- JICA's approach to marking Rio markers involves a process of project identification, policy dialogue, and project formation between JICA and partner countries to determine if a project's objectives and expected results primarily address climate change or biodiversity (principal marker) or contribute in a non-primary way (significant marker). - JICA developed a Climate Finance Impact Tool to provide methodologies for measuring and reporting mitigation and adaptation results and to mainstream adaptation into projects. - Rio marking should be an integral part of project appraisal to help mainstream climate and biodiversity objectives, and the process facilitates policy dialogue between partners on development priorities.

1. Practical marking of Rio Marker
- JICA’s Approach -
Tomonori SUDO
Advisor, Office for Global Issues and Development Partnership,
Operations Strategy Department,
Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA)
May 20, 2015
OECD DAC WORKSHOP ON PARTNER COUNTRY PERSPECTIVES FOR TRACKING DOMESTIC AND
INTERNATIONAL CLIMATE- AND BIODIVERSITY-RELATED FINANCE

2. Marking Process
Partner country JICA
Development / Climate
Policy, NCs etc
 Project Identification
Checking country’s
Climate context
Policy Dialogue Mutual recognition
Project formation / Appraisal
Confirmation of
project objectives
Board Meeting / Decision
Making
Conclusion of Agreement Marking

3. Climate Finance Impact Tool
(JICA Climate-FIT)
• A reference document which contains the following components in order
to facilitate consideration of policies and formulation of projects for
assisting climate change related measures in developing countries.
1. Methodologies for implementing
measurement, reporting and verification
(MRV) related to quantitative evaluation of
mitigation projects that contribute to
reduction or sequestration of greenhouse
gases (GHG).
2. Concepts and guidelines for mainstreaming
adaptation considerations into projects that
contribute to reduction of vulnerability
against climate change, and sustaining and
increasing adaptive capacity and resilience.
http://www.jica.go.jp/english/our_work/climate
_change/overview.html

4. “Principal” vs “Significant”
Rio Marker Scoring Criteria JICA’s criteria
Principal (2) The activity have NOT
been undertaken without
this objective
if partner country recognizes that
climate change/ biodiversity is the
primary objective of the activity
Significant (1) The activity have been
undertaken without this
objective
if partner country recognizes that
climate change / biodiversity in NOT
the primary objective of the activity,
but its effectiveness in climate
change / biodiversity could be
recognized.
• No difference in terms of effects in climate change /
Biodiversity – Difference is whether CC/BD is
recognized as the primary objective or not.

5. Development Effectiveness Context
Country Ownership
- Assistance requested by the partner
countries
Alignment
- Align with partner countries
development / climate policy
- Country system use
Harmonization
- Apply OECD’s definition as well as other
internationally recognized definitions (e.g.
IPCC, UNFCCC, UNCBD)
Development Result
- Clear expected results
 “Operation / effectiveness
(performance) indicators”
Mutual Accountability
- Policy dialogues with partner countries
- Indication in “Ex-ante Evaluation
reports”

6. Conclusion
• Rio Marking should be mandatory process in project
formation / appraisal of the project. This helps in
mainstreaming of climate and biodiversity.
• Rio Marker is useful as a tool for policy dialogue between
partner countries and donors.
• Whether the project is marked as “Principal” or “Significant”
depends on the priority of climate- /Biodiversity- objective of
the project.
• Better understanding and better use of Rio marker could be
helpful in improving development effectiveness.

7. Thank you for your attention