Download how good are we at mainstreaming adaptation?

Putting Climate Change Adaptation
in the Development Mainstream:
Moving from Theory to Practice
Shardul Agrawala
WDR 2010 – Workshop on Climate Governance and Development
Berlin, 28-30 September 2008
OUTLINE
 The Case for Integrating (Mainstreaming) Adaptation
 How good are we at Mainstreaming Adaptation ?
- In a development context ?
- In OECD countries ?
 Key Challenges to Implementing and Mainstreaming
Adaptation
 Some Priorities for the Road Ahead
1. THE CASE FOR MAINSTREAMING ADAPTATION
THE CASE FOR MAINSTREAMING ADAPTATION
 Adaptation is closely intertwined with development priorities
 Development activities often automatically enhance adaptive capacity
 Other development activities, however, risk promoting mal-adaptation
 Climate change impacts, meanwhile, can undermine many
development projects and priorities
 Adaptation is therefore not a stand-alone agenda, but needs to be
integrated in national, sectoral, regional, and local planning processes,
as well as at the project level
THE CASE FOR MAINSTREAMING ADAPTATION
From a development co-operation perspective, very significant ODA flows
are directed at activities that are climate sensitive – incorporating
consideration of climate change risks in such investments will be critical
2. HOW GOOD ARE WE AT MAINSTREAMING?
HOW GOOD ARE WE AT MAINSTREAMING ADAPTATION?
 Considerable progress has been made on addressing adaptation
within climate change specific activities (assessments, action plans etc.)
but such initiatives have generally not made the cross-over to “line
Ministries” or national budgetary processes.
 Donors have also recognised adaptation in high level declarations,
and have made progress on screening projects for climate risks.
 However, National Development Plans, Poverty Reduction Strategy
Papers, Donor Country Assistance Strategies, and project documents
generally do not pay attention to climate change, or often not even to
current climate risks.
 Policy coherence between immediate development objectives and
what might be needed for adaptation is also a major concern. Many
development choices driven by short term objectives frequently result in
mal-adaptation
HOW GOOD ARE WE AT MAINSTREAMING ADAPTATION?
But What About Developed Countries ?
Progress on Adaptation in OECD/Annex-1 Countries
Climate change impact
assessments
Historical
climatic
trends
Moving towards implementing
adaptation
Advanced impacts assessment,
but slow development of policy responses
Early to
advanced
stages of
impact
assessment
Iceland
Hungary
Portugal
Estonia
Latvia
Russia
Japan
Romania
Denmark
Korea
Slovenia
Ukraine *
Belarus
Bulgaria
Croatia
Mexico
Slovak Republic
Norway
Czech Republic
Liechtenstein
Germany
Austria
Lithuania
Greece
Italy *
Spain
Ireland
Finland
Poland
Switzerland
Sweden
United States
Canada
New Zealand
Belgium
Australia
France
Netherlands
United
Kingdom




















Climate
change
scenarios




































Impact
assessments






































Gagnon-Lebrun and Agrawala, 2008
Adaptation options and policy responses
Identification
of adaptation
options































Mention of
policies
synergistic
with
adaptation
Establishment
of institutional
mechanisms
for adaptation
responses
Formulation
of adaptation
policies/
modification
of existing
policies
Explicit
incorporation
of adaptation
in projects













































HOW GOOD ARE WE AT MAINSTREAMING ADAPTATION?
Mainstreaming adaptation to climate change remains more
aspirational than operational ….. in both developing country
and OECD contexts

 In other words, the resource gap – while important in a
negotiations context - might not be the only key bottleneck
The debate about financing – while clearly important – might
obscure much more fundamental challenges faced in the
successful integration of climate risks.
3. BARRIERS TO MAINSTREAMING ADAPTATION
Some Barriers to Mainstreaming Adaptation
 We
don’t quite know how! ...Especially at the strategic level.
Mainstreaming adaptation remains more mantra than practice
We don’t quite know how much it would cost
Sectoral planners/development agencies already face a
“mainstreaming overload” from agendas ranging from gender
to sustainable development competing for inclusion.
Some Barriers to Mainstreaming Adaptation
 Many development projects are funded for 3-5 year time
horizons and may not be the best vehicle for long-term climate
risk reduction
 Adaptation might also be less attractive than more visible
investments such as disaster recovery and where funding
modalities are better established
Adaptation to the longer term risks posed by climate change
may also require greater specificity/certainty in climate
projections (particularly at the local level) than might be
currently available. Often, even information on baseline
climatology is uneven.
Some Barriers to Mainstreaming Climate Change
 There
might also be genuine trade-offs between Climate
and Development
- Diversion of scarce resources from more pressing priorities
- Climate considerations might at times require not developing critical
resources which might be seen as hampering development
- Inclusion of climate considerations in projects might be viewed as one
more “checkbox”, complicating operating procedures and raising costs
- There may also be downside risks associated with making decisions
based on uncertain climate projections
4. SOME PRIORITIES FOR THE WAY FORWARD
National Level Policies and Plans
National Visions; Poverty Reduction Strategies; Multiyear Development Plans
1. Need Whole
of Government
Approach to
Integrating
Adaptation
Allocate
budget
Propose investment /
expenditure in different sectors
Sectoral Level
Sector Development / Investment Programme
Identification &
selection of
projects
Enabling
Conditions for
local-level
adaptation
Propose projects that support
sectoral goals
Project level
Project Cycle
Community as Decisionmaking TARGETS /
Community as decision-making
RESOURCES / PARTICIPANTS
BENEFICIARIES
Top-down Project
implementation
Bottom-up project identification,
design, implementation, monitoring &
evaluation
Community level
Individual, household & local
institutional action to manage
climate risks
Learn-by-doing:
Generation of
adaptation-relevant
information through
experiences & learning
Top-down
Project
implementation
Urban / Municipal
level
Local
information about
development priorities,
climate risks / changes,
vulnerabilities and coping
capacities
Feeding local
information into
decision-making
at different levels
16
Example: Integrating Adaptation in National Processes
POLICY CYCLE
STAGES
National Long-term Visions
Policy Formation
National short to medium term policies, e.g. PRSPs
Multi-year Development Plan
Planning
Propose
Investment/
Expenditure
Resource Allocation
National Budget
Allocate
Budget
Programming/
Implementation
Sector-level
Development
Plan
Budget
Envelope
Sector-level
Development
Plan
Budget
Envelope
Sector-level
Development
Plan
Budget
Envelope
17
Sector X
Sector Y
Sector Z
An Example: Integrating Adaptation in National Processes
 National Policies
 Apply a climate lens
 Public Finances
 Mobilise new resources
 Add climate adaptation screen to criteria for assessing programmes
 Institutional governance framework
 Cross-sectoral coordination needed
 Updating/greater flexibility of climate sensitive regulations/standards
 Government analytical and information sharing capacity
 New tools & skills required for applying climate lens & screening
4. Some Priorities for the Way Forward
2. Making climate information more relevant and usable
- Multi-model projections, clear articulation of uncertainties
- Emphasis on implications at the scale at which development decisions
are made
- Need national / regional priority rankings [instead of catalogues] for
key climate change impacts based on urgency, certainty, timing, and
the significance of the resource affected
4. Some Priorities for the Way Forward
3. Better Information on Costs and Benefits of Adaptation
- Global “price-tags” problematic, and might be counter-productive
- Greater emphasis needed on costs of policy integration
- Better understanding of transition versus long term costs
- Better understanding of direct versus economy wide costs
- Costs without clear articulation of associated benefits of adaptation
measures (and their sustainability) have limited value
4. Some Priorities for the Way Forward
4. Greater Clarity of Role of Dedicated Adaptation Financing
- When to use dedicated funds (as opposed to mainstreaming) ?
- How to best utilise scaled up funds for adaptation ?
- How to prioritise across countries/sectors ?
- Project based or strategic approaches ?
- How to measure Progress ?
4. Some Priorities for the Way Forward
5. Not just Financing, but also Incentivising Adaptation
- A majority of adaptation actions would be undertaken by private actors.
-
The role of public policy (and public financing) in this context is to
establish the right enabling environment and incentives for
internalisation of the risks of climate change in these private choices
-
Regulations (e.g. zoning), market mechanisms (pricing of scarce
resources, risk sharing), and public private partnerships should
therefore also be given much greater emphasis
Putting Climate Change Adaptation
in the Development Mainstream:
Moving from Theory to Practice
Shardul Agrawala
WDR 2010 – Workshop on Climate Governance and Development
Berlin, 28-30 September 2008