Skip navigation

Please find below the judging results for your proposal.

Finalist Evaluation

Judges'' comments


Clear pro-active risk reduction proposal. Well articulated. As is indicated the Build Change team hopes to complement existing experiences and networks; the articulation of that synergy would therefore have elucidated more.

While the need for strengthening housing resilience of urban poor is critical, the proposal does not directly meet the objectives of the contest in terms of linking social protection (not clear in this proposal) with climate risk insurance. The focus of the proposal is more on bundling financial products (credit and insurance) for strengthening resilience. The proposal in its current form would have benefitted from (i) introducing a third arm of social assistance (in addition to credit and insurance), especially since Government of Philippines have programs on social assistance, such as the 4P; (ii) description of the housing microfinance sector, which tends to operate quite differently from overall microfinance; (iii) description of land tenure issues as it tends to be a key factor dis-incentivizing urban poor to invest in strengthening their housing; and (iv) explanation of current housing insurance schemes in the country, especially for urban poor and the scope of expanding such schemes to look at climate risk. While the proposal mentions government disaster risk finance and insurance strategy, it does to explain the focus of the strategy and how urban insurance for urban poor fits in the strategy (if at all).

Semi-Finalist Evaluation

Judges'' ratings


Novelty:
Feasibility:
Impact:
Presentation:

Judges'' comments


Dear authors,
Thank you very much for your proposal to our contest. The judges have decided to advance your proposal to the Semi-Finalists round. For the revision phase, we would like to provide you with some feedback from the judges that should help you improve your proposal and address open questions for the finalist round.
Overall, the judges found your proposal clearly articulated and appealing and the innovative concept fits well into the InsuResilience Global Partnership and UN Climate Resilience Initiative’s focus areas.
However, the contest judges have identified the following areas where they see room to further improve your proposal:
• Please clarify if the proposal seeks only piloting or also implementation.
• The link to ‘insurance’ needs to be more clearly explained and outlined.
• The target market of your proposed idea must be determined.
• The proposal assumes a pro-active role of the primary insurer, but shows only limited activities to ensure buy-in from these stakeholders.
• Please explain in detail how the link between climate risk management and retrofitting houses, works. Most importantly, the project should focus on a broader framework of NatCats, because earthquakes are not listed as climate risks in the InsuResilience definition.

Please also note that, as semi-finalists to the contest, you are requested to provide a detailed budget for the spending of the seed funding (40,000 euros) that the team winning the Judge’s choice award will be granted for the implementation of their proposal.

Good luck and all the best,
The contest fellows

0comments
Share conversation: Share via:
No comments have been posted.