Review of the World Bank Portfolio on Nature-based Solutions for Disaster Risk Reduction Fiscal Years 2012 to 2018 Table of Contents A new approach to disaster risk reduction: Nature-based solutions 1 Nature-based DRM portfolio since 2012 - an overview 1 Geographical distribution of the engagement 2 Global Practice portfolios 3 Natural hazards targeted with the nature-based DRM portfolio 4 Nature-based solution types throughout the portfolio 6 Disaster risk reduction benefits derived from nature-based solutions 8 Co-benefits derived from nature-based solutions for DRM 10 Box 1. Hybrid Approaches to Nature-based Solutions 7 Box 2. Cost-benefit Analysis 9 Annex A: Methodology i Annex B: Results viii Annex C: Project Table xi Figures: Figure 1. Development of the nature-based portfolio 2012-2018 1 Figure 2. Nature-based project approvals across regions 2 Figure 3. Total commitments toward NBS across regions 2 Figure 4. Technical assistance / ASA activities 2 Figure 5. Nature-based solutions across Global Practices 4 Figure 6. Nature-based commitments across Global Practices 4 Figure 7. Natural hazards targeted with nature-based solutions 5 Figure 8. Hazards targeted by different GPs 5 Figure 9. Nature-based solutions applied across the World Bank 6 Figure 10. Nature-based solutions across the Global Practices 6 A new approach to disaster risk reduction: Nature-based solutions The reduction and management of impacts from natural disasters has traditionally been dominated by ‘grey’ or ‘hard’ infrastructural solutions. However, internationally and within the World Bank, the focus is slowly shifting towards a new type of response, so-called ‘nature based solutions’ (NBS). These solutions make use of natural processes and ecosystems to provide critical services for disaster risk reduction. The World Bank and GFDRR have now conducted a review of the World Bank portfolio in disaster risk reduction to identify lending operations and technical assistance that use nature- based solutions to reduce risks and manage natural hazards. This Fig. 1 Development of the nature-based effort aims to increase visibility portfolio 2012-2018 of nature-based solutions and to 20 establish a knowledge base to 2000 build the case for nature-based Cumulated commitments (US$ mn) infrastructure, and to support the incorporation of nature-based 15 1500 Number of projects solutions in World Bank investments. This note summarizes the results of the 10 1000 portfolio analysis across operational and thematic aspects. 5 500 Nature-based DRM portfolio since 2012 – an overview The portfolio review identified 0 0 57 projects with nature-based 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 components, ten of which are Lending operarations Actual commitments 2012 - '16 analytical in nature, that were Technical assistance Planned commitments 2017 - '18 approved between 2012 and Planned lending 2016. During this time, around Planned TA US$ 1.57 billion were allocated to nature-based solutions to disaster risk reduction (see Fig. 1) 1. Since 2017, this number has risen to 76 projects, constituting 11 per cent of the World Bank’s disaster risk reduction portfolio2. This increase brought the total commitment to $2.02 billion, representing 3.8% of the World Bank disaster risk management portfolio and 0.76% of the aggregate World Bank lending. This increase in both lending and technical assistance, signals the growing importance of nature-based solutions in the overall portfolio (see Fig. 1). 1 The commitments or allocations towards nature-based solutions are approximated via the allocation to the lowest level line item containing nature-based solutions in the Project Appraisal Document (typically Component or Sub-Component level). For the detailed methodology, please refer to Annex A. 2 The 2017 and 2018 portfolios are listed as planned instead of actual commitments amounts as definitive characterization as nature-based is not possible until later stages in the project cycle. 1 Geographical distribution of the engagement Between 2012 and 2016, nature-based solutions were implemented predominantly in Africa (21 projects). Following at a distance are East Asia and the Pacific (12, “EAP�), South Asia (11, “SAR�), Latin America & the Caribbean (7, “LCR�). Europe & Central Asia (3, “ECA�), Global projects (2, “Global�) and Middle East & North America (1, “MENA�) make up the bottom three regions (see Fig. 2). The total financial commitment towards nature-based solutions in both lending and technical assistance was highest in the Africa region with $697.4 million, followed by East Asia & the Pacific with $470.6 million and South Asia with $335.4 million (see Fig.3). Fig. 2 Nature-based project approvals across regions Fig. 3 Total commitments towards 30 NBS across regions Projects approved 20 800 10 Commitment amount (US$ mn) 0 600 Projects approved 2017-2018 Projects approved 2012-2016 400 Fig. 4 Technical assistance/ASA 7 activities Number of TAs and ASA 6 5 4 200 3 2 1 0 0 Number of activities 2017-2018 Commitment amounts 2017-2018 Number of activities 2012-2016 Commitment amounts 2012-2016 Note: Due to the small volume of commitments towards NBS as compared to other regions, Global and MENA projects to not appear in Figure 3. Europe & Central Asia have seen investments of almost $36 million, closely followed by Latin America & the Caribbean with $29.6 million. The MENA region’s single project amounts to a commitment of $4.1 million, and the commitment to global activities adds another $0.45 million. 2 The biggest growth since 2016 occurred in East Asia and the Pacific with seven projects and $260.2 million in new NBS commitments, and Africa with five new projects and 166.7 million in additional funds. Europe and Central Asia region added a single project worth $19 million of NBS allocations. Latin America & the Caribbean added four new projects, but as three of them were technical assistance, the total commitment only increased by $4.4 million. South Asia increased their portfolio by one technical assistance project and an investment project for which the NBS cost could not be determined. As a subset of this, technical assistance and analytical work alone amounted to around $8.37 million, concentrated in Africa with US$ 4.7 million over a total of six activities, followed by South Asia (2.13 mn, 3 activities), East Asia & the Pacific (0.64 mn, 4 activities), Global projects (0.45 mn, 2 activities) and Latin America & the Caribbean (0.38 mn, 5 activities, see Fig. 4). There have been no technical assistance projects in Europe & Central Asia or the MENA region since 2012. Since 2017, the increase in the technical assistance portfolio amounted to $6.3 million with the biggest growth in East Asia and the Pacific at close to $5 million and top-ups ranging from $0.29 to 0.68 million in South Asia, Latin America and Africa. Global Practice portfolios Nature-based solutions are applied across many of the World Bank's Global Practices. Owing to their cross-sectoral nature, Global Practices regularly collaborate in their implementation. The most common practices to take on a leading role are Environment & Natural Resources (ENR) with 27 projects, Social, Urban, Rural and Resilience (SURR) with 21 projects, followed by GPs Agriculture and Water (5 and 4, respectively). Since 2017, GPs ENR & SURR have already added another ten and eight projects, respectively, increasing their nature-based commitments by over $296.8 and 154.1 million. The GP for Transport and Digital Development has added one project in 2017, but its allocation to NBS could not be determined. While both ENR and SURR GPs continue to grow their NBS portfolios, the portfolios of others seem to stagnate. This is likely due to the explicit disaster risk management angle of this review. GPs SURR and ENR both frequently target natural hazards in their projects and present the project design in the appropriate language. Conversely, GPs Agriculture and Transport use nature-based solutions, but do not specify the disaster risk management objectives in the project documents. This may be the case as they perhaps are traditionally more concerned with slow- onset disasters (such as drought or erosion) and do not immediately classify the challenge as natural hazard. Another consequence of the framework angle is that GP Water projects feature rarely in this review, despite their growing commitment to the concept of NBS and the financing thereof3. Projects planned by this GP employ a similar repertoire of nature-based solutions, but rather to address broader water resource management challenges. To capture the full range of nature- 3See, for example the upcoming joint Water-ENR-GFDRR report on nature-based infrastructure for WRM and DRM. 3 Fig. 5 Nature-based projects across Fig. 6 Nature-based commitments Global Practices across Global Practices 35 1200 Commitment amount (US$ mn) 30 1000 Number of projects 25 800 20 600 15 400 10 5 200 0 0 Projects approved 2017-2018 Commitment amounts 2017-2018 Projects approved 2012-2016 Commitment amounts 2012-2016 Global Practice acronyms: ENR = Environment & Natural Resources; SURR = Social, Urban, Rural & Resilience; Transport = Transport & Digital Development (formerly Transport & ICT). Note: The commitment to NBS in the project approved by the Transport & Digital Development Practice were not available at the time of writing. based solutions projects commissioned by the Water GP, a separate portfolio review has been conducted4. Natural hazards targeted with the nature-based DRM portfolio The Bank's disaster risk reduction work focuses on a variety of hazards. Nature-based solutions have been used to address urban flooding, river flooding, coastal flooding and erosion, landslides & inland erosion as well as drought. Among these projects, the reduction of coastal and river flooding is the dominant objective. Since 2017, urban flooding and coastal erosion have experienced the largest growth with 60 per cent hike in project approvals, followed by coastal flooding with a 41 per cent increase (see Fig. 7). The data indicated that a majority of project is located at a confluence of hazards and therefore addresses a combination thereof. Urban stormwater flooding projects, for example, often aim to reduce the flooding from rivers and streams as well. River flooding projects, in turn, frequently coincide with coastal flooding as well as inland erosion & landslides. Only 19 out of 76 projects 4For information on the Water GP portfolio review into nature-based water resource management, please contact Greg Browder 4 focused on a single hazard, drought risk reduction being most frequently the sole objective with seven projects. The multi-hazard character of the portfolio has two implications for this analysis: first, the sum of projects across the hazards does not add up to the total of 76 NBS projects, rather it gives only an indication of the commonness of the challenge; second, as most nature-based solutions can be applied to address more than one natural hazard, the financial commitment towards reducing specific hazard risks cannot be disaggregated. Global Practices and their hazard portfolio The Global Practices ENR and SURR each address all hazards in this analysis framework. GP ENR is responsible for the largest share in the numerous nature-based coastal flooding projects and in the less frequent coastal erosion, landslides and drought projects. GP SURR ranks first for (also abundant) river projects and (less abundant) urban flooding projects, and features strongly in landslides projects. GP SURR also ranks second for coastal flooding and coastal erosion projects, albeit at a distance. GP Agriculture has no projects on nature-based urban flooding or coastal erosion reduction, but works on other issues with low frequency. The single Transport GP project targets landslide and erosion risk (see Fig. 8)5. Taking into account the numbers for 2017 and 2018, GP SURR still leads on river and urban flooding, having increased the numbers from 12 to 17 for river and from 9 to 15 for urban flooding. The GP is also catching up with GP ENR in terms of landslides & erosion work. GP ENR continues to spearhead coastal activities. Through its increases in coastal flooding from 14 to 21 projects and in coastal erosion from 9 to 16 projects, it delivers the biggest contributions to Fig. 7 Natural hazards targeted Fig. 8 Hazards targeted by different GPs with nature-based solutions Coastal flooding River flooding Coastal erosion 30 Number of projects 20 10 Landslides & Drought Urban flooding erosion 0 Projects 2012-2016 Projects 2017-2018 ENV SURR Water Agriculture Transport 5 Note: For ease of reading, figures 8 and 10 are not disaggregated between 2012-2016 and 2017-2018 data, but show 2012-2018 data. Trends are described in the text. 5 the aforementioned hike in numbers of coastal hazard projects. Fig. 10 Nature-based solutions Fig 9. Nature-based solutions applied across the Global Practices across the World Bank 35 Forest & Rivers & 30 vegetation Number of projects floodplains 25 20 15 10 Mangroves Coastal Wetlands 5 0 Corals & living shorelines Inland wetlands Projects 2012-2016 Projects 2017-2018 Nature-based solution types throughout the portfolio Dunes & beaches Urban green spaces The specific types of nature-based solutions identified from the World Bank portfolio are urban green spaces, forests & vegetation, rivers & floodplains, inland wetlands, coastal wetlands, dunes & beaches, mangroves and coral reefs & living shorelines. This terminology is shorthand for ENV SURR the restoration, creation or protection of the Water Agriculture respective ecosystem. Transport As mentioned before, nature-based solutions can be, and typically are, applied to address multiple hazards. In only a third of the projects (‘single- NBS’ as opposed to ‘multi-NBS’ projects), a single NBS was used. As such, the information on how often a specific NBS is used is indicative only of the relative prevalence of the NBS and the financial commitment towards each nature-based solution cannot be disaggregated. The most commonly applied solutions in the portfolio are the restoration, creation or protection of forests & vegetation, mangroves and rivers & floodplains. Forests & vegetation as well as mangroves are also the most common NBS used for 26 ‘single-NBS’ projects, with 15 of them relying solely on forests & vegetation and four using mangroves only. The remaining nature- based solutions are mostly applied in ‘multi-NBS’ projects and are each cited roughly half as often as the top three solutions (see Fig. 9). 6 Data for 2017 and 2018 indicate that the use of mangroves in projects increased by 36% which brings the total of mangroves projects to 26, catching up with river & floodplain work. Forests & vegetation remained in first place and the portfolios for inland and coastal wetlands have expanded even more, but were comparatively small to begin with (see Fig. 9). Box 1. Hybrid approaches to nature-based solutions Nature-based solutions can be implemented as a standalone, but they can also synergize with certain types of grey DRM infrastructure. This type of nature-based solution is commonly called ‘hybrid solution’, or ‘hybrid infrastructure’. For example, → In Tanzania the REGROW Project will install a small weir to further bolster its ongoing efforts in inland wetland restoration to reduce drought. → As part of the Bihar Rural Roads Project in India, trees and soil covering vegetation will reduce erosion and sedimentation along roadsides, enhancing the performance and longevity of grey drainage infrastructure. Between 2012 and 2016, the portfolio was split between 33 hybrid and 24 standalone nature- based activities. Since then, the hybrid share has increased to 48 out of 76 projects. The growing interest in this subset of nature-based solutions is also visible in the share in targeted research and piloting activities: 15 out of 20 TA activities started between 2012 and 2018 have been investigating a hybrid approach. The cost of hybrid and standalone nature-based approaches Excluding technical assistance, which does not reflect actual implementation cost, and projects without cost data, the analyzable dataset comprises 54 projects. Due to this limitation, the below analysis can give indications of the range of implementation cost and how it compares between hybrid and standalone projects. The median allocation to NBS elements in hybrid investment projects is US$ 19 million and while the largest allocation amounts to $405 million, only a quarter of the projects allocate more than $52 million (3rd quartile). On the other end of the spectrum, the “cheapest� quarter of projects (1st quartile) allocates 5 million or less. For standalone projects, the maximum and minimum commitment to NBS were $104 million and close to $2 million. The median cost was $8.75 million; the 1st and 3rd quartiles were $4.5 and $14.5 million, respectively. Relative to the overall project commitment, the hybrid subset allocated an average of 39% towards the nature-based elements, while standalone NBS investment projects spend 62% on NBS components. Both approaches are commonly coupled with non-structural measures such as regulatory, regulatory and institutional support and capacity building, or livelihoods components. The lower share for hybrid projects is further explained by the cost of grey infrastructure components. 7 Geography of nature-based solutions Most nature-based solutions find wide application across the globe, while some, such as corals & living shorelines and mangroves, are more limited in their range and suitability by environmental conditions. Apart from the forests, river and mangroves activities, use cases for nature-based solutions across the regions show no pronounced patterns as numbers of activities is low. Forest & vegetation or river & floodplain restoration appear to be in focus in the Africa region (12 and 9 projects). Here, urban green spaces, inland wetlands and dune-related activities have also been applied in Africa more often than elsewhere, albeit rarely. Projects in coral reef restoration or artificial coral reef creation are concentrated in East Asia and the Pacific (5 projects), complemented by global, Latin America and MENA work (2, 2 and 1 projects). Mangroves are primarily used in the East Asia and Pacific region and South Asia (7 and 6 projects), with some emerging work in the Latin America & Caribbean region and Africa (2 projects each). Since 2017, the only noticeable change in this pattern was the increased use of river & floodplain work in the East Asia and Pacific region, which thereby almost caught up with the Africa region. Patterns in nature-based solutions use across Global Practices The Global Practices ENR, SURR and Water each use all types of nature-based solutions in their disaster risk reduction work. Overall, however, ENR is both the most active GP in the nature- based portfolio, and the one with the most varied range of solution types used. The GP is responsible for the largest share in use of forests & vegetation (16 projects) – which is also the GP’s overall most frequently used NBS – and is leading the way in using all other NBS except for rivers & floodplains, inland wetlands and urban green spaces. The latter three types are mostly applied by GP SURR (14, 6 and 5 projects respectively), which also engages in mangroves and dunes work to a large degree. This comes as no surprise, as GP SURR conducts the bulk of the river and urban flooding work as well as a large share of the coastal erosion and flooding work, for which these solutions are commonly used. The Global Practice for Agriculture uses predominantly forests & vegetation and, on rare occasion, other types (except urban green spaces and dunes). GP Water applied all types of nature-based solutions but in only in one or two instances each. For its sole project, GP Transport uses forests & vegetation (see Fig. 10). There have been no noticeable changes to the pattern of GP engagement since 2017. Please note that due to the aforementioned focus on disaster risk management and the Water GP’s consequent low profile in this review, further analysis of the solutions applied by the GP should be sought in the GP’s separate portfolio review on water resource management. 6 Disaster risk reduction benefits derived from nature-based solutions The portfolio review framework identified twelve types disaster risk reduction benefits mentioned in project documentation: reduced loss of urban infrastructure; reduced loss of transport infrastructure; reduced loss of life; reduced loss of water infrastructure; shoreline 6 The World Bank/Independent Evaluation Group 2010. Cost-Benefit Analysis in World Bank Projects. Available online at https://ieg.worldbankgroup.org/sites/default/files/Data/Evaluation/files/cba_full_report1.pdf 8 stabilization & accretion; coastal energy management; wind speed reduction; Box 2. Cost-Benefit Analysis storage & infiltration of flood & storm Economic analysis is an integral part of the project water; redirection & drainage of flood & appraisal document and aims to address the storm water; groundwater recharge & water table stabilization; slope project’s development impact, appropriateness of stabilization; and the maintenance of soil the financing instruments and the World Bank’s composition. value added. Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) is the most commonly used method for the projects in this The top three disaster risk reduction portfolio, except for projects with financing from benefits in terms of number of projects the Global Environmental Facility (GEF), which citing it are slope stabilization, reduced employs incremental cost analysis as an alternative. loss of urban infrastructure and shoreline stabilization & accretion. Taking portfolio While an economic analysis chapter is mandatory in developments since 2017 into account, Investment Project Financing, this review found reduced loss of urban infrastructure takes that only 18 out of 56 nature-based solutions over the top rank, followed by reduced lending projects conducted a CBA examining the loss of transport infrastructure, which in nature-based components as part of the overall turn has experienced the highest absolute analysis. Only six projects have produced an analysis and percentage increase of all DRR benefit of the nature-based component in isolation. The types, relegating slope stabilization to third remainder of the portfolio typically produced place. The bottom three are (and remain project-wide CBAs instead. unchanged) reduced loss of water Co-benefits, i.e. benefits that do not contribute to infrastructure, groundwater recharge & the project’s main disaster risk reduction goal, have water table stabilization and wind speed only been investigated in five projects. Therefore, reduction. no general statement on the cost-benefit ratios, or These benefits fall into broad categories in the average benefits achieved by nature-based line with the natural hazards they mitigate; solutions can be made at this point. river and urban flooding; coastal flooding Some obstacles to conducting comprehensive CBA & erosion; inland erosion and a fourth, that were named in project documents include a more overarching category, communities lack of readily available data (e.g. P132100), and asset damages. For the latter category, capacity and time at the time of appraisal (e.g. an upward trend is noticeable for three out of four benefits in this category (i.e. all but P153301, P152150). A report by the Independent the loss of water infrastructure). There was Evaluation Group (IEG) on CBA in World Bank 6 no change in project numbers naming Projects has recorded similar challenges. benefits relating to river flooding. Projects with benefits relating to inland erosion and coastal flooding & erosion are less frequent. The relative decline in prominence of coastal DRR benefits is surprising as the number of coastal erosion and coastal flooding projects in fact rose by 60 and 42 per cent, respectively. This decline combined with the upward trend for benefits in communities and asset damages may indicate a shift away from specific technical benefits and towards more mainstreamed benefits such as loss of life or housing damage. 9 Co-benefits derived from nature-based solutions for DRM Nature-based solutions do not only achieve the risk reduction goals in focus here, but also a variety of other non-disaster risk related benefits. With rare exceptions, projects will enumerate these in their documentation as part of their business case. The co-benefits listed in the screened project documentation were categorized as the following types; agriculture, fisheries & forestry income; employment, enterprise & property; biodiversity; public health; tourism & recreation; carbon sequestration; and other ecosystem services. The most common co-benefits across projects are related to off-farm opportunities (such as employment, enterprise and property) and agricultural livelihoods (including fisheries and forestry), followed by biodiversity and conservation benefits. Carbon sequestration is named in the lowest number of projects. Given that these co-benefits are often cited as the missing piece to demonstrate the competitiveness of nature-based solutions with grey infrastructure, we took stock of the number of projects conducting cost-benefit analyses including co-benefits. However, in only five projects, quantitative assessments of benefits for disaster risk reduction as well as co-benefits were conducted. More commonly, there is no quantitative assessment of co-benefits in project documentation and it is therefore not possible to make any general statements about the degree to which they contribute to the overall project cost-benefit ratio (see Box 2). 10 ANNEX A: METHODOLOGY A1. Portfolio Review Framework The framework for this analysis was drafted in collaboration between the Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery, Global Practices Environment & Natural Resources, Social, Urban, Rural and Resilience and Water in February 2017. The draft framework was presented to non-Bank practitioners for review and input at a World Bank hosted workshop in Delft, the Netherlands, in April 2017. With parallel efforts to review i) non-World Bank projects in nature-based disaster risk reduction and ii) the World Bank portfolio on nature-based water resource management in mind, the framework was expanded to reflect terminology and categories adequate for these purposes. The key terminology used here was defined as: Nature-based solutions,‘NBS’. Nature-based solutions are defined as approaches that make use of natural processes and ecosystem services for disaster risk reduction purposes. See table A1 for examples. Hybrid projects. Hybrid approaches or projects are defined as activities that create synergies between standalone nature-based solutions and conventional disaster risk reduction infrastructure. Disaster risk reduction (DRR) benefits. DRR benefits are defined as the immediate contributions of an NBS activity toward risk reduction. See table A2 for examples. Co-benefits. Co-benefits are defined as benefits derived from NBS activities that do not contribute to disaster risk reduction but are relevant to the assessment of the overall economic, social and environmental sustainability of the project. See table A3 for examples. A2. Data collection A2.1 Project databases The following project databases for this portfolio review were used: • “Disaster Risk Management (DRM) co-benefits� from FY 2012 until FY 2018 (cutoff date and last downloaded April 2018) • “Natural Disaster Management� Theme (phased out in July 2016, last downloaded April 2017) The two databases contain all disaster risk management projects across the World Bank Global Practices. They were used to complement each other and yielded a total of 681 projects (excluding overlap). The compilation of the DRM co-benefits database is a centrally managed process as specified in the World Bank Operations Coding Manual, Version 5, May 2017. The “Natural Disaster Management� theme has since been remapped, inter alia to the theme “Disaster Risk Management�. i A2.2 Project selection Projects were selected if they addressed the natural hazards in focus for this portfolio review with nature-based solutions. In total, 681 projects from the aforementioned databases were searched for a range of search terms including the 1) natural hazards • ‘coastal flooding’ • ‘coastal erosion’, • ‘river flooding’, • ‘urban flooding’, • ‘landslides & inland erosion’, • ‘drought’, 2) the nature-based solution types identified and compiled examples (see Tables A1 on nature-based solutions, list of examples) and 3) general terminology used interchangeably for ‘nature-based solutions’, including • ‘natural infrastructure’ • ‘bioengineering’ • ‘green infrastructure’ • ‘ecosystem-based’ if in context of disaster risk reduction • ‘ecosystem-based [climate change] adaptation’, if in context of disaster risk reduction. Project titles and project summary columns were scanned to check whether the list of search term was comprehensive. New search terms were added to the list if necessary. A2.3 Project screening For the selected projects, project documentation such as Project Appraisal Documents (PAD), and Implementation Completion Reports (ICR) were downloaded from the Operations Portal (intranet) for screening. If these were not available, Project Information Documents (PID) or Project Concept Notes (PCN) in combination with Environmental Assessment documentation was collected. The available project documents were screened by searching for 1) natural hazards in focus; 2) nature-based solutions; 3) disaster risk reduction benefits (see table A2 for list of examples/search terms); 4) co-benefits (see table A3 for list of examples/search terms). In addition, for each project, the project development objective and detailed project description (typically Annex 2 in PADs) were screened in depth to capture details not reflected in the search terms used. Detailed descriptions of hazards, nature-based solutions, benefits and cost-benefit analysis results were recorded in a raw data sheet. ii It noteworthy, however, that in the vast majority of projects, NBS are described in a very generic way (e.g. as "bioengineering", "natural infrastructure"), which means the list of search terms used is very comprehensive. A.2.4 Project coding A.2.4.1 Operational data Operational data, such as Lead Global Practice, Region, Product type and Total Commitment was generated automatically when the databases were downloaded. This data was transferred to the portfolio review dataset (“master sheet�) and if necessary, was complemented by manual searches in the project Operations Portal pages. Please note the following additional explanations. Global Practices and Regions. Note that GP & Region may change over the course of implementation. We generally tried to update this data, but some may still be listed with GP and/or region from the time of Board approval. Technical assistance. Note that the technical assistance and ASA terminology has not been fully updated across the Operations Portal and databases, so the term TA is used in this analysis. Investment projects with a TA component are listed as investment projects, not as TA. Co-financing and additional financing. Projects with co-financing from other funding bodies (such as the GEF, Adaptation Fund or the Borrower) are listed as one project with a total commitment amount, unless there is separate project documentation that changes or adds on to the parent project. A.2.4.2 Thematic content Raw data was coded in the portfolio review “master sheet� according to the nature-based solutions used, DRR and co-benefits, intervention type, cost-benefits analysis status, and scale. Nature-based commitments were recorded. Please note the following additional explanations. Nature-based commitments. These commitments are intended to reflect the cost of implementing nature-based solutions. Due to the lack of specific cost data in the screened project documentation, the lowest possible estimate, typically the cost of the (sub-)component(s) containing the nature-based solutions was summarized. Nature-based solutions. Projects were categorized according to the NBS descriptions developed under the analysis framework (see search terms/list of examples) based on their raw data. Multiple selections possible. Disaster risk reduction and co-benefits benefits. Projects were categorized according to the DRR benefits and co-benefits descriptions developed under the analysis framework (see search terms/list of examples) based on their raw data. Multiple selections possible. Note that this review focuses on disaster risk reduction benefits first, and co-benefits second. Due to the varied nature of the projects reviewed here, the project development objective may have a different focus and prioritization. Hybrid projects/Intervention type. Projects were classified as hybrid solutions if the project’s objective(s) was/were achieved by a combination of standalone nature-based activities and iii conventional DRM infrastructure, or when the objective was to research or pilot such combinations. Conversely, nature-based solutions combined with non-structural measures, for example land use planning or zoning, were not classified as hybrid. Cost-benefit analysis. Projects’ economic analysis chapters were screened for inclusion of nature-based solutions and co-benefits. Key parameters and results of the analysis were only recorded if the analysis assessed nature-based solutions elements in isolation. Geographic scale. Projects were classified as either local, regional, national or international projects based on the locations and beneficiaries listed in the project documentation. A3. Analysis The dataset was analyzed to highlight patterns in nature-based disaster risk management across operational and thematic dimensions. The number of projects was established for • total number of projects using NBS, as well as disaggregated by region and by Global Practice • total number of technical assistance activities using NBS, disaggregated by region and by Global Practice • total number of hybrid versus standalone projects • number of projects per NBS, hazard, DRR benefit and co-benefit. Note: sum across each category is larger than NBS project total due to multi-NBS and multi-hazard projects. • number of projects per NBS by region and GP. Note: sum is larger than NBS project total due to multi-NBS projects. • number of projects per hazard by region and GP. Note: sum is larger than NBS project total due to multi-hazard projects) • number of projects with cost-benefit analysis examining nature-based elements in isolation, and as a subset, those examining co-benefits. Commitment amounts to NBS were calculated as total sum for entire NBS project portfolio and disaggregated for the subsets of hybrid and standalone projects. Overall NBS commitments were also summarized by GP and region, respectively. To further compare the cost of hybrid and standalone projects, additional descriptive statistics were calculated. A4. Limitations It is comparatively unusual for and investment project to address a singular hazard, or employ only a single nature-based solution. These ‘multi-hazard’ and ‘multi-NBS’ projects pose several challenges for the analysis. It is, for example, not possible to summarize the portfolio-wide total commitments • toward addressing a specific natural hazard with NBS • towards a specific NBS • toward a specific disaster risk reduction benefit or co-benefit, or to definitively establish (unless specified in documentation) iv • in a multi-NBS, which NBS project achieved a specific disaster risk reduction benefit or • in a hybrid project, whether an NBS or grey component achieved a specific disaster risk reduction benefit. Table A1. List of examples: Nature-based solutions Nature-Based List of examples Solutions River, lake embankment protection/reinforcement: re-vegetation, coir matting, coir rolls, stakes, vegetated riprap, gabions, concrete blocks Rivers & (hybrid); Embankment removal; Floodplain restoration/ creation; Floodplains Eradication of invasive plants; River bed restoration, de-siltation (minor dredging), in-stream riffles; River course restoration, meander creation/restoration Reforestation, afforestation with native, adapted, resilient species; Forests & Eradication of invasive species; Slope/ hillside re-vegetation; Roadside re- Vegetation vegetation; Increase in grasslands (extensive root network), vegetation cover with balanced ratio of root network/ aboveground biomass Inland Wetlands Wetland restoration/creation Mangroves Mangrove restoration; planting of native or adapted mangrove species Sea grass, eel grass/ kelp bed restoration; Oyster/ shellfish reefs (as Coral reefs & living breakwaters); Artificial coral reefs; Repopulation of coral reefs; Reef traps shorelines (sedimentation); Eradication of invasive species; Barrier island restoration Dunes & beaches Dune restoration or re-vegetation; shelter belts Salt marsh/mudflats/ lagoon restoration; beach nourishment, recharge, Coastal wetlands replenishment, feeding Sustainable drainage systems (soakways, retention ponds); filter strips, Urban green spaces filter and infiltration trenches, green roofs, bioswales, detention/retention; urban parks, greenbelts; permeable/ porous pavements and surfaces Table A2. List of examples: Disaster Risk Reduction benefits Risk reduction Focus List for examples benefits Redirection & Conveyance/ drainage/ evacuation of flood and storm water; Urban & river Drainage of flood & Redirection of flood and storm water to nearby wetlands flooding storm water Storage & Temporary on site storage/ retention and filtration of flood water, infiltration of flood storm water; Infiltration of flood/ storm water & storm water Reduction/Control of soil erosion on slopes and gullies; Reduction Inland erosio Slope stabilization in the frequency and/or extent of land failures/ mass wasting such n as landslides, mudslides, topples, flows v Risk reduction Focus List for examples benefits Soil composition Reduction of topsoil erosion/ maintenance of soil profile; - maintained Reduction of nutrient loss (minerals, organic matter) Reduced loss of Reduction of loss of /damages to housing; Critical urban urban infrastructure (excluding transport) such as medical, energy etc. infrastructure Communities & Reduced loss of transport Reduced loss of roads, rail tracks, other transport infrastructure infrastructure assets Reduced loss of life Reduction of damages to coastal or river protection infrastructure Reduced loss of Coastal Assets/ caused by flooding or siltation: e.g. Dikes, dams, levees, flood gates; water Reduced loss or damage of hydropower infrastructure by flooding infrastructure or siltation; Siltation of waterways Reduction/prevention of coastal inundation through flood and Coastal flooding & erosion storm surge, tidal surge; Attenuation of wave energy; Reduction of Coastal energy wave crest height; Wave attenuation or dissipation; Absorption of management wave energy; Dampening of wave stress; Moderation of wave impact; Decreasing wave surge Shoreline Reduction/ Prevention of coastal erosion (or e.g. shoreline, dunes); stabilization & Shoreline accretion and seaward land expansion accretion Wind speed Reduction of wind speed/ force reduction Table A.3. List of examples: Co-benefits Co-benefits List for examples Alternative livelihood strategies: Improvement of forestry, fisheries, or agriculture income; Improvement of forestry, fisheries, or agriculture Agriculture, production or production methods (e.g. climate-smart agriculture); fisheries & forestry Diversification of forestry, fisheries, or agriculture livelihoods; Income from income non-timber forest products (such as bee keeping, other non-timer forest products); Capacity and skills building Employment, Service sector employment; Off-farm wage labor; Capacity and skills enterprise & building; Increase of property value; Improvement of market access; property Decrease in traffic congestion Reduction in loss of quality of life (e.g. reduced DALY); Improvement of Public health solid waste management Increase in species diversity or abundance, enhancement of populations of Biodiversity rare or endangered species, other conservation benefits vi Co-benefits List for examples Carbon Sequestration of carbon dioxide sequestration Tourism & Sustainable or Eco-tourism, Increase in recreational value of sites recreation Other ecosystem Improvement of water quality & supply, urban microclimates (air & water services quality, temperature) vii ANNEX B: RESULTS Table B1. Summary: Number of projects using each Nature-based solutions used, by region Forests & Rivers & Coral Reefs & Living Region Mangroves Vegetation Floodplains Shorelines FY12-16 FY17-18 FY12-16 FY17-18 FY12-16 FY17-18 FY12-16 FY17-18 AFR 12 1 9 1 2 1 0 1 EAP 4 0 5 3 7 3 5 1 SAR 6 1 4 0 6 0 0 0 LCR 3 1 2 0 2 3 2 0 Global 0 0 1 0 2 0 2 0 MNA 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ECA 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Urban Green Inland Wetlands Coastal Wetlands Dunes & Beaches Spaces FY12-16 FY17-18 FY12-16 FY17-18 FY12-16 FY17-18 FY12-16 FY17-18 AFR 5 1 0 1 4 1 3 1 EAP 1 1 4 2 1 0 0 2 SAR 1 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 LCR 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 Global 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 MNA 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 ECA 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Table B2. Summary: Number of projects using each Nature-based solutions, by Global Practice Global Forests & Rivers & Coral Reefs & Living Mangroves Practice Vegetation Floodplains Shorelines FY12-16 FY17-18 FY12-16 FY17-18 FY12-16 FY17-18 FY12-16 FY17-18 ENV 16 3 5 2 9 5 7 2 SURR 7 1 14 2 8 2 1 0 Water 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 AGR 4 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 Transport 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Urban Green Inland Wetlands Coastal Wetlands Dunes & Beaches Spaces FY12-16 FY17-18 FY12-16 FY17-18 FY12-16 FY17-18 FY12-16 FY17-18 ENV 2 2 7 3 4 2 0 0 SURR 6 1 0 1 4 0 5 3 Water 2 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 AGR 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Transport 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 viii Table B3. Summary: Number of projects addressing each Natural Hazards, by region Region Coastal flooding River flooding Coastal erosion FY12-16 FY17-18 FY12-16 FY17-18 FY12-16 FY17-18 AFR 3 3 11 3 4 3 EAP 8 4 6 3 6 4 ECA 0 0 1 0 0 0 LCR 5 3 2 1 2 2 MNA 1 0 0 0 0 0 SAR 5 0 5 0 2 0 Global 2 0 1 0 1 0 Landslides & Drought Urban flooding erosion FY12-16 FY17-18 FY12-16 FY17-18 FY12-16 FY17-18 AFR 8 1 11 1 6 3 EAP 3 3 1 0 2 2 ECA 0 0 2 0 0 0 LCR 2 1 2 1 1 3 MNA 0 0 0 0 1 0 SAR 3 1 3 0 2 0 Global 0 0 0 0 1 0 Table B4. Summary: Number of projects addressing each Natural Hazard, by Global Practice Global Coastal flooding River flooding Coastal erosion Practice FY12-16 FY17-18 FY12-16 FY17-18 FY12-16 FY17-18 ENV 14 7 8 2 9 7 SURR 8 3 12 5 6 2 Water 1 0 4 0 0 0 Agriculture 1 0 2 0 0 0 Transport 0 0 0 0 0 0 Landslides & Drought Urban flooding erosion FY12-16 FY17-18 FY12-16 FY17-18 FY12-16 FY17-18 ENV 9 1 14 2 3 2 SURR 4 4 1 0 9 6 Water 3 0 1 0 1 0 Agriculture 0 0 3 0 0 0 Transport 0 1 0 0 0 0 ix Table B5. Summary: Number of projects listing each Disaster Risk Reduction benefit Disaster risk reduction benefits Number of mentions FY12-16 FY17-18 Coastal energy management 19 6 Shoreline stabilization & accretion 22 7 Wind speed reduction 9 2 Redirection & drainage of flood & storm water 14 5 Storage & infiltration of flood & storm water 18 5 Reduced loss of life 18 5 Reduced loss of transport infrastructure 21 11 Reduced loss of water infrastructure 17 4 Reduced loss of urban infrastructure 26 8 Slope Stabilization 24 4 Soil composition maintained 19 2 Groundwater recharge & water table stabilization 14 2 Table B6. Summary: Number of projects listing each Co-benefits Number of mentions Co-benefits FY12-16 FY17-18 Employment, enterprise & property 31 5 Agriculture, fisheries & forestry income 25 11 Biodiversity 23 2 Public health 13 6 Tourism & recreation 9 5 Carbon sequestration 6 4 Other ecosystem services 9 1 x ANNEX C: PROJECT TABLE Coral reefs & living shorelines NBS Commitment (US$ mn) Total project Commitment Forests & vegetation Landslides & erosion Technical assistance Rivers & floodplains Urban green spaces Intervention type Geographic scale Dunes & beaches Coastal wetlands Coastal flooding Inland wetlands Coastal erosion Global Practice Urban flooding Approval year River flooding Mangroves (US$ mn) Drought Region Project Name Nigeria Erosion and Watershed AFR ENR 405.97 500 2012 Hybrid N X X X X Management Project Stormwater Management and AFR SURR 3.6 55.6 2012 Hybrid L X X X Climate Change Adaptation Project Managing Natural EAP SURR 19.50 150 2013 Hybrid N X X X X Hazards Project Increasing Resilience to Climate Change and EAP ENR 1.93 8.31 2013 R X X X X X X Natural Hazards in Vanuatu Community Resilience to Climate and Disaster EAP SURR 6.33 9.13 2014 Hybrid L X X X X X Risk in Solomon Islands Project Natural Resource Man- agement in a Changing AFR ENR 5.69 8.43 2014 R X X X Climate in Mali Sudan Sustainable Natural Resources Man- AFR ENR 5.23 8.35 2014 R X X X agement Project Metro Colombo Urban SAR SURR 119.5 213 2012 Hybrid L X X X X X Development Project Coral reefs & living shorelines NBS Commitment (US$ mn) Total project Commitment Forests & vegetation Landslides & erosion Technical assistance Rivers & floodplains Urban green spaces Intervention type Geographic scale Dunes & beaches Coastal wetlands Coastal flooding Inland wetlands Coastal erosion Global Practice Urban flooding Approval year River flooding Mangroves (US$ mn) Drought Region Project Name Greater Paramaribo Flood Risk Management LCR SURR 0.23 0.4 2016 X Hybrid L X X X X X Program Myanmar Flood and Landslide Emergency EAP SURR 175 200 2016 Hybrid R X X X Recovery Project Sustainable Land and AFR ENR 8.75 8.75 2014 R X X X X Water Management Integrated Coastal Zone MNA ENR 4.12 5.18 2013 R X X X X X X X Management Integrated Disaster and AFR ENR 6.61 7.29 2012 N X X X X X X X X X Land Management Climate Change SAR ENR 2.4 5 2015 L X X X X Adaptation Project Wetlands Conservation and Coral Reef Monito- SAR ENR 2.13 3.83 2012 X L X X X ring for Adaptation to Climate Change Marine Conservation LCR ENR 2 5.53 2015 L X X And Climate Adaptation Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Coastal EAP ENR 9.4 14.6 2014 Hybrid R X X X X X X X X X Resources and Communities Coastal Embankment SAR SURR 5 400 2013 Hybrid R X X X X X Improvement Project xii Coral reefs & living shorelines NBS Commitment (US$ mn) Total project Commitment Forests & vegetation Landslides & erosion Technical assistance Rivers & floodplains Urban green spaces Intervention type Geographic scale Dunes & beaches Coastal wetlands Coastal flooding Inland wetlands Coastal erosion Global Practice Urban flooding Approval year River flooding Mangroves (US$ mn) Drought Region Project Name Climate Resilient Partici- patory Afforestation SAR ENR 24.60 33.8 2013 R X X X X and Reforestation Project Sindh Resilience Project SAR SURR 44 100 2016 Hybrid R X X X X Mekong Delta Integra- ted Climate Resilience EAP ENR 242.7 310 2016 Hybrid R X X X X X and Sustainable Livelihoods Project Cities And Climate 15.7 AFR SURR 12.8 2015 L X X X X Change 5 Odra-Vistula Flood ECA Water 23.58 168 2016 Hybrid N X X X Management Pacific Resilience EAP ENR 16.13 23.6 2017 Hybrid N X X X X X X Program - Phase II Tanzania Urban 50.9 SAR SURR 33 2016 Hybrid L X X X X Resilience Project 4 Disaster Vulnerability LCR SURR 3.82 30 2016 Hybrid R X Reduction Bihar Rural Roads Transp SAR 235 2017 Hybrid R X X Project ort Ningbo Sustainable EAP SURR 77.3 150 2017 Hybrid R X X X X Urbanization Project Dar es Salaam Metropo- litan Development AFR SURR 52.2 300 2015 Hybrid L X X Project xiii Coral reefs & living shorelines NBS Commitment (US$ mn) Total project Commitment Forests & vegetation Landslides & erosion Technical assistance Rivers & floodplains Urban green spaces Intervention type Geographic scale Dunes & beaches Coastal wetlands Coastal flooding Inland wetlands Coastal erosion Global Practice Urban flooding Approval year River flooding Mangroves (US$ mn) Drought Region Project Name Jiangxi Wuxikou Flood EAP Water 0.48 100 2013 X Hybrid X Management Project Community Action Project for Climate AFR ENR 45 63 2012 N X X Resilience Environmental Land and 14.8 Management and Rural ECA ENR 10.14 2013 R X X 6 Livelihoods Environmental Land Management and Rural ECA ENR 2.16 3.8 2015 R X X Livelihoods - Additional Financing Decentralized Forest 20.2 and Woodland AFR ENR 10.1 2014 R X X 6 Management Niger Disaster Risk Management and AFR SURR 39.65 100 2014 Hybrid R X X X X X Urban Development Project Niger Disaster Risk Management and AFR SURR 6.65 6.65 2014 Hybrid R X X X X X Urban Development Project - GEF Agriculture and Natural Resources Landscape AFR AGR 5 40 2016 Hybrid L X X Management Project xiv Coral reefs & living shorelines NBS Commitment (US$ mn) Total project Commitment Forests & vegetation Landslides & erosion Technical assistance Rivers & floodplains Urban green spaces Intervention type Geographic scale Dunes & beaches Coastal wetlands Coastal flooding Inland wetlands Coastal erosion Global Practice Urban flooding Approval year River flooding Mangroves (US$ mn) Drought Region Project Name Sustainable Land AFR ENR 32 50 2014 R X X X Management Project-II Sustainable Land 12.9 Management Project-II - AFR ENR 9.4 2014 R X X X 6 GEF Adaptation of Nicara- gua's Water Supplies to LCR ENR 2.45 6 2013 Hybrid R X X X X X Climate Change Coastal Region Water Security and Climate AFR Water 10.5 200 2015 Hybrid L X X X Resilience Project Senegal: Economic Analysis of Coastal AFR ENR 0.5 0.5 2014 X Hybrid R X X X X Adaptation to Climate Change Additional Financing - Stormwater Manage- ment and Climate AFR SURR 1 38 2015 Hybrid L X X X X X X X Change Adaptation Project Enhancing Urban Resilience in the 0.38 Greater Accra AFR SURR 0.38 2017 X Hybrid L X X X X X X X 4 Metropolitan Area (GAMA) xv Coral reefs & living shorelines NBS Commitment (US$ mn) Total project Commitment Forests & vegetation Landslides & erosion Technical assistance Rivers & floodplains Urban green spaces Intervention type Geographic scale Dunes & beaches Coastal wetlands Coastal flooding Inland wetlands Coastal erosion Global Practice Urban flooding Approval year River flooding Mangroves (US$ mn) Drought Region Project Name Assam Flood, Erosion and River Management SAR ENR 250 250 2019 Hybrid R X X X X X Modernization Project Strengthening Critical Infrastructure Against ECA SURR 19 50 2018 Hybrid N Natural Hazards Philippines Program for Climate Resilience: Technical Assistance for EAP ENR 0.15 0.15 2017 X N X X X the Risk Resiliency and Sustainability Program Mekong Delta Integra- ted Climate Resilience EAP ENR 4.8 6.2 2018 X R X X X X X X and Sustainable Livelihoods Project Dedicated Grant Mechanism for LCR ENR 6.5 6.5 2015 R X X X X Indigenous Peoples Madagascar Emergency Food Security and Social AFR AGR 32.5 65 2014 Hybrid R X X X X Protection Project Mauritania Integrated AFR ENR 2.9 2.9 2015 X Hybrid L X X Coastal Planning Espirito Santo Integra- ted Sustainable Water LCR AGR 14.5 225 2014 R X -X X X X Management Project xvi Coral reefs & living shorelines NBS Commitment (US$ mn) Total project Commitment Forests & vegetation Landslides & erosion Technical assistance Rivers & floodplains Urban green spaces Intervention type Geographic scale Dunes & beaches Coastal wetlands Coastal flooding Inland wetlands Coastal erosion Global Practice Urban flooding Approval year River flooding Mangroves (US$ mn) Drought Region Project Name Uttarakhand Decentra- 121. lized Watershed SAR AGR 62.8 2014 R X X X 2 Development II Project Uttarakhand Disaster SAR SURR 7 250 2014 Hybrid R X X Recovery Project Andhra Pradesh Disas- SAR SURR 35 250 2015 Hybrid L X X X X X ter Recovery Project Resilient Landscapes 10.2 LCR ENR 4.05 2018 R X X Management Project 7 West Africa Coastal Areas Resilience AFR ENR 157.2 232 2018 Hybrid I X X X X X X X X X Investment Program Coastal Resilience in West Africa: Fostering partnerships for the AFR ENR 0.25 0.25 2018 X Hybrid I X X X regional development of coastal areas Capturing coral reef ecosystem services EAP ENR 2.4 4.5 2014 I X X X X X (CCRES) Green and Inclusive 0.15 Growth in Yucatan LCR ENR 0.16 2016 X Hybrid R X X X 6 Peninsula Kinshasa Urban Development and AFR SURR 0.05 0.05 2018 X Hybrid L X Resilience Project xvii Coral reefs & living shorelines NBS Commitment (US$ mn) Total project Commitment Forests & vegetation Landslides & erosion Technical assistance Rivers & floodplains Urban green spaces Intervention type Geographic scale Dunes & beaches Coastal wetlands Coastal flooding Inland wetlands Coastal erosion Global Practice Urban flooding Approval year River flooding Mangroves (US$ mn) Drought Region Project Name Managing Natural Wealth for Resilient Growth and Livelihoods: SAR ENR 0.29 0.29 2017 X Hybrid X Unleashing the Poten- tial of the Blue Economy Post-Disaster Needs Assessment of Tropical EAP SURR 0.16 0.16 2016 X N X X X X Cyclone PAM in Vanuatu Kiribati Adaptation EAP SURR 0.46 3 2012 Hybrid N X X X X Phase III Philippine Rural EAP AGR 12.24 2015 X X X Development Project Enhancing Green Urban Development in Sub- AFR SURR 1.37 1.37 2014 X Hybrid I X X X X Saharan Africa Sundarbans Targeted SAR ENR 0.8 2015 X R X X X Environmental Studies Can Tho Urban Development & EAP SURR 250 2016 Hybrid L X X X X Resilience WAVES Partnership: Methodology Worl ENR 0.3 2014 X Hybrid I X X X X Development and Policy d Applications xviii Coral reefs & living shorelines NBS Commitment (US$ mn) Total project Commitment Forests & vegetation Landslides & erosion Technical assistance Rivers & floodplains Urban green spaces Intervention type Geographic scale Dunes & beaches Coastal wetlands Coastal flooding Inland wetlands Coastal erosion Global Practice Urban flooding Approval year River flooding Mangroves (US$ mn) Drought Region Project Name Towards Green Water Worl Water 0.1 0.1 2014 X Hybrid I X X X X X X X X X X Defence in East Asia d Lao PDR Southeast Asia Disaster Risk EAP SURR 1.00 31 2018 Hybrid L X X X X Management Cambodia Southeast Asia Disaster Risk EAP SURR 56 61 2017 Hybrid L X X X Management Forest Sector Moderni- zation and Coastal EAP ENR 104.84 150 2017 F X X X X Resilience Enhancement Panama City Waterfront Redevelopment and LCR SURR 0.08 0.08 2018 X Hybrid L X X X X X Resilience Program Incorporating mangrove ecosystems into the urban resilience LCR ENR 0.05 0.05 2017 X Hybrid L X X X X strategy for Panama City Introducing ecosystem- based solutions as a layer of protection for LCR SURR 0.25 0.25 2017 X Hybrid N X X X X X X resilient transport infrastructure assets xix Coral reefs & living shorelines NBS Commitment (US$ mn) Total project Commitment Forests & vegetation Landslides & erosion Technical assistance Rivers & floodplains Urban green spaces Intervention type Geographic scale Dunes & beaches Coastal wetlands Coastal flooding Inland wetlands Coastal erosion Global Practice Urban flooding Approval year River flooding Mangroves (US$ mn) Drought Region Project Name Resilient Natural Resource Management AFR ENR 9 150 2018 Hybrid R X X for Tourism and Growth (REGROW) Note: Region: AFR = Africa; MNA = Middle East & North Africa; LCR = Latin America & the Caribbean; EAP = East Asia & the Pacific; ECA = Europe & Central Asia; SAR = South Asia; GP: ENR = Environment; SURR = Social, Urban, Rural & Resilience; Transport = Transport & Digital Development; AGR = Agriculture; Geographic scale: I = International; N = National; R= Regional (subnational); L = Local; xx