Step 6.4A: Rapid screening

The rapid screening process focuses on selecting the most promising and realistic finance solutions and excluding those that are not. It seeks the solutions that bear the highest potential for implementation and the largest impact. The BIOFIN team can run a rapid screening and/or implement it during a workshop. The input to the screening is the list of finance solutions (existing and potential) from Step 6.3. Each solution can be scored on a scale of 0 to 4 (0 being worst, 4 being best as shown in Table 6.1) against three criteria:

Impact on biodiversity

The significance and scale of the biodiversity impact can be judged in different ways, e.g. by its urgency, the presence of key biodiversity areas or endangered species, and the value of ecosystem services.8

Financial impact

The potential scale and sustainability of the resources that can be leveraged, i.e. how much? for how long? and how stable?

Likelihood of success

A general assessment of the technical, social, and political feasibility of the proposed solution.

The above criteria can be adapted slightly to suit the country context, but this might imply more time and costs. For example, the likelihood of success could be expanded by scoring technical, social, and political feasibility separately.

Table 6.1: Rapid Screening Criteria and Scoring Guidance

Criteria Scoring Guidance

Impact on biodiversity

  • 4

    Very high impact on threatened/endangered species and habitats (biodiversity) and critical ecosystem services.

  • 3

    High impact on biodiversity and ecosystem services.

  • 2

    Moderate impact on biodiversity and ecosystem services.

  • 1

    Low impact or high uncertainty about the same.

  • 0

    No or insignificant impact.

Financial impact

  • 4

    Potential to mobilize or save a very high amount of resources. A significant impact on the biodiversity finance agenda.

  • 3

    Potential to mobilize or save a high amount of resources. Approximately about 5-15 percent of current expenditure or financing needs.

  • 2

    Potential to mobilize or save a moderate amount of resources. Approximately between 1-5 percent of current expenditure or needs.

  • 1

    Potential to mobilize or save a low amount of resources. Approximately under 1 percent of current expenditure or needs.

  • 0

    Minimal scale of resources mobilized or saved compared to current expenditures or needs.

Likelihood of success

  • 4

    Very high likelihood of success. Broad political and social support and sound commercial viability (if relevant). No operational challenges known. Strong record or expectation of success, replicability or scalability in comparable contexts.

  • 3

    High likelihood of success. Sufficient political and social support. Commercially viable (if relevant). Operational challenges are manageable. Relevant record of success, replicability or scalability in comparable contexts.

  • 2

    Moderate likelihood of success due to limited political and social support or known operational or technical barriers. Limited commercial viability (if relevant). Limited record of success, replicability or scalability in comparable contexts.

  • 1

    Low likelihood of success due to high political and social resistance or major operational or technical barriers. Limited commercial viability (if relevant).

  • 0

    Virtually no chance of success under current conditions. Commercially unviable (if relevant).

If there is uncertainty about whether a solution should be retained, then it is usually better to retain it for further analysis rather than risk losing a potentially viable solution. A cut-off score can be set to produce a desired number of solutions for the next level of screening (see Figures 6.2 and 6.3). The desired number of solutions that make it through the preliminary screening should reflect the capacity of the BIOFIN team, associated experts and stakeholders to conduct the detailed prioritization (Step 6.4B). Figure 6.3 shows analysis from the BIOFIN data tool capturing the application of screening criteria in South Africa.

Figure 6.3: Example of Screening Criteria in the BIOFIN Data Tool