Upload
rodger-thompson
View
215
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
NAPA Experiences
First thoughts for the ECBI WorkshopNaivasha, 28-30 September 2006
Balgis Osman ElashaTom Downing
The process
● Interviews with NAPA teams● Questionnaire● Review of draft and final NAPA documents● Expert dialogues
Interview with NAPA teams
Issues discussed ● Approaches for developing NAPA● Lessons learned ● Strengths and weaknesses● The way forward
Questionnaire
● General information● Status of the NAPA● Focus of the assessment● Methods employed● Ranking process● Lessons learned (what worked best, gaps
and constraints etc. )● Opportunities
Expert dialogue in Cape Town
● Knowledge of climate change may be low in some ministries and organisations, but experience in resource and risk management
● Expertise (and mandate) for adaptation may not be located in organisations with a lead for coordinating NAPAs
● Criteria agreed for the NAPA process have led to urgent projects that are oriented toward basic development
● Need to bridge scales, between implementation at the local level and national to international policy
Review of draft and final NAPA documents
Status No. of projectsBangladesh Submitted 15Bhutan Submitted 9
Submitted 12Cambodia Draft 39Comoros Draft 3Lesotho Draft 14Liberia Submitted 3Malawi Submitted 5
Mauritania Submitted 25
Niger Submitted 14
Samoa Submitted 9
Uganda Submitted 9
157
Burkina Faso
Scale of project targets
● Majority are sector-wide efforts
● None target specific vulnerable social group or pool efforts across countries
Project scale
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Community Sector National
Project types
● Vast majority are investment in specific development interventions
● A range of projects seek to raise awareness, develop the information base for adaptation and/or build institutional capacity
● Relatively few propose reforming institutions and regulation
● Two propose insurance as an adaptation mechanism
Project type
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Aw
are
ne
ss
Info
rma
tion
&
Re
se
arc
h
Ca
pa
city
bu
ildin
g, E
WS
Ma
ins
tre
am
ing
& p
lan
nin
g
Inv
es
tme
nt
Ins
titu
tion
al
refo
rm &
reg
ula
tion
Fin
an
cia
l &
ins
ura
nc
e
What worked well
● Awareness created● Capacity building at all levels● Involvement of experts from different sectors● Selection of sectors and stakeholders ● Etc.
Ranking process (1)
● Using a computer software ( e.g. Definite, HiView, NAPASSESS)
● Targeting specific groups (e.g. livelihood-sensitive matrix)
● Using participatory stakeholder consultation process
● Stratified ranking (contribution to social, economic and env. Issues)
Ranking process (2)
● Social (quality of life, no. of beneficiaries, etc.)● Env (reducing degradation)● Economic (contribution to SD)
● Weights given to different criteria vary according to local priorities ??
Ranking process (3)
● Technical feasibility● Economic costs and benefits● Levels of stakeholders involvement● Losses avoided● Sustainability of livelihoods● Cross cutting issues and synergetic approach● Magnitude of impacts
Policy issues● What is the project baseline?
– GEF guidance on the additional action justified as adaptation to climate change
● What is the policy aim?– Climate proofing, climate resilience, climate aware
● What is the justification for funding the action from limited climate change sources rather than mainstream development funding?– Link between urgent needs and additional climatic risks:
baselines, trends, scenarios
● How can we learn from our experience?● Project-level and community-scale activities, program
approach or integration with sectoral policies ??