Day 2: Prioritisation of Adaptation Options

Day 2: Prioritisation of Adaptation Options

• 1.
  Coordinating Climate-Resilient Development Prioritising adaptation activities 11.00-11.20;16/03/2016 Olivia Palin, Acclimatise
• 2.
  “Selection and prioritizationof adaptation options is important because not all adaptation options will be possible owing to constraints such as - insufficient local resources - capacities, and - authority. Furthermore, some adaptation options can be maladaptive if they foreclose other options.” IPCC 2015 Working Group II (chapter 14) Why?
• 3.
  Kristie Ebi etal (2009) > $200 million needs (CC and health research in US) < $ 3 million allocated  Prioritise  Explore additional sources of funding
• 4.
  4 Adaptation Fund projecteligibility criteria Country Eligibility  Has the government endorsed the project through its Designated Authority? Project Eligibility Resource Availability Eligibility of Implementing Entity Implementation Arrangements Eligibility of Implementing Entity Implementation Arrangements Review Criteria  Does the project support concrete adaptation actions to address the adverse effects of climate change and build in climate change resilience?  Does the project provide economic, social and environmental benefits, with particular reference to the most vulnerable communities, including gender considerations, while avoiding or mitigating negative impacts, in compliance with the Fund policies?  Is the project cost-effective?  Is the project consistent with national strategies for sustainable development, national development plans, poverty reduction strategies, national communications or adaptation programs of action, or other relevant instruments?  Does the project meet the relevant national technical standards, where applicable, in compliance with the Environmental and Social Policy of the Fund?  Is there duplication of project with other funding sources?  Does the project have a learning and knowledge management component to capture and feedback lessons?  Has the project provided justification for funding on the basis of full adaptation cost?  Does the project align with the AF results framework?  Has the sustainability of the project outcomes been taken into account when designing the project?  Does the project provide an overview of environmental and social impacts / risks identified? GIZ (2015) CliFiT Training slides. Adaptation Fund Project/Programme Review Criteria
• 5.
  When? Willows & Connell(2003) Climate adaptation: risk, uncertainty and decision-making
• 6.
  Element B: Preparatoryelements (2, 3, 4) Element C: Implementation strategies Least Developed Countries Expert Group. 2012. National Adaptation Plans. Technical guidelines for the national adaptation plan process. Bonn: UNFCCC secretariat. Bonn, Germany.
• 7.
  Methods for prioritisation •Rank climate change vulnerabilities/ risks How? Govt of Nepal, 2010. Composite vulnerability map of sensitivity, exposure and adaptation capacity Identifies districts that are highly vulnerable and therefore need adaptation interventions urgently. Score depends on weighting of indicators within vulnerability index.
• 8.
  Kenya National Climate ChangeAction Plan: Adaptation Technical Analysis (2012) Consequence scoring example (agriculture) 1: Slight losses of annual production and/or livestock covered by normal contingency allocations. Livelihood: Non-stressed. Phase 1: No Acute Food Insecurity. 5: Catastrophic losses of more than 50% of annual production and/or livestock. Livelihood: Near complete collapse. Phase 5: Catastrophe Food Insecurity
• 9.
  Methods for prioritisingadaptation options Group perceptions – questionnaire method Questionnaires to obtain perceptions on priorities from different groups. Answers are scored & ranked  priority Nominal group method Assigns responsibility to prioritize to small group (usually experts). Group members assign decision-making criteria and score/ rank by consensus Criteria weighting Numerical method: assigns priority ranking to activities based on how they score against predefined criteria Weights & indicators Weights applied to criteria (% or fractions) based on understanding of their relative importance by stakeholders Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) Balancing the cost of interventions against their benefits (using single metric – monetary values) Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) Costing of different options (usually that achieve same objective); ranking to find the least costly option Multi Criteria Analysis (MCA) Ranking against a # of criteria (when valuation in monetary terms not possible/ appropriate) Least Developed Countries Expert Group. 2012. National Adaptation Plans. Technical guidelines for the national adaptation plan process. Bonn: UNFCCC secretariat. Bonn, Germany.
• 10.
  GIZ. 2015. NAPTraining of Trainers Course Material Selecting an approach
• 11.
  Possible criteria forprioritization » Effectiveness in reducing vulnerability & increasing resilience » Efficiency (increasing benefits & reduce costs) » Equity » Integration with broader social goals, activities » Consistency with social norms & traditions » Legitimacy & social acceptability » Sustainability (environmental, institutional) » Flexibility (can respond to feedback & learning) » Avoids maladaption » Robustness against wide range of climate and social scenarios » Resource availability (e.g. info, finance, leadership, mngt cap) » Transformative » Coherence & synergy with other objectives (e.g. mitigation) What would be important to you? IPCC, 2015, Working Group II, Chapter 14, ext from Table 14-2
• 12.
  To what extentis this measure aligned with ‘priority areas approved by the Cabinet’? To what extent can this measure be feasibly implemented within 5 years, according to available human, tech, instit, legal, admin. resources? To what extent is this measure transformative? Score / Rank 3: To a great extent (directly addresses 2+ priority areas) 3: Highly feasible. Resources available. 3: Potential for replicating/ upscaling, for knowledge & learning, and contributes to enabling environment 2: To a moderate extent (directly addresses 1 priority area) 2: Moderately feasible. Moderate resource gaps could be sourced externally. 2: Potential for replicating/ upscaling, for knowledge & learning, and/or contribution to enabling environment 1: To a limited extent (indirectly addresses priority area(s)) 1: Limited feasibility. Major resource gaps would be costly to resource externally. 1: Limited potential for types of transformation described above 0: Not at all 0: Unfeasible. 0: No potential for replicating/ upscaling, for knowledge & learning, and/ or contribution to enabling environment. e.g. Multi Criteria Analysis
• 13.
  13 MCA: potential criteriafor selecting projects Countries Funders • Site-specific context (e.g. urgency, social acceptance) • High-level political support and / or local priorities • Objectives set for mitigation or adaptation planning (e.g. poverty reduction or emission reductions) • Potential for transformational change • Development benefits • Cost-effectiveness • Environmental impacts • Ease of implementation • Stakeholder support • Attractiveness to funders • Robust MRV or M&E systems • Potential for transformational change • Embedded in national policy • Share of national co-financing • Private sector leverage • Institutional capacities of implementing entity • Replicability • Innovation Source: GIZ (2015) CliFiT Training slides. Adopted from: Ecofys 2013. MRV Summer School training materials
• 14.
  Reflections • Prioritisation canoccur at a variety of stages • There are different approaches – each with pros and cons • It is important to select a method that suits your data/ info availability and capacity • Deciding on a sectoral, thematic and/or geographic approach is relevant • Participation in selecting criteria & conducting ranking, validation is important • Criteria and their weighting is significant to driving results • Consideration of balance of national needs and access to international funds is required.
• 15.
  References • Ebi etal. 2009. U.S. Funding Is Insufficient to Address the Human Health Impacts of and Public Health Responses to Climate Variability and Change. • GIZ. 2015. NAP Training of Trainers Modules. • GIZ. 2015. CliFiT Training of Trainers Modules. • Govt of Nepal (2010) NAPA Vulnerability report • Govt of Kenya (2012) NCCAP Adaptation Technical Analysis (Risk Report) • IPCC. 2015. Working Grouo II report. • Least Developed Countries Expert Group. 2012. National Adaptation Plans. Technical guidelines for the national adaptation plan process. Bonn: UNFCCC secretariat. Bonn, Germany. • Willows & Connell (2003) Climate adaptation: risk, uncertainty and decision-making
• 16.
  www.napglobalnetwork.org [email protected] @NAP_Network #NAPGN Financial support providedby Secretariat hosted by
• 17.
  4 corners exercise •Four flip charts, one in each corner of the room, each with a different question on it relating to issues/ challenges associated with prioritizing adaptation activities • Please go to one corner – splitting up from your country team members as much as possible • Susann, Fred, Hayley, Liv as facilitators • One rapporteur
• 18.
  4 questions • Whichactors should be involved in prioritizing adaptation activities/ actions and why? • Which prioritization approaches are most effective and in which circumstances? (If time: What are the various advantages and challenges of the approaches discussed?) • It is necessary for needs highlighted in climate vulnerability/ risk assessments to be addressed in prioritization of actions? If yes, how can one ensure that these needs are addressed in prioritization of actions? • How can a country effectively balance its own priorities with those of international funds (reflected in fund project selection criteria)?