No, highly unstable and vulnerable to external factors

  • 2

    Likelihood of being reasonably stable and predictable source

  • 4

    Yes, very stable and predictable

 
  1. Do the persons or entities paying have a willingness and ability to pay or invest?

  • 0

    No, or totally unknown

  • 2

    Possibly

  • 4

    Yes, willingness shown

 
  1. Are main financial risks adequately managed (e.g. exchange rate, lack of investors)?

  • 0

    No, high risks remain

  • 2

    Moderate risks

  • 4

    Yes, low residual risks

 
  1. Are start-up and operational costs onerous in comparison to the expected financial returns?

  • 0

    Very costly compared to returns

  • 2

    Moderate costs compared to returns

  • 4

    Very low/minimal costs compared to returns

 
  1. Does the solution improve incentives to manage biodiversity and ecosystems sustainably (see Chapter 1)?

  • 0

    Not clear

  • 2

    Likely

  • 4

    Most certainly

 
  1. Will the financial resources remain targeted to biodiversity over time?

  • 0

    Not clear, high risk of allocation to other sectors

  • 2

    Likely, current administrative provisions

  • 4

    Yes, strong legal provisions

 
  1. Are risks to biodiversity (e.g. disrespect of mitigation hierarchy) low or easily mitigated? How challenging would it be to develop safeguards?

  • 0

    High risks, no easy mitigation

  • 2

    Reasonable risks, mitigation possible

  • 4

    Low risks, easy safeguards

 
  1. Will there be a positive social and economic impact (e.g. jobs, poverty reduction and cultural)?

  • 0

    None or unknown

  • 2

    Moderate

  • 4

    Strong positive impact

 
  1. Would there be a positive impact on gender equality, especially regarding participation in design and implementation or access to opportunities and benefits?

  • 0

    None or unknown

  • 2

    Moderate

  • 4

    Strong positive impact

 
  1. Have risks of significant unintended negative social consequences been anticipated and managed?

  • 0

    No, high risks likely remain

  • 2

    Moderate and manageable risks

  • 4

    Yes, minimal residual risks

 
  1. Will the solution be viewed as equitable and will there be fair access to the financial and biodiversity/ecosystem resources?

  • 0

    No, high risk of inequitable outcome

  • 2

    Moderate possibility

  • 4

    Yes, built into design features

 
  1. Is the solution backed by political will?
  • 0

    No, resistance from key stakeholders

  • 2

    Moderately

  • 4

    Yes, with public statements in support

 
  1. Have political risks been anticipated and managed?

  • 0

    No, high risks remain

  • 2

    Moderate and manageable

  • 4

    Yes, minimal residual risks

 
  1. Is buy-in among stakeholders (i.e. potential investors/ decision makers, implementers, and beneficiaries) sufficiently strong to counter potential opposition?

  • 0

    No, weak buy-in

  • 2

    Moderate buy-in

  • 4

    Yes, strong buy-in

 
  1. Do the managing actor(s) have sufficient capacity? Can they rapidly acquire it?

  • 0

    No, severe and persistent capacity gap

  • 2

    Moderate capacity gap

  • 4

    Yes, strong implementation capacity

 
  1. Is it legally feasible? How challenging will any legal requirements be?

  • 0

    No, new law is required

  • 2

    New regulations required

  • 4

    Yes, new regulations are not needed

 
  1. Is it coherent with the existing institutional architecture and can synergies be achieved?

  • 0

    No, limited or no synergies/coherence

  • 2

    Potential synergies

  • 4

    Yes, fully coherent/large synergies and compatibilities

 

Total Score

From 0-80

 

Once the scoring is completed, a list of 5-15 priority finance solutions is identified. The exact number of solutions ultimately depends on national factors (such as the size, diversity of ecosystems and biodiversity management issues, institutional capacity etc. in the country). This mix of the solutions should then be assessed according the four criteria listed in Box 6.6. If the mix is not conducive—e.g. if the total amount of financial resources is not sufficient to address the country’s most urgent needs or if it is dependent on the success of a single solution— the list should be revisited. If the mix is assessed as adequate, each selected finance solution will be developed further in Step 6.5.


Box 6.6: Appropriateness of the Mix of Solutions Proposed – Suggested Criteria

Finance

Financial adequacy – the sum of the resources expected to be mobilized through the solutions listed is adequate to significantly address the previously identified financial needs.


Risk Management

Diversity of solutions – focusing on one or a few solutions might put a country’s biodiversity future at risk, should the solutions fail for any reason. A country’s BFP should contain a diverse set of solutions to be more resilient to shocks, delays, and institutional challenges.


Planning

Appropriate sequencing – some solutions might require several years before they can be implemented or achieve biodiversity results. The Finance Plan should take into consideration urgent biodiversity priorities and long-term goals; a mix of short- and long-term solutions is useful.


Integration

Contribution to sustainable development – the Finance Plan needs to be framed within a wide understanding of sustainable development, and promote social and economic development. Subcriteria include: acceptability of trade-offs, contribution to reducing gender and income inequality and poverty, and fairness.