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 |
|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
