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

Overview:1 Policy overview + NAPA and

NAPs

2 Methods and sources

3 State of current practice:1 Risk assessment and ranking

2 Adaptation strategy design

3 Adaptation plan implementation and funding

4 Stakeholder engagement

5 Capacity building

4 Recommendations

NAPs and Agriculture: A learning workshop

1 Policy overview

• Established in 2010 by the UNFCCC to help facilitate effective medium- and 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 NAPsObjective:

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 long-term 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 NAPsRationale:

NAPA NAP

• 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.

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


NAPAs and NAPsProcess:

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 NAPsProcess 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.


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.

NAPAs and NAPs


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 funding3.4 Stakeholder engagement3.5 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.


Risk assessment and ranking impact and vulnerability cont:

Example of country vulnerability and risk assessment:

Long-term projections: to 2050Region specific: National dataMulti-sectoral: NAPA: basic assessment of intensity of sectoral impactsCost-benefit: NAPA: livelihoods analysis approach


Risk assessment and ranking impact and vulnerability cont:

Example of country vulnerability and risk assessment:

Long-term projections: to 2100Region specific: Yes, based on agro-climactic zonesMulti-sectoral: NoCost-benefit: No


After vulnerability and risk, countries assess impacts on eco-regional, 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 or impacts on availability of drinking water and water- borne disease.

Risk assessment and rankingimpact and vulnerability cont:


• 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

Risk assessment and rankingimpact and vulnerability cont:


Risk assessment and rankingPrioritization 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/implementationPrioritization and ranking of response activities

Methods:

• Group perceptions

• Nominal group method

• Criteria weighing

• Weights and indicators

• Cost-benefit analysis

• Cost-effectiveness analysis

• Multi-criteria analysis

Findings:

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

• 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 cost-effectiveness 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


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!

3.2 Strategy design/implementation

Prioritization and ranking of response activities cont:


Country examples:


Prioritization and ranking of response activities cont:

Ethiopia(Orindi and

King’uyu 2013 on NAPA)

Assigned weight based on the level of risk, poverty reduction potential, and cost-effectiveness, which helped in qualifying the actions.

Ghana(NCCAS)

Priority actions selected based on: (a) resilience of the adaptation 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(Orindi and

King’uyu 2013 on NAP)

Managing climate risks + alignment with Medium Term Plan (MTP) 2013-2017 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 multi-sectoral and includes stakeholders

Kenya National Climate Change Secretariat current focal point, oversees technical issues. Proposed establishment of a high-level 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 well-qualified 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 decision- making 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)

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

Special Climate Change Fund

(SCCF)

GEF administered, non-LDC developing countries, long-term and short-term adaptation activities in various sectors, including agriculture

Adaptation Fund 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)

Cancun 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 financeLDCF:• 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 business-as-usual or baseline development).


NAP finance

GEF Council support for NAP processes through LDCF and

SCCF

PlanningPrepatory activ-itiesImplementa-tion*

* 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 financeEstablish 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 KissingerPrincipal, Lexeme Consulting

[email protected]

READ MORE: Blog: New report highlights lessons from national adaptation planningPublication: Planning climate adaptation in agricultureEvent archive: Agriculture in national adaptation plans: experiences and lessons learned

http://ccafs.cgiar.org/research-highlight/new-report-highlights-lessons-national-adaptation-planning#.UoXtE_nkvZF

http://ccafs.cgiar.org/publications/planning-climate-adaptation-agriculture#.UoXsu_nkvZE

http://www.ccafs.cgiar.org/unfccc-side-event-agriculture-national-adaptation-plans-experiences-and-lessons-learned#.UoXsvfnkvZE

http://www.ccafs.cgiar.org/unfccc-side-event-agriculture-national-adaptation-plans-experiences-and-lessons-learned#.UoXsvfnkvZE

planning climate adaptation in agriculture

Technology