CF_D10 D1.2 Scoping study for a one stop-shop

Funded by the European Union. Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union. Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them. Confidential Scoping study for a onestop-shop Deliverable 1.2 1 © CLIMATEFIT Consortium, 2024 This deliverable contains original unpublished work except when indicated otherwise. Acknowledgement of previously published material and of the work of others has been made through appropriate citation, quotation, or both. Reproduction is authorised if the source is acknowledged. This document has been prepared in the framework of the European project CLIMATEFIT. This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon Europe programme under grant agreement no. 101112705. The sole responsibility for the content of this publication lies with the authors. It does not necessarily represent the opinion of the European Union. Neither the CINEA nor the European Commission are responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein. Deliverable Number and Name D1.2. Scoping study for the CLIMATEFIT website / One Stop Stop and e-learning platform Work Package WP1. Stocktake, understand and capitalise Dissemination Level PU – Public Author(s) Sandrine Dhénain, Noémie Autran, Louise de Torcy, Alice Ferrant Primary Contact and Email Alice Ferrant [email protected] Date Due 30/04/2024 Date Submitted 28/05/202X File Name D1.2 OSS Scoping study_20240528 Final Status Final version Reviewed by (if applicable) Amandine Josseron, Marco Carreira Silva Suggested citation 2 For Public Deliverables only and to be removed before submission on, the platform! LinkedIn and website communication: Short text describing the deliverable to the general public (~5 lines): CLIMATEFIT is considering the development of a One-Stop-Shop dedicated to both Public Authorities and Financing and Investment Entities, providing material for bridging the climate adaptation financing gap. This report investigates the information materials and services needs as well as the existing on-line portals used by the project participants (FIEs and PAs). Based on this analysis, it draws up two One Stop Shop development scenarios considering the needs of both types of users and responding to the weaknesses of existing platforms. Image for illustration: 3 ABBREVIATIONS Abbreviation Description API Application programming interface FIE Financing and investment entities EEA European Environment Agency NbS Nature-based solutions OSS One-Stop-shop PA Public authority 4 GLOSSARY Application programming interface: Set of rules or protocols enabling software applications to communicate with each other to share data, features and functionality Financing & investment entity (FIE): Organization or stakeholder that enable or do the provision of any type of funding and financing solutions for climate adaptation. (CLIMATEFIT project definition) Public authority (PA): Local, regional, or national authorities that have the legal mandate to address climate change within their political jurisdictions. (CLIMATEFIT project definition) 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The general objective of the One-Stop-Shop (OSS) is to provide a knowledge platform to assist in bridging the climate adaptation financing gap between public authorities and private investors and to guide users through CLIMATEFIT’s results. This report investigates the information materials and service needs as well as the existing on-line portals used by the project participants (FIEs and PAs). In terms of content, it appears that Public Authorities (PAs) would benefit from methodologies to develop and structure their financing plans (models, data, and clear processes concerning investments in adaptation). They also lack guidance about the types of investors and investments addressing climate resilience projects and about financial instruments and funding strategies. PAs need case studies illustrating investment requirements and a place to showcase their adaptation projects to investors. Financial Institutions and Entities (FIEs) would benefit from an access to business cases, clear definition of what qualifies as a successful climate adaptation project and how adaptation projects fit into the investment market. FIEs also need material for a better understanding of characteristics of adaptation projects and sustainability disclosure requirements. Interactive networking solutions and case studies constitute a strong expectation of both targets. Within CLIMATEFIT, both audiences are targeted by a capacity building programmes, which will be made available online at the end of the projet through e-learning modules. Considering the results of the scoping study, these modules would be valuable to the OSS. However, it has not been further explored within the scope of the current study. Two scenarios are developed in this scoping study: a scenario with two distinct platforms to address separate target audiences: an OSS dedicated to PAs hosted by ClimateAdapt, and the creation of a platform dedicated to FIEs; a scenario with a single platform for both audiences, requiring the creation of one ad-hoc OSS. A SWOT analysis of each scenario is realised. The scoping study (D1.2) for the CLIMATEFIT website / One Stop Shop and e-learning platform aims at proposing an outline for the One Stop Shop in this process. This scoping study will be reevaluated and amended at the end of the project in WP5 under the deliverable D5.3. 6 Introduction The scoping study (D1.2) for the CLIMATEFIT website / One Stop Shop and e-learning platform aims at proposing an outline for the One Stop Shop in this process. This scoping study will be reevaluated and amended at the end of the project in WP5 under the deliverable D5.3. The general objective of the OSS is to provide a knowledge platform to assist in bridging the climate adaptation financing gap between public authorities and private investors. investigating the information and services needs as well as the existing on-line portals used by the project participants (FIEs and PAs). Throughout the OSS Scoping study, we need to answer the following preliminary questions: • Considering the targets of the OSS, i.e. PAs and FIEs, and their specific needs, is it possible or not to have only one OSS? What are the main specific information and service needs of PAs and FIEs? o For example: general information, best practices, Case studies, framework and tools – for instance to support decision making, knowledge, “projects markets / project posting”, guide for investors, etc. • What are those main end-users' expectations? what do they do on this platform? • What are the main strengths and weaknesses of existing platforms? what do they propose and how are they structured? and what should be the main features / outlines of the OSS (what do we find on this OSS)? • What are the technical and financial needs around this OSS: o do we need a moderator, which financial and human resources are required to sustain the platform? o What is the connectivity of the OSS with other platforms? • What interdependencies must be accounted for in Exploitation and Upscale Plan (D6.6, concerning establishing intellectual property rights, for instance) and Communication and Dissemination Plan (D6.2, attracting users to the platform, for instance), among others? To summarize, the question is whether to host the OSS on an existing site, such as ClimateAdapt, the Mission Adapt Platform or CCFLA's Financial Instruments portal, or to create a new platform. In addition, we need to consider whether it would be more appropriate to host resources dedicated to both PAs and FIEs on the same site, or whether we need to make a distinction by setting up two separate platforms. On this basis, two final scenarios have been selected: • A scenario with two distinct platforms to address separate target audiences: an OSS dedicated to PAs hosted by ClimateAdapt, and the creation of a platform dedicated to FIEs; • A scenario with a single platform for both audiences, requiring the creation of one ad-hoc OSS. Our work has some limitations, due to the constraints of the study. The scenarios presented are based on a non-exhaustive literature review of the advantages and limitations of existing platforms, and on an in-depth analysis of a limited number of platforms. These platforms appear however to be representative of the existing ones, with platforms dedicated to FIEs, both public and private, and PAs, dealing with adaptation project management, or environmental project financing. The conclusions drawn can therefore be considered reliable. 7 CHAPTER 1. Methodology To carry out this study, several methodical steps were taken to guarantee the quality of the scenarios proposed. 1.1. Literature review A literature review was conducted to take stock and summarize key findings related to existing platforms. The aim was to highlight what are the main strengths and the main weaknesses of existing platforms. The literature has been selected to gather information on the expectations of users (PAs and FIEs) in terms of the supports related to adaptation finance that already exist, on the levers and obstacles for each type of user and the needs to be covered through the development of an OSS. More specifically, the literature review was designed to answer the following questions: Targeted users and their needs. ✓ Who are the targeted users of the OSS? ✓ What are the main specific needs of those stakeholders? ✓ What are those main end-users’ expectations? What do they do on this platform? Selection of adaptation financing platforms and analyze of their current functionalities. ✓ What do adaptation financing platforms propose and how are they structured? ✓ What are their main strengths and weaknesses? ✓ What should be the main features / outlines of the OSS (what do we find on this OSS)? Technical considerations. ✓ What are the technical and financial needs around this OSS: do we need a moderator, which financial and human resources are required to sustain the platform? ✓ What is the connectivity of the OSS with other platforms? ✓ What interdependencies must be accounted for in Exploitation and Upscale Plan (D6.6, concerning establishing intellectual property rights, for instance) and Communication and Dissemination Plan (D6.2, attracting users to the platform, for instance), among others? ✓ How to articulate/link the OSS with existing platforms and initiatives (UNFCCC, Race to Resilience, UNEP FI, etc.) regardless of where it is hosted? This analysis of the literature was not exhaustive, but it does provide useful insights for structuring and developing an OSS. 1.2. Results from WP1 interviews The interviews conducted as part of other WP1 tasks helped to complete the literature review. Task 1.1 on assessing the barriers and drivers to funding for territories was particularly useful. It highlighted the remaining gaps for territories in accessing finance for climate adaptation. Interviews provided insights into the content and functions that can help local authorities gain easier access to adaptation finance. Task 1.2 on understanding the views and maturity of FIEs was very useful in understanding the elements that could supper them in financing or investing in bankable adaptation projects. According to the survey conducted as part of this task, one of main barriers remains the lack of knowledge and technical advice on adaptation-related investments. 8 1.3. Shortlisting 7 platforms A benchmark of several platforms dedicated to climate change adaptation and climate finance was then carried out, with 4 objectives: • Analyze the technical and financial needs around the OSS • Examine how existing platforms are structured • Further identify the needs of PAs and FIEs that have not yet been met • Understand the possible connectivity between the future OSS and existing platforms Seventeen platforms had been pre-selected, and only seven were finally shortlisted for further analysis after a prioritization process. Prioritization was carried out to ensure that the analysis covered platforms: • aimed at PAs or FIEs; • with relevant and inspiring functionalities, tools, and resources, and; • with the possibility, in some cases, of making links with the future OSS. 1.4. Screening of 7 platforms Seven platforms were selected for screening: 1. EU Mission on Adaptation to Climate Change Portal; 2. CCFLA website; 3. Climate-Adapt; 4. the Climate Finance Lab; 5. WeADAPT; 6. IIGCC website, and; 7. UNEP-FI platform. For each of these platforms, several aspects were investigated. First, a general description of the platform was drawn up, highlighting its objectives, geographical scope, and main functionalities. Part of the analysis then focused on the platform's targeted users. Next, the platform's content was analysed, distinguishing between material and tools related to project management, decision support, financial preparation, business model set-up, case studies, etc. The platform's development mode was then described. Thereafter, the platform's development approach was analysed, in particular its reliance on user experience. The communication tools used to promote the platform were also studied. Finally, an important part of the analysis involved the platform's business model, to understand how to manage the costs of setting up the site and maintaining it. These analyses have highlighted the advantages and limitations of each platform, as well as possible links with OSS. 1.5. Complementary interviews with the platforms’ managing teams The last stage of scenario preparation involved interviewing the managing team members of the analysed platforms to deepen the analysis and fill the gap on certain missing elements (business model, development plan, etc.). The interviews included questions regarding the scenarios envisaged, to understand their positioning, and to complete the analysis of the pros and cons of each scenario. This step made it possible to refine and validate the two scenarios presented below in this document. 15 The best practice to bear in mind when developing a platform is thus to define a strategy with a set of targets at an early stage, to decide on the content production and presentation, to target an audience, to set visibility goals, and so on. This strategy must also ensure the financial viability of the project and address the question of human resources allocation for moderation, maintenance and upgrading. Several studies emphasize the need for an easy access to existing content or tools, thanks to links to other platforms. To increase the notoriety and audience, a links’ exchange strategy can be developed and could also avoid duplication of work. Then, the strategy must address the issue of long-term audience engagement, through the implementation of feedback mechanisms. Understanding but also considering the different needs, expectations and competences of information providers and users, and accepting that these might change over time, is then critical and must be considered in the strategy. A key element of this strategy is to implement a step-by-step development of the OSS, with the development of successive modules. The first step involves creating a proof of concept to gain a clear understanding of user requirements and to translate it into functional development and associated costs. Finally, the strategy must cover the monitoring, follow-up, and evaluation phase of the platform, using for instance statistics to assess stakeholder’s engagement and reach. To sum up, the platform development strategy must consider the entire platform lifecycle, from its creation, with issues relating to the audiences’ needs, to its monitoring and evaluation. CHAPTER 4. Two scenarios and a SWOT analysis The One Stop Shop to be developed during the CLIMATEFIT project faces a major challenge: it is dedicated to two distinct target audiences, FIEs and PAs, who have their own specific needs. Two scenarios are therefore envisaged, with two different approaches regarding the ability to integrate resources for both targets on the same platform: • one scenario involves splitting content for PAs and FIEs into two separate platforms • another involves keeping resources for both targets on the same platform The content of the platform(s) will not be affected by the choice of scenarios. Whatever scenario is chosen, it is essential to: • introduce functionalities enabling PAs to draw inspiration from case studies, showcase their own projects, and provide concrete investment plans and guidance on various types of investment • for FIEs: introduce business cases and material for a better understanding of characteristics of adaptation projects and sustainability disclosure requirements 16 4.1. Scenario 1: Two distinct platforms to address separate target audiences 4.1.1. An OSS dedicated to PAs hosted by Climate-Adapt Objectives and rationale Climate-Adapt is the main platform developed by the European Commission and the European Environment Agency on climate adaptation topics. It works as a hub, which gathers data and resources from many other websites and databases. In order to avoid the dispersion of content on climate adaptation and possible overlaps, the European Commission has suggested to include the OSS to Climate-Adapt. Climate=Adapt sorely lacks information related to climate adaptation funding and financing. The OSS content developed and shared by CLIMATEFIT would fill this gap in providing useful and bespoke financial knowledge to local authorities and support them in finding adaptation funding and financing solutions. In this scenario, the PAs content would thus be directly embedded into Climate-Adapt. The scenario is still a suggestion and has not been formally discussed yet. Budget This scenario would require a limited budget from CLIMATEFIT project. If integrated in ClimateAdapt development strategy, the web design and creation of needed features, as well as the update and maintenance on Climate-Adapt would rely on the platform’s budget, fed both by the European Commission and the EEA. Mainly the production of content would rely on CLIMATEFIT consortium members and could fit in the 40,000 EUR budget dedicated to the OSS. Features The inclusion of the PAs content to Climate-Adapt could follow two paths: 1) The creation of a thematic page dedicated to climate finance on Climate-Adapt. This will allow for cross-referencing of all the information enclosed in the platform’s database related to this specific topic. See example here: Adaptation in the forestry sector — Discover the key services, thematic features and tools of Climate-Adapt (europa.eu) 17 2) The creation of a sub-platform hosted by Climate-Adapt, which allow a more complex development, similar to a stand-alone website. See example her: European Climate and Health Observatory (europa.eu) Pros & Cons Pros Cons Audience well-identified on Climate-Adapt Take full advantage of the Climate-Adapt 's visibility Content that meets Climate-Adapt 's development expectations Climate-Adapt' s clear development plan allowing content to be maintained and created over time Low budget for CLIMATEFIT A very rich platform with the risk of content being drowned out by other material Climate-Adapt is not aimed at FIEs Content for FIEs is to be hosted elsewhere. This makes it difficult to create a space for discussion and networking between the two types of users. 4.1.2. Creation of a platform dedicated to FIEs Objectives and rationale Climate-Adapt is not dedicated to FIEs and FIEs are not a targeted audience in the close future. Attracting a new audience from scratch would require additional resources and efforts from Climate-Adapt managing team. It also seems difficult to attract this type of audience on a platform very much designed for PAs without causing confusion. If PAs content is hosted on Climate-Adapt, it thus seems necessary to create a separate platform for FIEs content. This would mean the development of a website dedicated to FIEs content from scratch, in addition to the content hosted on Climate-Adapt. However, this is a rather expensive option. A cheaper option could be the creation of a microsite with the WeADAPT platform to host content dedicated to FIEs. Indeed, WeADAPT provides the possibility for organizations to develop their own websites based on WeADAPT technology and design. WeADAPT is selling ready to use site models with a highlighted link on its platform. This allows the website to benefit from the WeADAPT's address book. Budget It is difficult to evaluate the necessary costs for development of a platform without knowing exactly what amount and type of content and what functionalities would be included. Nevertheless, one should keep in mind that the total cost should be divided in three categories and distributed over time: 1. Development costs: one time to launch the platform 2. Content production, moderation, and update: most of the content has to be ready for the launch of the project, but according to the development plan a budget has to be secured for the moderation, update, and production of new content 3. Maintenance and hosting of the platform: which need a budget spread over the lifetime of the platform This scenario would automatically allow to reduce costs of development as the PAs’ part costs would be supported by Climate=Adapt Platform (EEA – European Commission). Only development costs for a FIEs’ website would be needed. 18 On this matter, further investigation could identify Climate-adapt budget to upgrade the platform and introduce the possibility of the creation of a thematic page or sub-platform formally to the managing team. Features Two sub-scenarios appear possible: 1) Developing a platform from scratch. This allows complete creative freedom, but requires a larger budget, especially for long-term maintenance. 2) Developing a microsite with WeADAPT, using their know-how and features to create our own website, with personalized branding and content. This solution could allow the microsite to be taken over by another organisation when the CLIMATEFIT project comes to an end. SEI’s team said in their interview that a basic microsite could start from 12 000 euros (10 000 pounds) depending on what functions are developed, and that hosting costs could be around 700 euros (600 pounds) per year. Pros & Cons Pros Cons Dedicated content and features designed specifically for FIEs A space to interact High budget, especially if a new platform is created from scratch Difficult project sustainability at the end of CLIMATEFIT, with need for business and development plan 4.2. Scenario 2: A single platform for both audience Objectives and rationale Existing platforms dealing with climate finance and adaptation are focused on a single target audience: PAs, or FIEs. Yet the CLIMATEFIT’s One Stop Shop has two objectives: build capacities of PAs to help them identify and attract public and private financing sources and provide insight for FIEs to support them in accessing resilient investment opportunities. OSS resources are therefore aimed at two target audiences. Having the OSS hosted by another site would mean giving up a share of the audience - the FIEs in the case of Climate-Adapt. It seems possible to bring all resources together on an ad-hoc single site dedicated to two distinct target audiences. It is possible to take advantage of the services offered by WeADAPT, which proposes to create micro-sites based on its technology and design. Among other benefits, this scenario would underscore the need for collaboration between private and public players. The platform would become a virtual meeting place between two actors who do not often have the opportunity to work together and understand each other's perspective. PAs need a better understanding of FIEs expectation, while FIEs have difficulties to identify adaptation project both investable and bankable. Having everything in one site would also avoid dispersing resources, which can sometimes be useful for different audiences. Having all resources in one place avoids confusion. This scenario does not exclude the possibility of providing a link to this site from Climate-Adapt without the content being hosted. Some national platforms already operate on this model, such as the Dutch Sustainable Finance platform, hosted by the Central Bank, which brings together various government institutions, public development banks and commercial institutions from finance, business, and industry. They work together on specific issues, including adaptation financing. One of the advantages of the Dutch platform, however, lies in its regional nature: the participants may already have had the opportunity 19 to work together on a national scale. Collaboration is perhaps more complex at European level. On the Dutch Sustainable Finance platform there is no functionality for the user to sort resources and functionalities according to their category (private, public). It is also possible to quote the Finance ClimAct platform, targeting both industrials and financial institutions. A functionality is available in the main page to choose, if wanted, a specific target to sort resources. It is also possible, thanks to the resources search engine, to sort resources by target. It seems possible to guide the various targets in several ways on the site: - a function to identify the user's profile on the site's home page and adapt content accordingly - an optimized resource search engine, with functions to indicate the type of target for each resource - a site divided into two main sections: resources for PAs, resources for FIEs, with a few duplicated more general resources. Budget This scenario is the most expensive, since it requires the creation of an ad-hoc site developed and managed by the CLIMATEFIT project. The difficulty of addressing two target groups suggests that the site's development will be fairly complex, requiring precise expertise. The budget of 40,000 euros seems sufficient to create a simple platform and design it but does not include long-term maintenance and hosting costs (approximately 4,000 euros per year). Complicated functionalities, or site translations, could push the budget over the top. Using WeADAPT's offer to create a micro-site linked to theirs could help reduce costs and address funding challenges. Pros & Cons Pros Cons Possibility of building an innovative site with target-specific functionalities Possibility of creating exchange spaces between PAs and FIEs, and common content Possibility to share information in one go that is relevant for both PAs and FIEs, with a database which does not require to be adapted to two platforms. Risk of losing the audience Need to partner with other sites for referencing and attracting users Requires effort to create content tailored to both targets Difficult project sustainability at the end of CLIMATEFIT, with need for business and development plan Most expensive scenario, especially with innovative features CHAPTER 5: Specific recommendations and questions to be further developed in the full study In order to reach its goals, the OSS will have to address two main challenges: revolving around adapting its content to the needs of its audiences, then on a technical aspect, furnish a medium that is as up to date as possible with current techniques, making it a tool that can be used by a wide audience. Planning as early as possible the content strategy and future platform development will allow to evaluate costs and make the best use of available resources during the project and its after life. It is essential to include future users from the earliest stages of the project, in order to meet their needs as closely as possible. To this end, the organization of co-creation workshops is a real advantage, both in terms of time saved and cost reduction. In the CLIMATEFIT project, organizing a 20 workshop with the 20 countries, four adaptation projects to be supported and a selection of investors, will be of great value, allowing to confirm that the platform meet their needs. A deeper analysis of the needs of different type of investors, considering the key differences shaping their visions and investment strategies should also be planned. Future studies could examine the peculiarities of the financial industry and analyse how a platform could adapt for different types of private investors. For the platform to really fulfil its ambitions, an adequate budget and a dedicated business plan are imperative. The current budget of 40,000 euros is very modest for developing and hosting the platform, creating content adapted to the targets and their needs, and updating it regularly. Hosting the OSS on existing platforms (Climate=Adapt and/or WeADAPT) would allow to reduce cost and test our content and its adaptation to audience needs. It can be a first step before the development of a dedicated OSS to Climate Finance Adaptation, once a minimum of case studies and e-learning are produced, and different types of fundings identified. This beta platform developed by CLIMATEFIT would therefore be a steppingstone towards a more developed platform, benefiting from more substantial funding or financing, for example as part of another project or on a membership-based financing model, respectively. 21 References CBS / World Climate Foundation. (2023). Closing the Climate Adaptation Financing Gap – A Platform Solution. Karali, E., & Mattern, K. (2017). Communicating climate change adaptation information using webbased platforms. Advances in science and research, 14, 241-245. KE4CAP. (2021). Stepping up knowledge between Climate Adaptation Platforms. Palutikof, J. P., Street, R. B., & Gardiner, E. P. (2019). Decision support platforms for climate change adaptation: an overview and introduction. Climatic change, 153(4), 459 476. Paz, S., Bernardino, J. (2018). Comparative Analysis of Web Platform Assessment Tools in Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Web Information Systems and Technologies (pp. 45-63). REGILIENCE. (2022). D2.1. Performance and impact review of online platforms. Street, R.B., Barrott, J., Gault, J., O’Dwyer, B., van Nieuwaal, K. and Hayman, V. (2021). Stepping up knowledge exchange between Climate Adaptation Platforms: Synthesis report from the KE4CAP project. Oxford: University of Oxford 22 The CLIMATEFIT project aims to support EU territories in their just and transformational journey toward climate resilience by bridging the finance gap, providing critical insight and building the capacities of (i) Public Authorities (PAs) to identify, orchestrate and attract various public and private financing sources and (ii) Financing & Investment Entities (FIEs) to identify and access resilient investment opportunities. CLIMATFIT opens a significant opportunity to foster innovative resilience investments in vulnerable EU territories and to boost competitiveness and EU leadership in a growing market. The project will build on a deep understanding of existing initiatives to sustain systemic and catalytic resilience investments by engaging its Technical Partners, PAs and FIEs in the co-creation of twenty innovative investment strategies, ten concrete and scalable investment plans and four bankable transformational investment cases, increasing the bankability of resilient project pipelines across a diversity of scales, financing gaps, contexts, barriers to financing, climate risks and vulnerabilities, biogeographical regions, adaptive capacities and maturity regarding climate change represented from its twenty case studies grouped in three clusters: Northwestern, Eastern and Southern.