Planning climate adaptation in agriculture

Planning climate
adaptation in agriculture:
Meta-synthesis of national adaptation plans
in West and East Africa and South Asia
Gabrielle Kissinger and Donna Lee

Presentation: Gabrielle Kissinger
Lexeme Consulting
National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) and agriculture: A learning workshop
CGIAR CCAFS
13 - 14 November 2013, Warsaw, Poland

Overview:
1

Policy overview + NAPA and
NAPs

2

Methods and sources

3

State of current practice:
1
2
3
4
5

4

Risk assessment and ranking
Adaptation strategy design
Adaptation plan implementation
and funding
Stakeholder engagement
Capacity building

Recommendations
NAPs and Agriculture: A learning workshop

1 Policy overview
• Established in 2010 by the UNFCCC to help facilitate effective mediumand long-term adaptation planning and implementation in developing
countries, in particular Least Developed Countries (LDCs)
(FCCC/CP/2011/9/Add.1)

• Adaptation Committee est. under Cancun Adaptation Framework
promote the implementation of enhanced action on adaptation.
Special attention paid to facilitation of NAPs by non-LDC developing
country Parties. Will contribute to, and not duplicate work of the Least
Developed Countries Expert Group (LEG) to support LDC national
adaptation plan processes and the Subsidiary Body for Implementation
(SBI) on the work programme concerning loss and damage.
• LEG Technical Guidelines for NAPs.


Countries
reviewed


Analytical framework


2 Methods & Sources
• Country NAPAs
• Agriculture and sector development plans
• National Climate Change Plans
• National Communications to UNFCCC
• CCAFS country meetings (2011 – 2012)

• Compilation of case studies on national adaptation
planning processes: Note by the UNFCCC secretariat
(2012) - Key doc on common criteria and indicators
used in national-level adaptation planning


NAPAs and NAPs

Source: Kissinger, G. and T. Namgyel, 2013. NAPAs and NAPS in Least Developed Countries. IIED LDC Paper Series.

NAPAs and NAPs
COP 17 in Durban defined NAP process objectives

(FCCC/CP/2011/9/Add.1):

(a) ―reduce vulnerability to the impacts of climate change, by
building adaptive capacity and resilience,‖ and
(b) ‖ facilitate integration of climate change adaptation, in a
coherent manner, into relevant new and existing
policies, programmes and activities, in particular development
planning processes and strategies, within all relevant sectors and at
different levels, as appropriate‖.
…And recognised that adaptation planning will be
―continuous, progressive and iterative.‖


NAPAs and NAPs
Objective:
NAPA

NAP

Simplified and direct
channels of
communication for
information relating
to the urgent and
immediate
adaptation needs of
the LDCs

• To build upon NAPAs, to medium- and longterm adaptation needs + strategies
programmes to address them.
• Reduce vulnerability, build adaptive capacity
and resilience, continuous, progressive and
iterative process.
• Facilitate integration of climate change
adaptation into relevant new and existing
policies, programmes and activities, in
particular development planning processes
and strategies, within all relevant sectors and
at different levels, as appropriate.

Source: Kissinger, G. and T. Namgyel, 2013. NAPAs and NAPS in Least Developed
Countries. IIED LDC Paper Series.


NAPAs and NAPs
Rationale:
NAPA
• High vulnerability and low
adaptive capacity of LDCs
requires immediate and urgent
support to start adapting to
current and projected adverse
effects of climate change.
Activities proposed through
NAPAs would be those whose
further delay could increase
vulnerability, or lead to
increased costs at a later
stage.

NAP
• Provides a means for LDC and
developing countries to enhance
action on adaptation under the
n Adaptation Framework


NAPAs and NAPs
Process:
NAPA

NAP

• NAPA team to identify urgent
and prioritised adaptation
actions. Activities may include
capacity building and policy
reform, and may be integrated
into sectoral and other policies.
• Country-driven, participatory
and multidisciplinary approach
for adaptation planning and
prioritisation while considering
sustainable development,
gender equality, environmental
management, and cost
effectiveness

• Integrating adaptation into
development planning processes
and sectors - now an objective,
not recommendation.
• While country-driven, also
includes: gender sensitivity,
vulnerable groups, communities
and ecosystems and the use of
the best available science, and
where appropriate, local and
traditional knowledge.


NAPAs and NAPs
Process cont.:
NAPA

NAP

• NAPA document containing
priority adaptation actions for
implementation submitted to
the UNFCCC.
• Implementation phase of
prioritised adaptation actions in
NAPA recognised and supported
through the LDC Fund.
• The NAPA document can be
revised or updated based on
new climate risks or other
circumstances

• Guidelines and support for NAP
process aims to enhance the
enabling environment for
mainstreaming adaptation and in
assessing vulnerability and
adaptation.
• Outputs to include NAPs and
implementation strategies for
addressing climate
vulnerabilities but
implementation of such plans
and strategies is not yet
addressed.

NAPAs and NAPs
Process cont.:
NAPA

NAP
• No single document for communicating
priority adaptation actions to the UNFCCC.
Progress on ―NAP process‖ can be
communicated in National Communications or
through ―other channels.‖
• NAP process is continuous, progressive and
iterative.


3 State of current practice
3.1 Risk assessment and ranking
• Impacts and vulnerabilities
• Prioritization and ranking

3.2 Adaptation strategy design and intervention
• Prioritization and ranking of response activities
• Identification of (existing or new) institutional
structures needed to coordinate and/or implement
strategy activities
• Integration with development and agriculture sector
plans

3.3 Adaptation plan implementation and funding
3.4 Stakeholder engagement
3.5 Capacity Building

3.1 Risk Assessment and ranking
Impacts and vulnerabilities:
• Most countries build on observed trends in
temperature and rainfall patterns,
applying models to predict how climate
change will affect temperature and
rainfall patterns in the future, though
there are regional differences in technical
capacity for modeling and scenario
projections.


impact and vulnerability cont:
Example of country vulnerability and risk assessment:

Long-term projections: to 2050
Region specific: National data
Multi-sectoral: NAPA: basic assessment of intensity of sectoral impacts
Cost-benefit: NAPA: livelihoods analysis approach

Example of country vulnerability and risk assessment:

Long-term projections: to 2100
Region specific: Yes, based on agro-climactic zones
Multi-sectoral: No
Cost-benefit: No


After vulnerability and risk, countries assess impacts on ecoregional, region-specific, socioeconomic or sector-specific elements:
• Burkina Faso (NAPA) - brief assessment of potential impacts on
water, agriculture, livestock and forestry sectors.
• India‘s ―4x4 Assessment:‖ sectoral and regional analysis, assessing CC
impacts (to 2030) on four key climate dependent sectors—
agriculture, water, natural ecosystems and biodiversity, and human
health—in the four major climate-sensitive regions—Himalayas, the
northeastern region, the Western Ghats, and the coastal regions.
• Bangladesh, Ghana and Burkina Faso consider impacts on
populations, particularly those highly vulnerable to climatic change (rural
poor).
• Bangladesh, Senegal and Niger considered impacts on health—projecting
changes in malarial areas due to temperature and precipitation changes
NAPs water- borne disease.
or impacts on availability of drinking water and and Agriculture: A learning workshop

• For most countries reviewed, impact assessments are entirely sector
based, after first identifying general trends in vulnerability.
• Economic impacts of climate risks are not commonly assessed by
countries reviewed, though some make projections:
 Kenya: Annual cost of climate change impacts USD $1 to 3 billion/yr. by 2030.

• Many countries apply socioeconomic criteria to evaluate impacts on the
poor and most vulnerable populations, or apply cost-benefit analyses:
 Bangladesh, Burkina Faso and Ghana apply a livelihoods approach; Senegal
prioritized Dakar‘s municipal water needs and agricultural demands.

• Vulnerability and risk assessments benefit from a comprehensive and
coordinated approach that applies the same methodology across regions
and sectors, which allows for comparison and a subsequent ranking of
risks and prioritization of adaptation activities

Prioritization and ranking of risk:
Methods to rank climate risk: useful to direct limited resources to most urgent
risk, and/or identify the most vulnerable sectors, populations or geographies.
Consider different time periods (e.g. short-, medium-, and long-term)
Criteria

Rationale

Magnitude

Quantitative or qualitative

Probability, likelihood,
level of confidence

Likelihood of the risk resulting in a certain impact
and the level of confidence in those estimations

Reversibility

Irreversible impacts ranked higher than reversible
ones. Technological and practical solutions to
address?

Urgency of action

High immediate damage potential or irreversible
and longer term ranked higher.

Adapted from: UNFCCC, 2012: Compilation of case studies on national adaptation
planning processes.


• Countries reviewed largely follow UNFCCC prototype guide to
assist non-Annex I Parties prepare the vulnerability and
adaptation section of their NatComms which focuses on
assessment of four sectors.
• Criteria to assess risk: UK example: a) magnitude, b) level of
confidence, c) urgency of action, d) rates of change and
geographical extent, e) connectivity (cross-cutting risks), f)
policy relevance, g) agency (can government action address the
risk), h) international dimensions.
• LEG adds two more: biophysical sensitivity to the effects of
climate change, and the types of impacts, such as human
impacts and threat to livelihoods


Most countries reviewed apply criteria to rank climate risk, though
often do not make clear how assessment of these elements affect
prioritization of adaptation actions.
 Level of confidence in assessing risks
 Connection between climate risk ranking criteria and evaluating
responses to risks

 Vagueness in how conflicting vulnerability assessment results are
resolved in the prioritization of response options (e.g. Niger rainfall)
 Use analytical (e.g. crop models) and process elements (e.g. expert
group and stakeholder consultation in risk assessment)

 Difficult to account for the changing socioeconomic status of
populations in emerging economies, increased urbanization, and
other complex factors to project and model 20-100 yrs out.

3.2 Adaptation strategy design and
implementation


3.2 Strategy design/implementation
Prioritization and ranking of response activities
Methods:

Findings:

• Group perceptions

• More than one method often used but
countries often not explicit about this!

• Nominal group method
• Criteria weighing
• Weights and indicators

• Cost-benefit analysis
• Cost-effectiveness analysis
• Multi-criteria analysis


• Countries apply multi-criteria analysis,
nominal group methods, criteria
weighing and cost-benefit analysis are
most commonly used, and often in
multistep prioritization processes
 Ethiopia: weights and indicators method,
assigning weights to each criterion
 Bangladesh: Multi-criteria analysis,
rather than cost- benefit or costeffectiveness analysis, due to lack of
concrete and quantifiable data in some
places

Examples of cross- or multisectoral analysis to prioritize adaptation
actions:
1. Nepal (NAPA): ―Thematic working groups‖ – Agriculture and
Food Security, Forest and Biodiversity, Water Resources and
Energy, Climate Induced Disasters, Public Health, Urban
Settlements and Infrastructure. Stakeholder comprised,
identified priority activities + combined project profiles.
2. Ghana: ―Akropong Approach‖ – results in cross-sectoral project
plan. Logical framework analysis + multi-criteria analysis to
rank importance of activities (see next)


Ghana‘s ―Akropong Approach‖


Expert consultation + participatory decision-making: Niger and Mali
Local analyses or geographic assessments to inform nat‘l planning:
Nepal‘s series of LAPAs
Countries reviewed prioritized the following criteria most
frequently:
 Protecting the most vulnerable and poor
 Cost-effectiveness (overall cost)
 Promoting sustainable development and/or natural resource use

 Improving livelihoods (or avoiding losses)
 Promoting adaptive capacity

Prioritization and ranking of response activities cont:
Alignment with national development or sector plans:
• Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Niger and Uganda this included
national development priorities, Millennium Development
Goals (MDGs), and MEAs,
• Tanzania and Nepal focused more narrowly on national
priorities and goals (may or may not include MDGs, etc.).
Need more socio-economic assessment of impacts of
adaptation options!


Prioritization and ranking of response activities cont:
Country examples:
Ethiopia Assigned weight based on the level of risk, poverty reduction potential,
(Orindi and
King‘uyu 2013 on
NAPA)

and cost-effectiveness, which helped in qualifying the actions.

Ghana Priority actions selected based on: (a) resilience of the adaptation
(NCCAS)

intervention; (b) how sustainable the intervention will be; (c) the
potential to have multiplier effects (co-benefits) as a result of the
implementation of the adaptation intervention; (d) extent of replicability
of the intervention; and (e) how feasible the whole intervention is.

Kenya Managing climate risks + alignment with Medium Term Plan (MTP) 2013(Orindi and
King‘uyu 2013 on
NAP)

2017 priorities (socioeconomic development). Four broad criteria, across
the sectors: Urgency and ease of implementation in short-term,
compatibility with NCCAP adaptation and MTP actions, visualized to have
no-regrets if implemented.

Institutional structures needed:
Ethiopia

Climate-Resilient Green Economy (CRGE) Ministerial
Steering Committee (under Prime Minister‘s Office);
agriculture is a technical subcommittee

India

Advisory Council on Climate Change, chaired by Prime
Minister, provides coordination and focal point. Is multisectoral and includes stakeholders

Kenya

National Climate Change Secretariat current focal point,
oversees technical issues. Proposed establishment of a highlevel National Climate Change Council (NCCC) in the Office
of the Presidents‘ cabinet office, with authority to convene
ministries

Mali

National Climate Change Committee (CNCCM) (est. 2011)
coordinates government strategies; Environment and
Sustainable Development Agency (est. 2010) developing
national CC policy

Institutional structures needed:
• Few countries identify how subregional and local institutions and
capacity will be developed.
• Many countries still lack an institutional framework to
effectively coordinate and implement adaptation activities
(Nepal is a model)
• Key institutions suffer from a shortage of technically wellqualified staff
• Private sector—key for implementation—often noticeably absent
from strategic planning (Kenya, India and Bangladesh models for
how to include)
• Consider: convening and leadership powers more important
than understanding of technical requirements of NAP? (OECD)

Integration with development and agric sector plans

Ethiopia

The CRGE strategy integrates economic growth, mitigation
and adaptation concerns into a government wide development
strategy under Prime Minister‘s Office.

India

National Action Plan on Climate Change priorities linked to the
12th Five Year Plan and sectoral plans, which also provides the
basis for State Plans (BUT temporal links not coherent
between NAPCC, NMSA, 2nd NatComm and 12th 5-Yr Plan).

Kenya

NCCAP informed mainstreaming of CC into second Medium
Term Plan (MTP 2013-2017) to implement Vision 2030.

Mali

New (2010) Environment and Sustainable Development Agency
seeks to mainstream CC objectives into development polices,
project, programmes.

Tanzania

The VP‘s Office (in 2012), ―Guidelines for Integrating Climate
Change Adaptation into National Sectoral Policies, Plans and
Programmes of Tanzania‖

Integration with development and agric sector plans
• Structural and institutional issues: Agency mandates, capacity,
corresponding bodies at regional or local levels to percolate down
• Integrated adaptation assessments and integrated action plans

• How to strategically place adaptation priorities within the broader
national policy framework? Need policies with precedence over
others (such as development and fiscal policies) to guide decisionmaking and the necessary linkages.
• Aligning and mainstreaming into national development or sector
plans can enable funding for implementation through government
budgetary allocations (and leverage donor funds for ‗additional‘)


3.3 Adaptation plan
implementation and funding
• Define long-term plan for NAP plan and
implementation funding before this stage.
• Timeline for implementation of activities, including
intention to review
• Iteratively assess conflicts and synergies with
national development or sectoral plans (crucial in
plan implementation)
• Engage monitoring and evaluation (M&E) system as
early as possible: initial focus on process elements
not outcomes

• M&E reating the right enabling environment for
adaptation at the outset, enable downward
accountability, M&E at all relevant scales

Funding

Source: CPI, Global Landscape of Climate Finance 2013


Adaptation finance

Source: CPI, Global Landscape of Climate Finance 2013


Int‘l sources of adaptation finance:
Least Developed
Countries Fund
(LDCF)
Special Climate
Change Fund (SCCF)
Adaptation Fund

GEF administered, adaptation top priority, $ for
preparation of NAPs, LDC-focused

GEF administered, non-LDC developing countries,
long-term and short-term adaptation activities in
various sectors, including agriculture
Financed through a 2% share of the proceeds from
Kyoto CDM CERs; mandate is to fund concrete
adaptation projects and programmes in developing
countries

Pilot Program for
Climate Resilience
(PPCR)

Within World Bank CIF Strategic Climate Fund;
integrating climate risk and resilience into core
development planning and implementation

The Green Climate
Fund (GCF)

n decision (FCCC/CP/2010/7/ Add.1): ―a significant
share of new multilateral funding for adaptation
should flow through GCF‖ ―..[to] support developing
countries in pursuing project- and programmatic
approaches,‖ …including NAPs.

Adaptation finance
LDCF:
• Cumulative donor pledges: US$ 605.3 million
• 47 countries completed NAPAs, 46 have accessed US$ 537.90
million for 109 projects for urgent and immediate adaptation
needs.
• GEF pursuing the principle of equitable access to the LDCF to
balance support for NAPAs and NAPs.
• Objectives, principles, scope and modalities for GEF support
(for LDCF and the SCCF), for NAP processes is based on the
initial COP guidelines for NAPs: laying the groundwork and
addressing gaps; preparatory elements; implementation
strategies; and monitoring, reporting and review.
• Re: integration of adaptation into development policy and
planning: any request for funds should follow the principle of
additional cost (adaptation costs are added to costs of businessas-usual or baseline development).

NAP finance
GEF Council support for NAP
processes through LDCF and SCCF

Planning
Prepatory
activities
Implementation*

* GEF Council support for these activities unclear
at this time

NAP Finance: Green Climate Fund
• Direct and enhanced direct access are potential options under
GCF: lower transaction costs + downward financial
accountability.
• Developing country institutions seeking accreditation under
the two climate funds that allow limited direct access – the
Adaptation Fund and the GEF – have been challenging.

• GDF access modalities in process. GCF Board Decision of
March 2013 identified an area of convergence, such
that, ―[t]he Fund will have a country-driven and owned
approach, employ direct access, and other access
modalities, and leverage additional public and private
resources,‖ and, further, noted ―[the Fund should] commence
as a fund that operates through accredited national, regional
and international intermediaries and implementing agencies‖

NAP finance
Establish domestic sources of funding; can decrease
dependency on fickle donor finance, but still benefit from
bilateral funding arrangements
Examples:
• Bangladesh Climate Change Resilience Fund (BCCRF) - multi-donor
trust fund, managed and implemented by the Government of
Bangladesh; some fiduciary management, transparency and
accountability functions performed by the World Bank.
• Rwanda‘s Fonds National de l‘Environnement (FONERWA), the new
basket fund created to address climate change and environmental
degradation


3.4 Stakeholder engagement
• What is meaningful and
participatory stakeholder
engagement?
• How to support
participation?
• Private sector notably absent

• Critical to include local
needs and vulnerable groups
• Distribution of
responsibilities spreads
accountability for
implementing, monitoring
and reporting progress

3.5 Capacity building
• Most common capacity constraints:

• Climate observation systems
• Technical and institutional capacity
• Limited finance
• Plan for implementation capacity needs at outset (LEG Guidelines)
• How to link science into policy-making? India
• Look beyond government: bring in all sectors and actors
• Partnerships to address capacity constraints are critical
 Kenya: Focus on “enablers” to address barriers:
technology, finance, capacity building and knowledge management
and MRV

4 Recommendations
1. Strengthen capacity to identify and rank climate risks and prioritize
response activities.
2. Downward accountability and adaptive institutions are critical.
Ongoing assessment of institutional frameworks for adaptation
planning and implementation that can effectively coordinate and
implement a holistic national adaptation plan will be critical at all
levels, including local ones.
3. Define long-term solutions for adaptation planning and
implementation funding that is sufficient and geared towards
building strong institutions and capacity.


4 Recommendations
4. Strengthen analytical capacity for integrated approaches to
adaptation planning that a) considers combinations of
crop, livestock, rangeland, forestry, fishery and agroforestry
activities and aquatic and ecosystem function needs and b) helps
define adaptation and mitigation synergies.
5. Focus policy analysis and action towards integrating adaptation
strategies into development objectives and existing sectoral
policies, and provide funding for implementation at least in part
from national budgetary allocations.
6. Widen stakeholder engagement in assessment, design and
implementation of adaptation plans.


Thank you!
Gabrielle Kissinger
Principal, Lexeme Consulting
gabrielle@lexemeconsulting.com
READ MORE: Blog: New report highlights lessons from national adaptation
planning
Publication: Planning climate adaptation in agriculture
Event archive: Agriculture in national adaptation plans: experiences and
lessons learned


Planning climate adaptation in agriculture

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Mais procurados (20)

Destaque

Destaque (20)

Semelhante a Planning climate adaptation in agriculture

Semelhante a Planning climate adaptation in agriculture (20)

Mais de CCAFS | CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security

Mais de CCAFS | CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (20)

Último

Último (20)

Planning climate adaptation in agriculture

Notas do Editor