Review of NAPAs, 2007

7/29/2019 Review of NAPAs, 2007

1/42

Lessons Learned in PreparingNational Adaptation Programmes of Action

in Eastern and Southern AfricaBalgisOsman-Elasha&ThomasEDowning

europeancapacity

building

init

iative

www.eurocapacity.org

ecbi policy analysis report


2/42

2

Copyright 2007 european capacity building initiativeThis publication may be reproduced in whole or in part for educational or non-profit purposes without special

permission from the copyright holder provided acknowledgement of the source is made.

ecbi would appreciate receiving a copy of any publication that uses this publication as a source.

No use of this material may be made for commercial purposes without written permission of the copyright

holder.

European Capacity Building InitiativeBox 193, 266 Banbury Road, Oxford, OX2 7DL

Phone: +44 (0) 1865 428 427Fax: +44 (0) 1865 421 898e-mail: [email protected]

Preparedwithsupportfrom(inalphabeticalorder)theEuropeanCommissionAdaptationandMitigationStrategies

(ADAM)Project(seewww.adamproject.org),GTZ,Sida,andStockholmEnvironmentInstitute.

Theauthorsgratefullyacknowledgethecommentsoftworeviewers,IsabelleNyongDiopandKaiKimChang.

Forfurtherinformation,contact:

Dr. Balgis Osman Elasha,ClimateChangeUnit,HigherCouncilforEnvironment&NaturalResources(HCENR)P.O.Box10488,Khartoum,Sudan,Tel/Fax:+249183786903/787617

Dr Thomas E. Downing, StockholmEnvironmentInstitute,266BanburyRoad,Suite193,OxfordOX27DL,UnitedKingdom,Tel/Fax:+441865426316/421898


3/42

Table of ContentsI. Introduction 1II. The NAPA Process: History and Rationale 4III. NAPA projects submitted to the UNFCCC 8IV. Methods used to assess experiences of the NAPA teams 11V. The organisational structure of the NAPAs 13VI. Priorities and approaches 16VII. Screening, ranking and project profiles 19VIII. Lessons learned by the NAPA teams 22IX. Conclusions 27Annex 1: Costs of proposed NAPA projects for selected African LDCs 30Annex 2: Sample of questionnaire for NAPA Teams 34Annex 3: Decision 28/CP.7 Annex, Guidelines for the preparation of national adaptationprogrammes of action 37


4/42

Introduction

ationalAdaptationProgrammesof

Action(NAPAs)weremandatedin

theMarrakechAccordsofthe2001

ConferenceofParties(COP)totheUN

FrameworkConventiononClimateChange

(UNFCCC).Bylate2006,manyhadbeen

submittedtotheUNFCCCsecretariat,and

mostwerenearingcompletion(Table 1).Subsequently,afewoftheproposedNAPA

projectsarebeingpreparedforGEFand

otherdonorfunding.However,substantial

fundingoftheNAPAprojectshasyettobe

secured.Whathavewelearnedfromthis

internationalefforttoidentifyurgentneeds

andbeginimplementingpriorityclimate

adaptationprojects?

Thisreportdocumentslessonslearnedby

theNAPAteamsinEasternandSouthern

Africa.Thesynthesisisacontributionto

severaleffortsonreviewingexperiencein

climateadaptation,commissioned

specificallybytheEuropeanCapacity

BuildingInitiative(ecbi)withfundingfrom

GTZ(andotherdonors,seethe

acknowledgementsontheinsidecover

page).Theaimofthedocument,andofthe

ECBIPolicyAnalysisProgramme,istobuild

analyticalcapacitythroughcollaboration

betweendevelopingcountryprofessionals

andEuropeanexperts.

Thisreviewisintendedtoinitiatealearning

processandextractlessonsfromtheNAPA

teams.Aquestionnaireandopendialogues

withAfricanNAPAteams,stakeholdersand

otherexpertsweresupplementedbya

summaryoftheNAPAprojects.The

objectiveofthereviewistoassemble

N

2

Figure1:LeastDevelopedCountries

Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Least_Developed_Countries
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Least_Developed_Countrieshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Least_Developed_Countrieshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Least_Developed_Countries


5/42

informationandknowledgeabouttheNAPA

processinEasternandSouthernAfrica.

Thereportisstructuredasfollows:

SectionIIprovidesanoverviewoftheNAPAprocess,thehistoryofthe

initiativeandrationale,includingkey

definitions.

ThisisfollowedbyadiscussionoftheNAPAprojectsinthereports

submittedtotheUNFCCCwebsite.

Thisisnotacritiqueoftheprojects

themselves,butasynthesisofthe

typesofprojectsgivenprioritybythe

NAPAteams,includingAsia,Latin

Americaandsmallislandstates.

SectionsIV-VIIIpresenttheresultsofquestionnairesandinterviewsfor

EasternandSouthernAfrica.

InSectionIX,thereportauthorssuggestkeyconclusions.

Thisreportisintendedasthefirstina

series.Weareintheprocessofextending

thesurveytoWestAfrica(withthe

leadershipofIsabelleNyongDiopfrom

ENDA),Asia(withKaiKimChang)andsmall

islandstates(withGrahamSem).The

outcomewillbeacomprehensivedatabase

ofNAPAprojectsandanalysisoflessons

learnedfromtheNAPAteams.The

intendedaudienceisprofessionals

concernedwithNAPAimplementation.

However,theexperiencebearswider

reportingonhowcountry-drivenpriorities

canbemanagedalongsideglobalchange

needsandconcerns.

Itisimportanttoemphasisethattheresults

fromtheinterviewsreflectwhattheNAPA

teamshavelearned,ratherthanthe

personalviewsoftheauthorsonNAPAasa

processorspecificachievements.Similarly,

theanalysisofthesubmittedNAPAprojects

focusesonatabulationoftheprojectsrather

thananindependentanalysisoftheviability

orefficacyofanyoneprojectortherelative

meritsofanindividualcountry'sprogramme

ofaction.

3

Table 1:LDCsthathavesubmittedtheirNAPAstotheUNFCCCCountry Date of submission of NAPA

Bangladesh November2005

Bhutan May2006

Burundi February2007

Cambodia March2007

Comoros November2006

Djibouti October2006

Hati December2006

Kiribati January2007

Madagascar December2006

Malawi March2006

Mauritania November2004

Niger July2006

Samoa December2005

Senegal November2006

Source:UNFCCCwebsiteaccessed5April2007


6/42

The NAPA process: history and rationaleWhatistheNAPA?Simply,theNAPAisan

adaptationinitiativethataimsatbuildingthe

adaptivecapacityofthemostvulnerable

communitiesinthemostvulnerable

countries(identifiedastheLeastDeveloped

CountriesorLDCs),throughthe

identificationanddevelopmentofspecific

measuresaimingatreducingvulnerabilities

toclimatechangeofthedifferentgroupsand

sectors.Basedonthis,themainobjectiveof

theNAPAistoserveasasimplifiedand

directchannelofcommunicationfor

informationrelatedtotheurgentand

immediateadaptationneedsoftheLDCs.

TheLDCsareagroupof49oftheworlds

poorestcountries.Outof49LDCs(Figure1),32areinAfrica(around65%),including:Angola,Benin,Burkina-Faso,Burundi,Cape

Verde,CentralAfricanRepublic,Chad,

Comoros,DemocraticRepublicofthe

Congo,Djibouti,EquatorialGuinea,Eritrea,

Ethiopia,Gambia,Guinea,Guinea-Bissau,

Lesotho,Liberia,Madagascar,Malawi,Mali,

Mozambique,Niger,Rwanda,SoTom

andPrncipe,Senegal,SierraLeone,

Somalia,Sudan,Togo,Uganda,United

RepublicofTanzaniaandZambia.LDCs

generallycontributeleasttogreenhousegas

emissionsbutaremostvulnerabletothe

effectsofclimatechangeandhavetheleast

capacitytoadapttothesechanges.

Accordingtothe2005Environmental

SustainabilityIndexReport1,theLDCsare

characterisedbyhavingveryweak

institutionalcapacity,andareparticularly

vulnerabletonaturaldisasters,

undernourishment,andlacksanitationand

safewatersupply.Thecriteriaunderlying

thecurrentlistofLDCsare:

lowincome,asmeasuredbyathree-yearaverageestimateofthe

grossdomesticproduct(GDP)per

capita;

weakhumanresources,asmeasuredbyacompositeindex

(AugmentedPhysicalQualityofLife

Index)basedonindicatorsoflife

expectancyatbirth,percapita

calorieintake,combinedprimary

andsecondaryschoolenrolment,

andadultliteracy;and

lowlevelofeconomicdiversification,asmeasuredbyacompositeindex

(EconomicDiversificationIndex)

basedontheshareof

manufacturinginGDP,theshareof

thelabourforceinindustry,annual

percapitacommercialenergy

consumption,andUNCTAD's

merchandiseexportconcentration

index.

4

ThedesignationofLDCisvoluntary,

representinganofficialclassificationinthe

UnitedNationssystem(seetheUNOfficeof

theHighRepresentativefortheLeast

DevelopedCountries,Landlocked

DevelopingCountriesandtheSmallIsland

DevelopingStates(UN-OHRLLS),

www.un.org/ohrlls/).


7/42

NAPAsprovideaprocessforLDCsto

identifypriorityactivitiesthatrespondtotheir

urgentandimmediateneedswithregardto

adaptationtoclimatechange.Therationale

forNAPAsliesinthefactthatLDCshave

verylimitedcapacitytoadaptandneed

specificsupportthatwillallowthemtodeal

withtheadverseeffectsofclimatevariability

andchange.

Aninnovativebottom-upapproachtoidentify

practicalsolutionsforimprovingtheoverall

adaptivecapacityofLDCstoclimate

variabilityandchangewasputinplace

throughtheNAPAs.Thisapproachtakes

intoaccountexistinglocalcopingstrategies,

buildsuponthemandidentifiespriority

interventions.Itismeanttoreplacethemore

conventionalscenario-drivenapproachof

assessingfuturevulnerabilityandimpactsof

climatechange.

Article4.9oftheUNFCCCrecognisesthe

specificneedsandspecialsituationsofthe

LDCs.TheseventhConferenceofParties

(COP7)adoptedDecision5/CP.7which

acknowledgedthatLDCsdonothavethe

capacitiesandmeanstodealwithproblems

associatedwithadaptationtoclimate

change,andestablishedanLDCwork

programmethatincludesNAPAsaswellas

othersupportingactivities.

Decision28/CP.7settheguidelinesfor

NAPAs.AlsorelatedtotheNAPAprocess,

Decision29/CP.7setupanLDCExpert

Group(LEG)toprovideguidanceandadvice

onthepreparationandimplementation

strategyforNAPAs.Themosturgent

activitiesidentifiedduringtheNAPAprocess

willbesubmittedtotheGlobalEnvironment

Facility(GEF)(cf.Paragraph6,Decisions

7/CP.7and5/CP.7)andotherfunding

sources,withtheaimofobtainingfinancial

resourcesforimplementation.

EachNAPAteamreceivedontheorderof

US$200,000forthepreparationofthe

NAPAreports.Fundingdecisionsregarding

implementationofpriorityNAPAprojects

hadnotbeentakenattheoutsetofthe

process.Someprogresswasachievedin

NairobiatCOP12,includingprinciplesfor

administeringfundsforclimateadaptationin

LDCs.Assessmentofthecostsofclimate

adaptationandeffectivefunding

mechanismsarerequired,butbeyondthe

scopeofthisreport.

5

TheLDCshavefollowedtheAnnotated

GuidelinesforthePreparationofNational

AdaptationProgrammesofActionprepared

bytheLEG,alongwithadditionalsupport

materialprovidedthroughUNITARandthe

GEFimplementingagencies(UNDP,UNEP

andWorldBank)2.Theprocessis

summarisedinTable 2(furthercommentsontheorganisationoftheNAPAteamsin

EasternandSouthernAfricaisprovided

below).ThepreparationofNAPAsisguided

byaparticipatoryprocess,ledbya

coordinatingunitandinvolvingstakeholders

atdifferentlevels,particularlylocal


8/42

Table 2: Overview of the NAPA processTheNAPAprocessiscoordinatedbyanationalteam,withsupportfromasteeringand/ortechnicalcommittee,workingpartiesandinsomecasessub-nationalunits.Thevarioustasksarelocatedatdifferentlevelsoforganisation,butledandcoordinatedbythenationalteam.SeetheLEGAnnotatedGuidelinesandsupportingmaterialfromtheregionalworkshopsorganisedby

UNITAR(withUNDPandUNEP)foradditionalflowchartsoftherecommendedNAPAprocess(seewww.unfccc.int,www.unitar.org/ccp/napaworkshops.htm,www.unfccc.int/national_reports/napa/)

communities.Theprocessemploys

multidisciplinaryteamsconsistingof

representativesfromdifferentlivelihood

sectors(suchasagriculture,water,energy,

forestry,healthandtourism).

ThestepsforthepreparationoftheNAPAs

includetheformationoftheNAPAteams,

synthesisofavailableinformation,

participatoryassessmentofvulnerabilityto

currentclimatevariabilityandextreme

events,identificationofareasofextreme

sensitivityandwhereriskswouldincrease

duetoclimatechange,identificationofkey

adaptationinterventionsaswellasthe

criteriaforprioritisingthem,screeningandrankingoftheinterventionstocomeoutwith

aprioritisedshortlist,andfinally,the

developmentofprojectprofilesand/or

activitiesintendedtoaddressurgentand

immediateadaptationneeds.

Establish the NAPA organisationsNAPA Team(Coordination unit) Steering & technical committees Multidisciplinary working groups,regional unitsCompile baseline vulnerabilitySynthesise available impact assessments, coping strategies & past andexisting national development plans

Prepare synthesis reports,guidelines, training material Consult stakeholders; identify projectsOrganise and conduct public consultation (national and local-level workshops) Based on articulated ideas, identify interventions and project ideasPrepare profiles for priority projectsPrioritise the project ideas based on specific criteria Develop project profiles,demonstrate integration intonational development plans

6

Submit the NAPA Document


9/42

Theguidingprinciplesadoptedbythe

differentNAPAteamsencompassedmostof

thefollowing:

Abottom-upapproachthatinvolvesabroadrangeofstakeholder

groups,focusingonlocal

communities,consideringtheir

currentvulnerabilityandurgent

adaptationneeds.

Aparticipatoryprocessthatinvolvesamultistakeholderconsultation,and

two-waydiscussionsandfeedback.

Amultidisciplinaryapproach,throughtheinvolvementofa

multidisciplinarygroupofexperts.

Acomprehensive/integratedassessmenttypeofapproach,

lookingacrossdifferentecological

regionsandsectorsaswellastheinteractions/linkagesbetweenthem.

Synergieswithactivitiesimplementedunderother

multilateralenvironmental

agreements(forinstance,

desertificationandbiodiversity)as

wellasdevelopmentactivities

aimingatpovertyreductionand

sustainabledevelopment.

Acountry-drivenapproach,expectedtoresultincountry,region

orsector-specificprojectproposals.

Soundenvironmentalmanagementandcosteffectiveness.

7

Asimpledocumentthatreflectsthemosturgentandhighlyranked

adaptationmeasures.


10/42

III.NAPAprojectssubmittedtotheUNFCCC

Table 3:NAPAreportsincludedintheprojectdatabase

(compiledinSeptember2006) Country Number

of projectsBangladesh 15

Bhutan 9

BurkinaFaso 12

Liberia 3

Malawi 5

Mauritania 25Niger 14

Samoa 9

Uganda 9

Total 101

Beforepresentingtheresultsofinterviews

withtheNAPAteams,wediscusstherange

ofNAPAprojectssubmittedtotheUNFCCC

basedonaprojectdatabasecreatedbytheauthors.Thedatabase,whichisupdatedas

additionalNAPAsarereportedandis

availablefromtheauthors(inExcel),

includescommonfieldssuchasobjectives,

fundingrequested,anduneditedversionsof

theprojectdescriptions.Theprojectsare

classifiedaccordingtothetypeof

interventionandprioritysector,regionor

economicactivity.

Someninecountrieshadsubmittedtheir

NAPAreportstotheUNFCCCwebsiteasof

September2006(Table 3),proposingatotalof101projects.Theseprojectswere

categorisedaccordingtothefollowingtypes

andscale:

Type of project Awareness:designedtoraise

generalawarenessofclimate

change,oftenworkingwith

stakeholders.

Informationandresearch:goingbeyondawarenesstodevelopthe

researchbasefortakingaction,

includingmonitoringsystems,

workingwithclimatescenariosand

baselinevulnerabilityassessments.

Capacitybuildingandearlywarningsystems:amoreorganised

approachtoinformation,linking

specificallytoendusersandspecific

actions.

Mainstreamingandplanning:workingwithspecificplanning

processes,suchasfive-year

developmentplans,toinclude

climateriskmanagement.

Investment:directactionsinvolvingchangingresourcemanagementin

specifichouseholdsorregions. Institutionalreformandregulation:

changingpolicies,resource

managementinstitutionsand

barrierstowideractiononclimate

adaptation,oftenpromotingmore

efficientuseofresources.

Financialandinsurance:approachesinvolvingspreadingthe

riskthroughfinancialmechanismsorinsurance.

Scaleofproject

8

Targetingspecificvulnerablegroups,forexamplepoorfarmersin

semi-aridregions.


11/42

Community-basedadaptation,workingwithabroadspectrumof

householdsatthecommunitylevel,

whetheridentifiedthrough

livelihoods(e.g.,smallholder

farmers)orspecificregions.

Sector-widedevelopments,oftenhousedintherelevantministry(e.g.,

MinistryofAgriculture)andworking

acrosslevelsfromlivelihoodsto

sectoralinfrastructureand

developmentplanning.

Regionalprojectscovermorethanonesector,oftenbasedon

communitydevelopment

approachesbutincludingsome

regionalplanningandinfrastructure.

Nationallevel,oftenassociatedwithprojectsorientedtowardpolicyand

planningacrossanumberof

sectors.

Theclassificationofprojectsintocategories

wasdonebasedontheNAPAreportsand

notfurtherinformationorinterviewswiththe

NAPAteams.Obviously,someprojects

havemorethanonetypeofactivityandwork

atvariousscales,particularlyforlarger

projects.Insuchcases,thetendencywasto

ratetheprojectinthe'higher'relevant

category.Forinstanceaprojectwithdirect

investmentactionswouldberatedas

investment,evenifitincludedsubstantial

awarenessandresearchcomponents(as

wouldbelikely).Thiscategorisationis

intendedonlyasafirst-cutatthekindsof

projectsproposedintheLDCportfolioand

notanevaluationofeachprojectperse.

9

Figure 2: Project scale and type, for projects submitted by September 2006Project type

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

ss

tion&

arch

city

,EWS

aming

ning

stment

utional

rm&

lation

ncial&

rance

Awarene

Informa

Rese

Capa

building

Mainstre

&plan

Inve

Instit

refo

regu

Fina

insu

Project scale

0%

Community Sector National

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Aswouldbeanticipated,themajorityof

projectsaredirectinvestmentinadaptive

actions(Figure 2).Mostcountrieswouldincludeatleastafewprojectsofthissort,

perhapsconsideredasdemonstration

projectstotestdifferentapproaches.

Relativelyfewoftheprojectsareconcerned

primarilywithawareness,informationor

research-butonlyoneortwoofsuch

projectswouldbeexpectedineachcountry.

Still,thisindicatesthatmostcountrieshave

movedfrom'whatistheissue?'toseeking

solutionstogrowingclimaticrisks.In

additiontodirectinvestment,building

capacityandmainstreaminginplanningare

consideredhighpriority.Again,eachcountry

wouldnotbeexpectedtohavemorethana

fewsuchprojects.Apparentlylackingfrom

theportfolioareprojectsfocussingon

institutionalreformorfinancialmechanisms.


12/42

ThismayreflecttheNAPAguidelines,witha

focusonurgentactionratherthanstrategic

developmentplanning.Thisisanareathat

warrantsfurtherattention.

Asreflectedinthetypeofproject,mostof

theactionsareplannedatthesectoralscale.

Therelativelackofcommunity-based

adaptationplansmaybeinherentinthe

developmentagendaoflineministrieswho

oftenleadNAPAprojects,although

implementationofsectoralprojectsmaywell

involvelocalNGOsincommunitybased

actions.Quiteafewprojectsarenationalin

scope,perhapsreflectingthewide

involvementofstakeholdersinproposing

andreviewingprojects.

Thedatabaseofprojectsincludesthe

estimateoftheprojectcostsprovidedinthe

NAPAreports.Theseareonlyafirst

indicationofthescaleofeffortenvisioned.

Atpresent,theNAPAteamsareworkingto

developafewoftheirhighestpriority

projectsintoproposalsforfunding.Many

aretargetingthemediumscalefunding

availableintheGEF,ontheorderofUS$1-3

millionperproject.Smallerprojectsmaybe

aggregatedtoformlargerprojects,orwhat

wasviewedasapiloteffortmightbescaled

uptocovermoreregionsorincludemore

components.Itisunlikelythatthecostof

adaptationwillbereducedasteamslook

morecloselyoveralongerplanningcycleas

tohowtoachievetheirobjectives.

10

Nevertheless,theprojectssubmittedbythe

ninecountriestotalUS$178million,withthe

costsforindividualprojectsrangingfromUS

$0.1to23million.


13/42

IV.Methodsusedtoassessexperiencesofthe

NAPAteams

Thisreviewofthedevelopmentofthe

NAPAsfocusesmainlyonstrengths,

weaknessesandconstraintstothe

achievementoftheNAPAobjectives,aswell

asidentifyingthecurrentopportunitiesand

futureprospectsforimplementingtheNAPA

recommendations.

Thereviewdrawsupondiscussionswith

NAPAexpertsandteams.Forexample,a

dialoguewasheldduringtheIPCCLead

AuthorsmeetingforWorkingGroupIIin

CapeTowninSeptember2006with

participantsfromBotswana,United

Kingdom,Germany,Kenya,Mexico,the

Netherlands,SouthAfricaandSudan.Balgis

OsmanElashametmostoftheNAPA

coordinatorsandarepresentativeofthe

GEFSecretariatattheUNFCCCAfrican

RegionalWorkshoponAdaptationinAccra,

Ghana,from21-23September2006.

Moreover,theauthorsmetrepresentatives

fromtheNAPAteamsduringaworkshop

organisedbytheECBIinNaivashaKenya

inSeptember2006.

Theprincipalmethodhasbeentodevelop

andapplyaquestionnaire,withinterviews

conductedinpersonandbypost(seeAnnex2).Theinterviewswereconductedinaninformalmanner,involvingNAPA

coordinatingteams,membersofnational

workinggroupsandtechnicalcommitteesin

LDCs,aswellaspeoplefromothernon-LDC

countriesinAfrica.Theinterviewscovered

issuesrelatedto:

StatusoftheNAPA; Objectivesandguidingprinciples

followedbytheNAPAteamsin

eachcountry;

ApproachesandmethodsadoptedfordevelopingtheNAPA;

Focusoftheassessment(sectorsorregions);

Rankingprocess(criteriadevelopmentforrankingand

prioritisationofprojects,andproject

formulation);

LessonslearnedduringtheprocessofNAPAdevelopment(whatworked

well,wherearethegapsand

constraints,etc.);

Strengths,weaknessesandconstraintsencounteredduringand

aftertheNAPApreparations;

CurrentopportunitiesopenedupthroughtheNAPAsandpositive

outcomes;

Thewayforward(implementationoftheidentifiedadaptationprojects);

and

Anyotherissuesandcomments.

11

Themeetingsandinterviewshavebeen

supplementedanddocumentedwiththeuse


14/42

ofvideo,althoughthevideomaterialhasnot

beencompiledoreditedforpublic

distribution.

Thisreportrepresentstheoutcomes

(analysedresultsoftheinterviewsandthe

questionnairesinadditiontothesynthesisof

thelessonslearned)forBurundi,Eritrea,

Ethiopia,Malawi,Sudan,Ugandaand

Zambia,inadditiontoMauritania(West

Africa).

Notethattheprocesshasfocusedon

lessonslearnedandnotaformalevaluation

ofthecontentoftheNAPAprojects.For

instance,wedonotanalysewhetherthe

12

projectsarejustified,eitherintheeconomic

appraisalorasadditionalandadequateto

addressfutureclimaticrisks.Nordidwe

attempttoverifymethodsusedin

stakeholderparticipation,devisingcriteriafor

projectsorrankingpriorityprojects.The

viewspresentedarethoseoftheauthors.

Thenotesfromtheinterviewsdonot

necessarilyrepresenttheofficialviewsof

therespondents;theywereaskedto

respondintheirpersonalcapacityabout

whattheyhavelearned.


15/42

V.TheorganisationalstructureoftheNAPAsTheorganisationalstructureoftheNAPA

hasbeendevelopedtobeconsistentwith

theguidingprinciplesmentionedabove.

Consequently,alloftheassessedAfricanLDCcountrieshavemoreorlesssimilar

structuresfortheNAPAs,asshowninTable2.IntheTable,thewidthoftheactivityisintendedtogivearoughindicationofthe

extenttowhicheachcoordinatingunitwould

beinvolved.Abriefdescriptionofthe

expectedrolebyeachunitinthestructureis

givenbelow.

TheNAPAcoordinationteamsaremainly

hostedwithintheNAPAimplementing

agencies,whicharefoundeitherunderthe

umbrellaofenvironmentorthemeteorology

departmentsandmostlyrepresentthe

UNFCCCFocalPoints.Thecoordinating

teamusuallyconsistsofoneortwonational

coordinators.Theirmainjobistomanage

andsupervisethewholeprocessatthenationalandstatelevelsandcoordinateall

oftheNAPAactivitiesincooperationwith

thehostingagencyandotherrelevant

institutionsandstakeholders(ministries,

universities,researchcenters,NGOsand

CBOs).SomemembersoftheNAPAteam

arealwaysinvolvedinthenegotiationand

on-goingdebatesonissuesrelatedtoLDCs-

concernsandinterests,aswellasparticipatinginallNAPArelevantevents

(conferences,workshops,andmeetings)at

theregionalandinternationallevels.

Allofthecountriescoveredinthisreport

haveSteeringCommittees.Usuallythey

consistofhigh-levelpolicymakersand

governmentofficials,including

representativesofstakeholdersfromall

relevantsectorsincludinggovernment

institutions(water,health,agriculture,planningandfinanceetc),researchand

academic,non-governmentalorganisations.

TheSteeringCommitteemembersare

requestedtoprovidestrategicoversightand

toestablishandprioritiseoverallpolicy

directionsandguidancetotheNAPAteams.

TheTechnicalCommittees(TCs)havea

technicalandconsultativeroleandareexpectedtoprovidetechnicaladvicetothe

teamsandhelpmaintaincommunication

anddialogueprocessesamongrelevant

institutions.Moreover,atalaterstage,the

TCmembersareexpectedtousetheir

technicalbackgroundandknowledgeto

contributetotheassessmentofoptionsfor

executingtheconsultativeprocessandfor

theidentificationofpriorityprojects.

InmostofthecountriesconsideredtheTC

alsoconstitutesotherConsultative

AssessmentTaskForcesorworkinggroups.

Forinstance,theSynergyAssessmentTask

Force/Workinggroupassessessynergies

betweenstrategies,projects,andpoliciesfor

adaptationtoclimatechange,andnational

sustainabledevelopmentinitiatives,multilateralenvironmentalagreementsor

otherinitiatives.TheTCmayalsoinclude

workinggroupsonspecificissuessuchas

water,agriculture,poverty,coastalzones,

etc.

13


16/42

Regionalcoordinationconsistsmainlyof

state-levelexpertsandtechnicalstafffrom

therelevantsectors.Theyaremainly

responsibleforcarryingoutalltheactivities

undertheNAPAatthestateorlocality

levels.Moreover,theyareexpectedto

assisttheNationalProjectCoordination

Teamincoordinatingthecomprehensive

stakeholderconsultativeprocessandreport

backtothem.Inmostofthecountries

assessed,amultidisciplinaryteam

representingthedifferentvulnerablesectors

wasformedtoensurethattheprocessis

conductedinanintegratedandbalanced

manner.Notallcountrieshadformalsub-

nationalcoordinatingunits.

TheorganisationalchartofEthiopiain

Figure 3presentsanexampleoftheNAPAstructureadoptedbymostofthecountries.

AlltheLDCscoveredbythisstudyfollowed

thesamestepsfortheformulationofNAPA.

Generallytheprocessstartsbysynthesisof

availableinformation,followedbya

participatoryassessmentofvulnerabilityto

currentclimatevariability,andthe

identificationofkeyadaptationmeasures,

thentheidentificationofsuitablecriteriafor

prioritisingactivitiesfollowedbythe

selectionofaprioritisedshortlistof

activities.Thedevelopmentofproject

profiles/conceptsand/oractivitiesintended

toaddressurgentandimmediateadaptation

needsconstitutesthefinalstep.Itisworth

mentioningthattheNAPAprocessdoesnot

involvenewresearchstudies,asthe

countriesareexpectedtomakeuseof

existinginformationandtorelyonexisting

expertiseandlocalknowledge.

Therewasageneralagreementamongthe

teamsthattheNAPAdocumentshouldnot

beverylongasitmainlytargetspolicy

makers.Itshouldbesimpleandclear,

conciseandcomprehensive,action-

oriented,country-driven,andhighlight

specificprioritiesforurgentandimmediate

adaptationactivitiesthathavebeen

identifiedandagreeduponbythedifferent

stakeholdersineachcountry.

DuringthedevelopmentoftheNAPA,and

throughouttheconsultationprocess,special

considerationisgiventoensurethatthe

identifiedadaptationmeasurestakeinto

accountnationalplanningand

developmentalinitiatives,aswellasall

multilateralenvironmentalagreements.This

wasexpectedtobeachievedthroughthe

involvementofkeymembersrepresenting

theagenciesresponsiblefordevelopment

andplanningaswellasthroughthereview

andsynthesisofexitingstrategiesand

developmentplansfordifferentsectors

(suchaswater,agriculture,health,

biodiversity,desertification,poverty

reductionstrategiesetc.).

14

Theteamsagreedthatakeyfactortothe

successoftheNAPAistheidentification

(screeningandranking)andfinalselection

ofpriorityprojectsthatcouldhavearealand

immediateimpactonthevulnerable

communitiesofAfrica,highlightingthefact

thatanyfurtherdelaysinimplementing


17/42

Figure 3: Organisational chart of the NAPA process in Ethiopia

urgentadaptationmeasurescouldincrease

theircurrentvulnerability,orresultin

increasingthecostsforimplementation.

MostoftheNAPAteammembers

interviewedmentionedthatduringthe

consultativeprocess,theycautionedthe

stakeholdersontheimportanceofsetting

realisticgoalsandobjectives,takinginto

accountthemanyconstraintsthatcould

hampertheimplementationofproposed

adaptationstrategies.Moreover,they

underlinedtheimportanceofadoptinga

balancedapproachwhenassessing

location/region-specificthreatsand

weaknesses,aswellasstrengthsand

opportunities.Thisprovedeffectiveinraising

theawarenessofstakeholdersonpotential

constraintsandbarriers,andhelpedthemin

theprioritisationprocess,aimedatthe

selectionofafewrealisticandachievable

adaptationmeasures,insteadofalongwish

list.

15

TheNAPAteamsexpresseddeepconcerns

regardingthefundingofadaptationprojects.

Theyfoundallavailablefunding

opportunitieseitherinsufficientordifficultto

accessduetoproceduralconstraintsand

complicatedcriteriasetbythefunding

agencies.


18/42

VI.Prioritiesandapproaches

VI.1.OverviewoftheNAPAsGenerallytheroleofUNDPandUNEP,the

twoimplementingagenciesinAfrica,has

beentheprovisionofon-goingtechnical,

organisational,andfinancialsupport

throughouttheNAPAprocess,including

backstoppingandlinkagestootherGEF

activities.UNDPisthecoordinatingagency

insixoutofthesevencountriesconsidered,

whileUNEPisthecoordinatingagencyfor

onecountryonly(Uganda).Moreover,the

responsibilityofimplementingtheNAPAis

sharedbetweenthemeteorological

departmentsandtheenvironmental

authorities.

Tabulationoftheresponsesfromtheseven

countriesisprovidedinthepanelsoffigures

below.Theprioritysectorscoveredbythe

assessments,andconsequentlythesectors

forproposedNAPAprojects,are:health,

agriculture,waterresourcesandforests.So

far,noneoftheassessedcountrieshave

consideredcoastalzone/marineresources

(Figure 4).Thelackofprioritytocoastalzoneissuesreflectsthegeographyof

EasternandSouthernAfrica,although

coastaltourisminEastAfricaandtheRed

Seaisofeconomicimportance.

Theabovesectorshavebeenassessed

acrossdifferentzonesorecologicalregions

inAfrica.ThepriorityregionsfortheNAPA

aremainlythehumid,savannahandsemi

arid,wetlandandhighlandzones,followed

bylowlandsandthedesertregions.

Theassessmentinvolvesdifferent

populationgroups(theseareoverlapping

categoriesinFigure 4).Mostemphasisetheruralpoor,whichconstitutealargegroup,

encompassingabroadrangeof

stakeholdersandawiderangeoflivelihood

activities.Specificstakeholdergroupshave

alsobeentargetedsuchasthefarmers,

herders,fishermenandtoalesserextentthe

urbanpoor.Howevernoneofthe

assessmentstargetspecificvulnerable

socialgroups,forexamplewomen,refugees

orInternallyDisplacedPersons(IDPs).

VI.2.Methodologiesfordevelopingadaptationprojects

16

Asmentionedabove,mostoftheNAPA

assessmentsfollowsimilarmethodsand

approaches(Figure 5).Specialconsiderationwasgiventotheselectionof

theteamswherespecifictermsofreference

havebeendevelopedbyeachcountryfor

thispurpose.Animportantcriterionforthe

selectionoftheteamwastoengage

multidisciplinarymemberswhoarealso

representativesforthemostvulnerable

sectors.Ateamoftechnicalexpertswas

formedtoundertaketheexerciseof

synthesisingexistinginformationon

vulnerabilityanalysis,copingstrategies,

trendsofexistingdevelopmentframeworks

andnationalpolicies.Thisexercisewas

supplementedbymeansofRapid


19/42

17

Figure 4: Sectors, regions and population groups covered in African NAPAs(Notethatthepopulationgroupsareoverlapping)

health agriculturewater

forestry/range/biodi

wildlife

Fisheries energy gender

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Assessed sectors under NAPA

Desert

Savana

Humid

Wetland Highland

Lowlands

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Assessed regions under NAPA

l ivelihoods farmers

herders fishermen

rural poor

urban poor

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Population groups assessed under NAPA


20/42

ParticipatoryAssessment(RPA)ofthe

currentvulnerabilityandthepotential

increaseinclimatehazardsandassociated

risks.MostoftheteamsemployedRPA

techniquesforassessingvulnerabilityto

climatevariabilityand/orhazardsaswellas

foridentifyingkeycopingstrategiesand

measures.

TheNAPAprocesshasalsoinvolved

awarenessraisingandcapacitybuilding

throughinformationandknowledgesharing.

Publicconsultationhasbeenacontinuous

exercisethroughouttheprocessofNAPA

developmentperformedatdifferentlevels

(local,stateandnational).Thishelpedinthe

identificationofgoodideasandplansandin

buildingconsensusamongvarious

stakeholders.Eventuallythiswasexpected

toleadtothearticulationofpotentially

viable,community-drivenNAPAactivities.

Theuseofnationalworkshopswasfoundto

bekeyinensuringtheinvolvementofawide

rangeofstakeholdersacrossthecountry

particularlypolicymakers,fundingagencies

andinternationalorganisationsasindicated

bythemajorityoftherespondents.Second

tothenationalworkshopswastheuseof

local-levelworkshops,usedasplatformsfor

discussionandexchangeofideasamong

localstakeholders.Theyhaveusuallybeen

organisedatthestateorlocalitylevelswith

theinvolvementoflocalstakeholdergroups.

18

Theselocal-levelworkshopshavebeen

consideredbymostasaneffectivemeans

forcommunicationandknowledgetransfer.

Theyalsoraisedawarenessamongthelocal

communitiesonthepotentialimpactsof

climatechangeandtheneedforadaptation.

Thirdlycametheuseofindividualandgroup

interviewswithselectedkeystakeholders,

usuallythemostinfluentialand

knowledgeablepeopleatthecommunity

levels(forinstance,localleaders,teachers,

midwives,andextensionofficers).


21/42

VII. Screening, ranking and project profilesVII.1.CriteriaforscreeningNAPAactivitiesAnimportantstepinNAPAdevelopmentis

thefirst-orderscreeningofpotential

adaptationactivities.Thishasbeen

undertakentoensurethatthe

measures/activitiesidentifiedthroughthe

consultationprocessareconsistentwith

country-specificstrategiesandplansforrisk

reduction,andaddressthemosturgent

vulnerability(exposuretospecificclimate

variabilityandchange),andthattheyare

appropriateforimplementationthroughthe

NAPA(Figure 5).Specificcriteriaforaddressingadaptivecapacityhavebeen

selectedtofacilitatetherankingprocess.In

mostofthecasesthisstepwastakenina

participatorymanner,whichtypically

involveddiscussionsandnegotiations.

Contradictoryviewsmaysometimesappear

-thisismainlyduetothefactthatdifferent

stakeholderscouldhavedifferentcriteriafor

theselectionofoptions,dependingontheir

personalperceptionsaboutvulnerabilityand

adaptation.

VII.2.RankingofNAPA

activities

Afterpotentialadaptationoptionshavebeen

identified,theyareranked-acriticalstep

sinceonlytoppriorityoptionsaredeveloped

intofullprojects.Ideally,therankingof

measuresshouldbedoneinaccordance

withthedegreetowhicheachmeasureisabletofulfiltheidentifiedcriteria.Depending

mostlyontheweightassignedtothecriteria

bydifferentstakeholders,thisstepcouldbe

verysubjective.However,inorderto

facilitatetheanalysisprocessandavoid

biasesandsubjectivedecisions,mostofthe

coordinatorssupportedtheirassessment

withtheuseofasimplemulti-criteria

approachintheformofcomputersoftware(suchasNAPASSESSandHiView)(Figure5)3.

TheNAPAprojectsadoptedamoreorless

similarapproachtodevelopanumberof

criteriainconsultationwithstakeholders.

Thecriteriahavemostlybeenselectedin

suchawaythattheyaddressthefive

livelihoodcapitals,particularlythesocial(qualityoflife,numberofbeneficiaries,etc.),

natural(reducingdegradation)and

economic(contributiontosustainable

development).Thedifferentcriteriawere

thenweighted,mainlybasedonlocal

priorities.Inmostcases,weightingsare

determinedthroughaconsensusprocess

amongthedifferentstakeholderswhere

priorityisgenerallygiventotheactivitiesthatreducemajorsector/region-specific

19

vulnerability.Abroadrangeofcommon

rankingcriteriahavebeendevelopedto

coverrelatedissuesacrosstheidentified

measures/activitiesforinstance,technical

feasibilityofeachmeasure,economiccosts


22/42

andbenefits,levelofstakeholder

involvement,lossesavoided,sustainability

oflivelihoods,crosscuttingissuesand

synergies,andmagnitudeofimpacts.

VII.3.Formulationofproject

profiles

Asthenextstep,theselected

measures/activitiesaredevelopedinto

20

projectconcepts/profiles.Mostofthe

teamsstressedtheneedformoretechnical

aswellasfinancialassistancetoundertake

thetaskofpreparingsoundprojectprofiles

(Figure 5).ThecompletedNAPAdocumentswerethensubmittedtothe

UNFCCC.Asofthelate2006,onlyafew

AfricanNAPAshadbeensubmitted,while

mostoftheotherswereexpectedtosubmit

theirsbyearly2007.


23/42

Figure 5: Methods employed in the NAPA process in AfricaAssess

vulnerability to

climate variability

Assess increase

in hazard

Identify key cc

adaptation

All

None

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Use RPA

Indiv.interviews

Gp interviews

National wshp

Local Wshops

Surveys

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Stakehoders consultation through

1 1 2sensitivity matrix

3 4

4

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

1 2 3 4 5

Ranking process

Consultation

Software&consultatio

computer

Participatory

Botom up Var&CC

vul&adapt

capacity

build&awareness

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

33.5

4

4.5

5

Participatory

Strengths of the NAPA

21

Figure 5: Methods employed in the NAPA process in AfricaAssess

vulnerability to

climate variability

Identify key cc

adaptation

Assess increase

in hazard

All

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Use RPA

None

National wshp

Indiv.interviews Local Wshops

Gp interviews

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Stakehoders consultation through

Surveys

4

4

1 1 2sensitivity matrix

30

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

1 2 3 4 5

Ranking process

Consultation

Software&consultatio

computer

Participatory vul&adapt

Botom up Var&CC

capacity

build&awareness

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

33.5

4

4.5

5

Participatory

Strengths of the NAPA

21


24/42

VIII.LessonslearnedbytheNAPAteams

Respondingtothequestionsonthemain

strengthsoftheNAPA(Figure 6),therewasgeneralagreementontheimportantrole

playedbytheNAPAincreatingawide

awarenessandasenseofownershipamong

thedifferentstakeholdergroupsatdifferent

levels,startingfrompolicymakersdownto

thegeneralpublicatthevillagelevel.This

waslargelyattributedtothefollowingNAPA

characteristicsputintheorderidentifiedby

theteams:

Emphasisonparticipatoryprocesses;

Considerationofbothvulnerabilityandadaptationtoclimatechange;

Investigationofclimatevariabilityaswellasclimatechange;

thebottom-upapproach;and capacitybuildingandawareness

raising.

Theteamsagreedthatthestepsleadingto

theformulationoftheNAPAhaveworked

well,particularlystakeholderidentification,

focusingonthemostvulnerablegroupsin

differentsectors/regions,involvementof

plannersandpolicymakersandthe

provisionofplatformsfordiscussionand

consultationbetweenthem.Thedata

collectionprocesshasalsobeenviewedas

successful.

Theemploymentofavarietyofmethodsto

formulatetheNAPAs,includingliterature

surveysofpreviousstudiesand

assessment,directinterviewsandmeetings,

andtheuseofGISandremotesensing

technologyandotherformaldataanalyses,

wasidentifiedasakeysuccessfactor.

Institutionalbarrierswerelistedasakey

constraintintheNAPAprocess,delaying

executionofsomeoftheactivities.For

instance,bureaucraticstructuresinsome

partnerinstitutionshinderedthefree

exchangeofinformationamongthedifferent

teammembers.Otherconstraintsinclude:

Communicationproblemsbetweenthecentralofficesandstates;

Lackofsufficienttechnicalcapacitiesneededatlocallevelsto

playanactiveroleinthe

assessmentprocess;and

Insufficientfinancialresourcesandtime,especiallyforlargecountries

likeSudanandEthiopia.

Thereisageneralagreementamongthe

teamsontheneedtokeepthemomentum

createdbytheNAPAprocess.Timeisan

importantfactorinadaptationactivities.The

mainconcernstressedbyalltheNAPA

teamswastheneedtoshedlightonthevital

urgencyforsecuringnecessaryfundingfor

theimplementationphase.

22

Onepotentialconstraintistheneedfor

additionaltechnicalandfinancialassistance

bymostcountriestodeveloptheconcept

notesandprojectprofilesintofullprojects.

Anotherconcernhighlightedbytheteamsis

relatedtothemeansandwaysbywhichto

ensurethemainstreamingofNAPAprojects


25/42

Figure 6: Lessons learned and relative costs for NAPA projects in Africa

Stakeholders

identification

Selection of

sectors and

regions

Data collection

Awareness

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

What worke well in NAPA

financial

institutional

Technical Oganizational Timing

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Weaknesses/constraints duing NAPA process

Costing of the NAPA projecs across sectors- Malawi

Water/Agric

24%

livelihoods/health

20%

informatio/plannin

g

35%

Agriculure/water

13%

Forestry/natural

resources

8%

Costing of the NAPA projects across sectors-

Uganda

informatio/plan

ning

19%

livelihoods/hea

lth

14%

Water/Agric

13%

Health

32%

Forestry/natura

l resources

22% 23

Figure 6: Lessons learned and relative costs for NAPA projects in Africa

Data collection

Stakeholders

identification

Selection of

sectors and

regions

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

What worke well in NAPA

Awareness

institutional

financial

Technical Oganizational

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Weaknesses/constraints duing NAPA process

Timing

Costing of the NAPA projecs across sectors- Malawi

Water/Agric

24%

livelihoods/health

20%

informatio/plannin

g

35%

Agriculure/water

13%

Forestry/natural

resources

8%

Costing of the NAPA projects across sectors-

Uganda

informatio/plan

ning

19%

livelihoods/hea

lth

14%

Water/Agric

13%

Health

32%

Forestry/natura

l resources

22%

23


26/42

innationaldevelopmentplansand

strategies.

TheNAPAguidelineshighlightedtheneed

forselectedprojectstosupporttarget

groups,particularlythosevulnerablefroma

socioeconomicandclimaticperspective,and

torespondtotheirurgentandimmediate

needs,applyinganendogenous,dynamic

approach.Theguidelinesalsoemphasise

theneedforprojectstobeadditional

activitiesaddressingnewlyrecognised

climaterisks,andtobeintegratedor

mainstreamedintotheoveralldevelopment

programmesofthecountry.

Ingeneralterms,theprojectsidentifiedby

theNAPAteamsorthroughtheavailable

NAPAdocumentscouldbedividedintotwo

types:

sector-specificprojects,whichrepresentthevastmajorityof

projectsandfocusonaspecific

developmentintervention.However,

variationsexistamongthemas

morefocusisgiventospecific

sectorprojects,e.g.water,

agricultureandhealthsectors

comparedtoothersectorssuchas

energy,tourismandurban

livelihoods.

non-sector specific projects,whichgenerallyfocusonbroadcross

cuttingthemes,forinstance,

informationdevelopment.Such

projectsarecomparativelyfewer

thanthesector-specificones.

Moreover,ithasbeenobservedthatnoneof

theprojectstargetspecificvulnerablesocial

grouporpooleffortsacrosscountries.

Tables 4and5giveasummaryofthetwotypesoftheprojectprofiles.

Mostofthecountriespresentedspecific

project-basedapproachestoaddressthe

identifiedadaptationmeasures,whichgo

downtothelevelofsub-sectorsandregions.

Forinstance,theMauritaniaNAPAincluded

aprojectoneducationintheuseof50

electricmotorpumpsintheValley.Afew

countriesfollowedamorebroad-based

programmeapproach-forinstance,Uganda

proposedaprogrammeonclimatechange

anddevelopmentplanning(Figure 6).

Generallytheestimatedcostsforthe

proposedNAPAprojectsrangefrom

betweenUS$300,000toUS$8,000,000

withthetotalnumberofprojectsranging

betweenfive(Malawi)to25(Mauritania).

Thetotalcostrequiredforfundingthese

projectsvariesbetweencountries,but

generallyrangesbetweenUS$21-40

million.

24

OutofthesevenAfricanLDCsassessedin

thisreportonlyMalawi,Mauritaniaand

UgandahadproducedcompleteNAPA

documentsandonlyMauritaniaandUganda

hadsubmittedtheirNAPAs.Boththelatter

countrieshaveidentifiedasetofproject

conceptsforadaptation,includingactivities

topromoteinformationandearlywarning,

increaseagriculturalproduction,water

harvestingandimprovenaturalresources


27/42

andlivelihoods.InMalawi,thelargestpiece

oftherequestedfundsforadaptation(35%)

istoaddressthegapsinmeteorological

informationtoassisttheplanningprocess,

whileinUganda,32%oftherequested

fundsareforimprovementofhealth

services.

Table 4: Examples of typical non-sector specific project profilesNon-sector specific projectprofiles CommentsGenerally,mostoftheprojectprofilesfocusonspecificsectorsandlookasiftheyhavebeendevelopedusing

sector-specificlensesbothintheanalysisofvulnerabilityandthepotentialforadaptationtoclimatechange.Veryfewprojectprofilesaimataddressingvulnerabilitythroughtheuseofanintegratedapproach,e.g.takingthefood

systemsasawholeoraddressingfoodsecurity

Awareness raising andknowledge dissemination

Anumberofprojectsprofilesaimatraisingawarenessacrossdifferentscalesfrom

communitytopolicymakersPromotion of research onCC AgapisobservedheremaybebecauseNAPAisperceivedasaction-orientedresearchisdisregardedEducation and curriculumdevelopment

SofarnoneoftheNAPAteamsinterviewedindicatedthattheNAPAwillconsideraprojectprofilethatfocusesmainlyontheinclusionofclimatechangeissuesinthecurriculumatdifferenteducationallevels

Enhancing resilience ofurban infrastructure andindustries to the impacts ofclimate changeVeryfewthereismorefocusonrurallivelihoods

Exploring options forinsurance cope withenhanced climatic disasters. OnlytwoprofilesexploredinsurancerelatedissuesDisaster managementstrategies Notspecificallymentioned,however,mostofthesector-specificprojectsideasarebasedoncommunity'sexperiencesindisasterandriskmanagement.Climate Forecasting andearly warning WiderangeprofilesarefoundtoaddressthisissuesCapacity building (humanand institutional) Manyprofilesaddressit.Inadditiontoitsbeingacrosscuttingissuethatcutsacrossmostofthesector-specificprojectprofilesPolicy reforms andinstitutional restructuring RelativelyfewproposereforminginstitutionsandregulationRemoving barriers fortechnology transfer andadoption in the differentsectors

Useofmoderntechnologyismentionedonlyinrelationtothedevelopmentofclimateinformationandearlywarningbutnotincombinationwithsectorspecificadaptationmeasuree.g.farmingsystems,health,etc.

Mainstreaming adaptation toclimate change into policiesand programmes in differentsectors,Although,oneoftheguidingprincipleshasbeenthemainstreaminginthenationaldevelopmentplans-butfewprojectfromAfricaaimedataddressingthisissue

Promotion of indigenousknowledgeAlthoughtheprocessofNAPAdevelopmenthasfollowedabottom-upapproachandisbuiltonconsultationwithlocalcommunities,butveryfewprofilesaimedatpromotingtheindigenousknowledge(skills,methodologyortechnology)asabasisforadaptationproject.

25


28/42

Table 5: Examples of sector-specific project profilesSector specific project profiles Comments

Water management and harvesting(quantity) Widerangeofprojects

Improving water quality and sanitation LessfocusonwaterqualityPromotion of drought-resistant cropvarieties and farming practices WiderangeofprojectsSustainable rural livelihoods A number of projects relatively more than profiles

addressingurbanlivelihoods

Forest conservation and management WiderangeofprojectsRangeland rehabilitation andmanagement, development of foddercrops

Widerange

Poultry farming FewFisheries FewIrrigation systems FewVectors, pests and disease control WiderangeEnergy conservation and promotion ofrenewable energies VeryfewBiodiversity conservation VeryfewStrengthening malaria surveillanceprogrammes WiderangePromotion of tourism industry VeryfewFire management and prevention Few

26


29/42

IX.Conclusions

Our conclusions are derived from the

interviews and discussions with the NAPA

teamsandrelatedentities;insomerespects

theygobeyondtheindividualresponses.

Our most important conclusion is that the

NAPAs,asaprocess,shouldnotbeviewed

solely as end products in themselves. In

manycountries(butperhapsnotallasyet),

the NAPAs have been effective to raise

awareness at least among national

stakeholders, and to put climate change

adaptationonthedevelopmentagenda.

TheNAPAsshouldbeseenasanessential

step in the development of adaptation

capacity of LDCs. Moreover, NAPAs have

provided themeansand toolsessential for

the LDCs to present and negotiate a

country-driven action programme. We

believe there is ample justification for

continuing NAPA processes in LDCs, as

ongoing exercises to develop climate

adaptation actions, strategies and policies.

(However, the form and administration of

NAPA may warrant adjustments, an issue

wehavenotreviewedinthisreport.)

Fundingagenciesandnationalteamshave

emphasisedtheneedtoperceiveNAPAsas

entirelycountry-drivenandcountry-specific

initiatives.Often,thecriteriasuggestedby

theNAPAguidelinesandappliedbythe

countryteamsledtoprojectsthatare

primarilyfocusedonreducingcurrent

climaticrisksthroughprojectsthatarefairly

typicalofadevelopmentportfolio(for

example,promotingdrought-tolerantcrops,

enhancingefficiencyofwateruse,or

diversifyinglivelihoodincomes).While

theseprojectsmaybeseenaspaying

relativelylessattentiontolong-termclimate

change,theyareconsistentwiththeNAPA

instructionsandtrulyreflectthecountry-

drivenprioritiesofreducingbaseline

exposuretocurrentrisks4.

Consultationandcontinuousdialogue

betweenscientistandstakeholdersisseen

asanefficientwayforraisingawareness

andcapacitybuildingacrossawiderangeof

stakeholders.Actionsforadaptationneedto

betakenatalllevels(verticallyand

horizontally)andshouldprovideroomforthe

involvementofallrelevantstakeholders.

Africapossessesawealthoflocal

knowledgerelevanttoadaptationthatcould

largelycontributetoreducingvulnerabilityif

properlyutilised.Planningadaptationmust

befirmlyrootedinthisknowledgeof

developmentwhatworks,where,when.

27

Thinkingofclimatechangeadaptationasa

discreteplanningprocess,andeasily

segmentedintoadditionalactivities,islikely

tobelesseffectivethanbuildingabroad

understandingandmulti-stakeholderaction

agenda.Learningbydoing,sociallearning,

community-basedadaptationand

participatoryassessmentarerelevant

frameworkstotakeforward.


30/42

Thecostofadaptationcouldbeveryhigh,to

theextentthatitcouldnotbemetbyasingle

sourceoffunding.Hencethereisareal

needtotapallpotentialfundingsourcesand

presentsolidandconvincingproposalsfor

funding.Thecollectionofadaptation

projectsfromtheLDCssupportsthenotion

thatfundingformanagingclimaticriskswill

needtogobeyondtheexistingadaptation

funds(perhapsthroughataxonaviation,for

example)andbeyondinternationalclimate

changeregimestobilateralaction(already

inprogress),andevenfrompublicsectorto

privateaction(adomainthatisnot

adequatelyexploredasyet,forexamplein

theroleofmicro-finance).

ThenextdevelopmentoftheNAPAsisto

preparespecificprojectsforfundingthrough

theGEF.Somecountrieshavedonethis,

althoughfewproposalshavebeen

approved.Theconversionofaconceptnote

orprofiletoafullprojectproposalrequires

additionalplanningandtechnicalanalysis.

TheNAPAprocesscouldbeagoodlearning

experienceonhowtocreatesynergies

amongthedifferentsectorsand

developmentplansaswellasthe

MultilateralEnvironmentalAgreements

(MEAs).However,synergiesbetween

adaptationandothermultilateral

environmentalagreementsaswellas

betweenmitigationandadaptation,are

poorlydevelopedinpractice.TheNAPAs

shouldsupplementdevelopmentofthe

NationalCommunications,nowgetting

startedinmostcountries.Thiswillbea

goodindicationoftheextentofstakeholder

participationandawareness.

TherationaleforNAPAprojectsreflectsa

concernthatfutureclimatechangewill

furtherexacerbatecurrentclimaticrisks.

Conceptually,thisisan'overlay'(tousean

analogyfromGeographicInformation

Systems)offutureclimatechange(e.g.,the

likelihoodofreducedprecipitation)ontothe

presentvulnerability(e.g.,livelihoods

adverselyaffectedbyrecentdroughts).

Needlesstosay,therearemanypathways

thatwilllinkourpresentvulnerabilitywith

futureclimaticresources.Thedevelopment

statuscouldchangedramatically:for

exampledevelopmentofalargereservoir

andcommercialagriculturewouldtransform

semi-subsistenceeconomies,orHIV/AIDS

couldfurtherweakenthelabourforce.

Scenariosoffutureclimatechange(suchas

theriskofdroughtinthe2050s)arenot

predictions:awiderangeofoutcomesmay

beplausiblegivenourcurrentunderstanding

oftheglobalandregionalclimatesystem

andactualimpactsareimpossibletopredict

withcertaintyatthelocalscale.Thisisa

gapinourunderstandingofclimatechange,

butonethatisnotlikelytobesignificantly

reducedinthenearfuture.Rather,we

arguetheconceptualbasisforplanning

adaptationshouldbedrawnfromconcepts

ofrobustdecisionmakingandsocial

learning.Thepracticalobjectiveshouldbe

toreducetheuncertaintyinmakingarobust

decisionratherthanaccountingforall

uncertaintiesinfuturevulnerabilityandrisks.

28


31/42

Thepracticalmeansofintegratingclimate

changeintosectoralandstructuralplanning

decisionsarelargelylacking(oratleast

sufficientexperienceofwhatworkshasnot

beenaccumulatedasyet)5.

TheNAPAprioritiesreflectcountry-driven

criteriaandexistingnationalplanning

frameworks,aswellastheprimaryfocuson

climaticrisks.Someissuesandprojectsare

notreported.Adaptationasarightbasedon

equitablesharingoftheglobalclimate

changeburden,orthenotionofadeficitin

adaptationarenotprominentintheNAPA

proposals.Thebroaderframingof

sustainabledevelopmentisimplicitinsome

respects(e.g.,focusonpovertyreduction

andstakeholderengagement).Actionsfor

reducingconflict,institutionalandstructural

reforms,andempowermentof

disadvantagedcommunitiesarenotwidely

reflectedintheNAPAs.

TheNAPAexperiencescouldassistother

developingcountries(inAfricaand

elsewhere)todevelopsimilarsetsofpriority

adaptationoptions.Incountrieswithgreater

financialandhumanresources,planning

shouldtakeintoaccountawiderfocus.

CriticalissuesinexpandingtheNAPA

processwouldinclude:

Whatisthepolicyaim?ManyoftheNAPAprojectsareorientedtowardreducing

currentclimaterisks(theurgent

developmentneeds),whereasitisanopen

questionwhetherclimateproofingthe

economyagainstallpotentialfutureclimate

changeisrealistic.Climateresiliencewould

bealessrigorousaim,whileinmany

sectorsensurerelevantdecisionstakeinto

accountclimatechangewouldbesufficient.

Thatis,climateadaptationmaybeviewed

asaprocessofunderstandingpresentand

futurerisksratherthannecessarilyasa

reductioninfuturevulnerability.

Whattypesofprojectsaresuitablefordifferentcontexts(people,resourcesand

economiesat-risk,stakeholderdecision

frameworks,externaldrivers,etc.)?Building

adaptivecapacitytoevaluatethemany

resourcedecisionsthatmightbesubjectto

changesinclimaticriskswouldbeurgent.A

portfolioorientedtowardfinancialand

institutionalriskmanagementmightmake

senseparticularlyincountrieswithgreater

economicandinstitutionalresources.

Whatistheprojectbaseline?Ascountriesplanforlongertermdevelopment,

thequestionofwhatthedevelopmentstatus

willbein10to50yearsintothefutureis

paramount.Thismayshiftthesetof

adaptationactionsfromindividualprojectsto

programmesandportfolios,andshift

decisionmakingfromseekingtoclimate

proofdevelopmentforspecificscenariosof

thefuturetoadoptingpoliciesthatarerobust

acrossawiderangeofpotentialfutures.

29

Whataretheappropriatefundingmechanisms?Wealthiercountriesarelikely

torelymoreoninwardandprivate

investmentthanGEF,bilateralorother

officialdevelopmentassistance,particularly

regardingclimateadaptation.Partofthe

portfolioofresponsesmightbetoestablish

fundsforpilotactions.


32/42

Annex 1: Costs of proposed NAPA projects for selected African LDCsnnex 1: Costs of proposed NAPA projects for selected African LDCsCountryountry Proposed projectroposed project Keyey

sectorectorCost (US$)ost (US$) Period in Yearseriod in Years

Improving community resilience toclimate change through thedevelopment of sustainable rurallivelihoods

Improving community resilience toclimate change through thedevelopment of sustainable rurallivelihoods

RuralLivelihoodsRuralLivelihoods 4,500,0004,500,000 33

Restoring forests in the Shire RiverBasin to reduce siltation and theassociatedwaterflowproblems

Restoring forests in the Shire RiverBasin to reduce siltation and theassociatedwaterflowproblems

Forestry andwaterresourcesForestry andwaterresources

2.000,0002.000,000 33

Improving agricultural productionunder erratic rains and changingclimaticconditions

Improving agricultural productionunder erratic rains and changingclimaticconditions

Agriculture andwaterresourcesAgriculture andwaterresources

3.000,0003.000,000 33

Improving Malawis preparedness tocopewithdroughtsandfloodsImproving Malawis preparedness tocopewithdroughtsandfloods

EarlywarningEarlywarning

/information/information

8,000,0008,000,000 33

Malawialawi

Improving climate monitoring toenhance Malawis early warningcapability and decision making andsustainableutilizationofLakeMalawiandlakeshoreareasresources

Improving climate monitoring toenhance Malawis early warningcapability and decision making andsustainableutilizationofLakeMalawiandlakeshoreareasresources

Water andnaturalresourcesWater andnaturalresources

5,430,0005,430,000 33

TOTALOTAL 22.930,0002.930,000

DevelopmentoffoddercropsDevelopmentoffoddercrops Livestock farmingsectorLivestock farmingsector

600,000600,000 22

Promotion and development ofdomesticPoultryfarmingPromotion and development ofdomesticPoultryfarming

LivestockLivestock 300,000300,000 22

PromotionoflivestockmobilityPromotionoflivestockmobilityDissemination of the pastoral codeandsupportmeasuresDissemination of the pastoral codeandsupportmeasures

LivestockLivestock 300,000300,000 1.51.5

Introductionofnewfodderspecieson

thenaturalgrazingroutes

Introductionofnewfodderspecieson

thenaturalgrazingroutes

Agriculture/

rangeland

Agriculture/

rangeland

600,000600,000 22

Genetic improvement of the localbovinebreedsGenetic improvement of the localbovinebreeds

AgricultureAgriculture 500,000500,000 33

Mauritaniaauritania

Treatment of unrefined fodder andmanufacture and use of multi-nutritionalblocks

Treatment of unrefined fodder andmanufacture and use of multi-nutritionalblocks

LivestockfarmingLivestockfarming 300,000300,000 1.51.5

3030


33/42

Annex 1 Contd.Countryountry Proposed projectroposed project Key sectorey sector Cost (US$)ost (US$) Period in Yearseriod in Years

SubstitutionofligneousfuelSubstitutionofligneousfuel ForestryForestry 700,000700,000 22

Institutional reinforcement of thestructure responsible for natureconservation

Institutional reinforcement of thestructure responsible for natureconservation

ForestryForestry 400,000400,000 22

Improvement of knowledge of theresource and its sustainablemanagement.

Improvement of knowledge of theresource and its sustainablemanagement.

ForestryForestry 300,000300,000 55

Improvementofcultivationmethods inpluvial zonesand introduction of newvarietiesofdrought-resistanthigh-yieldcereal

Improvementofcultivationmethods inpluvial zonesand introduction of newvarietiesofdrought-resistanthigh-yieldcereal

AgricultureAgriculture 1,270,0001,270,000 33

Promotion of water-saving irrigationmethods in oasis zones (dripmethodpilotschemes)

Promotion of water-saving irrigationmethods in oasis zones (dripmethodpilotschemes)

RuraldevelopmentRuraldevelopment

1,200,0001,200,000 33

Training and informing of producers,theirSPOsandCPsTraining and informing of producers,theirSPOsandCPs

AgricultureAgriculture 1,180,0001,180,000 33

Contribution to a better knowledge ofthe surface water regimes in twenty

(20)catchmentareas

Contribution to a better knowledge ofthe surface water regimes in twenty

(20)catchmentareas

WaterWater 423,990423,990 33

Supporttothedisseminationofthedriptechnique in the river valley and theoasis zones for the development of300hectares

Supporttothedisseminationofthedriptechnique in the river valley and theoasis zones for the development of300hectares

WaterWater 433,990433,990 33

Contribution to increased value ofsurfacewaterbyconstructionoftwelve(12)Floodingdecelerationgates:

Contribution to increased value ofsurfacewaterbyconstructionoftwelve(12)Floodingdecelerationgates:

WaterWater 604,170604,170 44

Mauritaniaauritania

Education in the use of fifty (50)electricmotorpumpsintheEducation in the use of fifty (50)electricmotorpumpsinthevalleyvalley

WaterWater 1,050,6301,050,630

33

31

Annex 1 Contd.

31


34/42

Annex I Contd. Country Proposed project Key sector Cost in US$ Period inYears

Contributiontoincreasedvalueofsurfacewater

byconstructionoftwelve(12)Floodingdecelerationgates:

Water 604,170 4

Educationintheuseoffifty(50)electricmotorpumpsinthevalley

Water 1,050,630 3

ImprovementofmanagementofundergroundwaterresourcesintheAftoutzone

Water 250,000 3

SupportforimprovedmonitoringofthepiezometricnetworksofthewatertablesofAounsandstonesandoftheHodhspelites.

Water 800,000 2

Supportfortheexperimentalusedisseminationofthedripmethodintheoasiszones

Water

Mauritania

400,000 2

Undergroundwater

ThestudyandmonitoringofwaterqualityinMagtaLahjar,TintaneandWompou.

1,000,000 3

Fixationofshiftingdunesthreateningthenationalsocioeconomicinfrastructure

Forestry 1,500,000 3

Agro-forestry 1,500,000 5ParticipatoryreforestationforenergyandAgro-forestryintheagriculturalzones

Rurallivelihoods

600,000 2Thereorganizationofpopulationsadverselyaffectedbyclimatechange,takingintoconsiderationtheoptionstheyhavealreadyadopted

Theimplementationofasafeguardplanfor Coastalecosystem

2,091,000 5thetownofNouakchottanditsinfrastructures.

Coastalecosystem

1,337,000 3Protectionofthediversityofthefishpopulationandpreventionofover-fishingwithaviewtosustainabledevelopment

Theprotectionandreinforcementofthe Coastalecosystem

1,018,000 5dunebaralongthecoastlineinNouakchott

TOTAL 20,506,780

32


35/42

33

Annex I Contd.Country Proposed Adaptation project Key sector Cost in US$ Period inYears

CommunityTreeGrowing RuralvulnerableLivelihoods

5,500,000 3-5

LandDegradationManagement Land andnaturalresources

4.7000,000 3-5

StrengtheningMeteorologicalService Earlywarningandinformation

6.500,000 3-5

CommunityWaterandSanitationProject Healthimprovement

4,700,000 3-5

DroughtAdaptationProject Naturalresources

3,000,000 3-5

WaterforProduction Waterresources

5,000,000 3-5

Indigenous Knowledge (IK) and NaturalResourcesManagement

Naturalresources

1.200,000 3-5

Vectors,PestsandDiseaseControlProject Health 8,000,000 3-5

Uganda

ClimateChangeandDevelopmentPlanning Nationalplanning

1,200,000 3-5

TOTAL 39,800,000


36/42

Annex 2: Sample of questionnaire for NAPA Teams

I. General informationCountry:Name of focal point:Name of NAPA Coordinator:Number of staff involved:Coordinating Agency, tick box:

UNDP UNEP WorldBank

II. Status of your NAPAa.WhatisthestatusofyourNAPA?Pleaseenterthedates(month/year)foreachstage,including

plansforfuturestages(e.g.,submissiontoUNFCCC)andanyspecificfollowup thatisplanned

(e.g.,workshopsandreviews).

Initiated Fundingavailable

Draft forreview

NAPAcompleted

Submitted toUNFCCC

Follow up(specify):

Follow up(specify):

b. The assessment is based on:Pleasetickboxesforapplicablesectorsandregions,ifsectorandregionarelinkedpleasedrawa

linetoconnectthem.ForexampleHealthandCoastforFishingwouldconnecttheseboxes.

Sectors Ecological regions Population

Health

Agriculture

WaterForestry

Other

All

Desert&arid

Savannah&semi-arid

Humid&sub-humidWetlands

Highlands

Coastal

Livelihoods

Poor

AgriculturalPastoral

Fishing

Rural

Urban

34


37/42

III. Methodological issues:Kindlyindicate(byticking)thestepswhichhavebeentakenindevelopingtheNAPA:

Synthesisofavailablevulnerabilityassessments: Reviewofexistingorpastvulnerabilitystudiessuchasnationalcommunicationsorpast

consultationsunderothernationalplanningprocesses

Reviewofcurrentcopingstrategies Reviewandassessmentofexistingdevelopmentframeworkssuchasnationalstrategies

forsustainabledevelopment,PRSPs,ProgrammeofActionfortheLDCsetc.

Alloftheabove

Comments:________________________________________________________

2. Use of the rapid participatory approaches for: Assessingofcurrentvulnerabilitytoclimatevariabilityandextremeweatherevents Assessingthepotential increaseinclimatehazardsandassociatedrisksduetoclimate

change

Identificationofkeyclimatechangeadaptationmeasures Noneoftheabove Alloftheabove

Comments:__________________________________________________________

3. Stakeholders consultation through: Individualinterviews Groupinterviews Nationalworkshops Local-level(state)workshops Surveys Noneoftheabove Alloftheabove

Other(Pleasespecify)Comments:___________________________________________________________

4. Development of criteria and indicators for ranking, including the process of ranking of priorityneeds was based on:

Usingacomputersoftware(e.g.Definite,HiView,NAPASSESS) Targetingspecificgroups(e.g.,livelihood-sensitivitymatrix) Usingparticipatorystakeholderconsultationprocess

35

Acombinationoftheabovetwo


38/42

Noneoftheabove Others

Criteria used in the NAPA:1. 6.

2. 7.

3. 8.

4. 9.

5. 10.

36

Comments:____________________________________________________________________


39/42

Annex 3Decision 28/CP.7 Annex, Guidelines for the preparation of national adaptationprogrammes of action

FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.4EnglishANNEXGuidelines for the preparation of nationaladaptation programmes of actionA. Introduction1.Nationaladaptationprogrammesofaction(NAPAs)willcommunicatepriorityactivitiesaddressingtheurgentandimmediateneedsandconcernsoftheleastdevelopedcountries(LDCs),relatingtoadaptationtotheadverseeffectsofclimatechange.

2.TherationalefordevelopingNAPAsrestsonthelowadaptivecapacityofLDCs,whichrenderstheminneedofimmediateandurgentsupporttostartadaptingtocurrentandprojectedadverseeffectsofclimatechange.ActivitiesproposedthroughNAPAswouldbethosewhosefurtherdelaycouldincreasevulnerability,orleadtoincreasedcostsatalaterstage.3.TheNAPAwillbepresentedintheformofadocumentspecifyingalistofpriorityactivities,withaconcisejustificationbasedonatightsetofcriteria.4.TheNAPAdocumentwillnotbeanendinitself,butratherameansforthedissemination,byanLDCParty,ofitsproposedprogrammeofactiontoaddressitsurgentneedsforadaptation.ThepriorityactivitiesidentifiedthroughtheNAPAprocesswillbemadeavailabletotheentitythatwilloperatetheLDCfundreferredtoindecision7/CP.7,paragraph6,andothersourcesoffunding,fortheprovisionoffinancialresourcestoimplementthese

activities.B. Objective of NAPAs5.NationaladaptationprogrammesofactionwillserveassimplifiedanddirectchannelsofcommunicationforinformationrelatingtotheurgentandimmediateadaptationneedsoftheLDCs.

C. Characteristics of NAPAs6.Nationaladaptationprogrammesofactionshould:(a)Beeasytounderstand;(b)Beaction-orientedandcountry-driven;(c)Setclearprioritiesforurgentandimmediateadaptationactivitiesasidentifiedbythecountries.D. Guiding elements7.ThepreparationofNAPAswillbeguidedbythefollowing:(a)Aparticipatoryprocessinvolvingstakeholders,particularlylocalcommunities;

(b)Amultidisciplinaryapproach;(c)Acomplementaryapproach,buildinguponexistingplansandprogrammes,includingnationalactionplansundertheUnitedNationsConventiontoCombatDesertification,nationalbiodiversitystrategiesandactionplansundertheConventiononBiologicalDiversity,andnationalsectoralpolicies;(d)Sustainabledevelopment;(e)Genderequality;(f)Acountry-drivenapproach;(g)Soundenvironmentalmanagement;(h)Cost-effectiveness;(i)Simplicity;(j)Flexibilityofproceduresbasedonindividualcountrycircumstances.E. Process8.ThepreparationoftheNAPAmayproceedasfollows:(a)ThesettingupofanationalNAPAteam:thenationalclimatechangefocalpointwillsetupaNAPAteamcomposedofaleadagencyandrepresentativesofstakeholdersincludinggovernmentagenciesandcivilsociety.Thisgroupwouldbeconstituted

usinganopenandflexibleprocessthatwillbeinclusiveandtransparent.TheNAPAteamwillberesponsibleforpreparingtheNAPAandcoordinatingtheimplementationofNAPAactivities;(b)TheNAPAteamwillassembleamultidisciplinaryteam:

37

(i)Tosynthesizeavailableinformationonadverseeffectsofclimatechangeandcopingstrategies,whichwouldbecollated


40/42

andreviewed,includingthenationalstrategiesforsustainabledevelopment,theProgrammeofActionfortheLeastDevelopedCountries,theUnitedNationsdevelopmentassistanceframeworks,andpovertyreductionstrategypapers,ifavailableinthecountries;(ii)Toconductaparticipatoryassessmentofvulnerabilitytocurrentclimatevariabilityandextremeweatherevents,andtoassesswhereclimatechangeiscausingincreasesinassociatedrisks;(iii)Toidentifykeyclimate-changeadaptationmeasures,based,totheextentpossible,onvulnerabilityandadaptationassessment;suchmeasureswouldalsoberesponsivetoneedsidentifiedunderotherrelevantprocesses,suchasthepreparationofnationalactionplansundertheUnitedNationsConventiontoCombat

DesertificationandnationalbiodiversitystrategiesandactionplansundertheConventiononBiologicalDiversity;(iv)Toidentifyandprioritizecountry-drivencriteriaforselectingpriorityactivitiestoaddressneedsarisingfromtheadverseeffectsofclimatechange,drawingonthecriteriareferredtoinsectionF.4below.(c)Developmentofproposalsforpriorityactivitiestoaddressneedsarisingfromtheadverseeffectsofclimatechange:thenationalteamwill:(i)Organizeanationaland/orsubnationalconsultativeprocesstosolicitinputsandproposalideasinordertohelpdevelopashortlistofpotentialNAPAactivities.Thenationalteamwouldfacilitatethisconsultativeprocess,andwouldhelpintranslatingideasintoactivities.Thisprocesswillallowadequatedialoguebetweenthenationalteamandthepublic,withtimeallowedforpubliccommentandrevisions;(ii)Identifypotentialactivities,whichmayincludecapacitybuildingandpolicyreform,andwhichmaybeintegratedintosectoralandotherpolicies;(iii)Selectandidentifypriorityactivities,

basedontheagreedcriteria;(iv)Proposeprofilesofpriorityactivitiesusingthefollowingformat:TitleRationale/justificationinrelationtoclimatechange,includingsectorsconcernedDescription-Objectivesandactivities-Inputs-Short-termoutputs

-Potentiallong-termoutcomesImplementation-Institutionalarrangement-Risksandbarriers-Evaluationandmonitoring-Financialresources(d)ThedevelopmentoftheNAPAdocument:thedocumentwillbepreparedfollowingthestructuresetoutinsectionFbelow;(e)Publicreviewandrevision:theNAPAdocumentwillundergopublicreviewandberevisedaccordingly;(f)Thefinalreviewprocess:theNAPAdocument,includingtheprofiles,willbereviewedbyateamofgovernmentandcivilsocietyrepresentatives,includingtheprivatesector,whomaytakeintoconsiderationanyadvicesolicitedfromtheLeastDevelopedCountriesExpertGroup;

(g)NationalgovernmentendorsementoftheNAPA:aftertheNAPAhasbeenprepared,itwillbesubmittedtothenationalgovernmentforendorsement.(h)Publicdissemination:theendorsedNAPAdocumentwillbemadeavailabletothepublicandtotheUNFCCCsecretariat.F. Structure of NAPA document1.Introductionandsetting9.ThisintroductorysectionwillincludebackgroundinformationaboutthecountrythatisrelevanttotheNAPAprocess.Itwillcovercurrentcharacteristics,keyenvironmentalstresses,andhowclimatechangeandclimatevariabilityadverselyaffectbiophysicalprocessesandkeysectors.2.Frameworkforadaptationprogramme10.Thissectionwillalsoprovideanoverviewofclimatevariabilityandobservedandprojectedclimatechangeandassociatedactualandpotentialadverseeffectsofclimatechange.Thisoverviewwill

bebasedonexistingandongoingstudiesandresearch,and/orempiricalandhistoricalinformationaswellastraditionalknowledge.

38

11.ThissectionwilldescribetheNAPAframeworkanditsrelationshiptothecountrysdevelopmentgoals,asdescribedinsubparagraph8(b)(i)above,tomaketheframeworkconsistentwithsocio-economicanddevelopmentneeds.Inaddition,itwould


41/42

alsodescribethegoals,objectivesandstrategiesoftheNAPA,takingintoaccountotherplansandmultilateralenvironmentalagreements.12.Wherepossible,adescriptionofthepotentialbarrierstoimplementationshouldalsobeincluded.3.Identificationofkeyadaptationneeds13.Basedonthisoverviewandframework,pastandcurrentpracticesforadaptationtoclimatechangeandclimatevariabilitywillbeidentifiedasrelatedtoexistinginformationregardingthecountrysvulnerabilitytotheadverseeffectsofclimatechange,climatevariabilityandextremeweatherevents,aswellaslong-termclimatechange.Thissectionwillexplainhowandtowhatextent

activitiesmayaddressspecificvulnerabilities.14.GiventheactualandpotentialadverseeffectsofclimatechangedescribedinsectionF.2above,thissectionwillidentifyrelevantadaptationoptionsincludingcapacitybuilding,policyreform,integrationintosectoralpoliciesandproject-levelactivities.4.Criteriaforselectingpriorityactivities15.Asetoflocally-drivencriteriawillbeusedtoselectpriorityadaptationactivities.Thesecriteriashouldinclude,interalia:(a)Levelordegreeofadverseeffectsofclimatechange;(b)Povertyreductiontoenhanceadaptivecapacity;(c)Synergywithothermultilateralenvironmentalagreements;(d)Cost-effectiveness.

16.Thesecriteriaforprioritizationwillbeappliedto,interalia:(a)Lossoflifeandlivelihood;(b)Humanhealth;(c)Foodsecurityandagriculture;(d)Wateravailability,qualityandaccessibility;(e)Essentialinfrastructure;(f)Culturalheritage;(g)Biologicaldiversity;(h)Land-usemanagementandforestry;(i)Otherenvironmentalamenities;(j)Coastalzones,andassociatedlossofland.5.Listofpriorityactivities17.Thissectionwilllistpriorityclimate-changeadaptationactivitiesthathavebeenselectedbasedonthecriterialistedin

sectionF.4above.18.ForeachoftheselectedpriorityactivitiesasetofprofileswillbedevelopedforinclusionintheNAPAdocument.Thiscouldfollowtheformatsetoutinsubparagraph8(c)(iv)above.6.NAPApreparationprocess

39

19.ThissectionwilldescribetheNAPAdevelopmentprocess,includingtheprocessofconsultation,themethodsforevaluationandmonitoring,theinstitutionalarrangements,andthemechanismofendorsementbythenationalgovernment.


42/42

Notes1.YaleCenterforEnvironmentalLawandPolicy.2005:EnvironmentalSustainabilityIndex:BenchmarkingNationalEnvironmentalStewardship.(2006)NewHaven:YaleCenterforEnvironmentalLawandPolicy,YaleUniversity,CenterforInternationalEarthScienceInformation

Network,ColumbiaUniversity,IncollaborationwiththeWorldEconomicForum,GenevaandJointResearchCentre,EuropeanCommission,Ispra.www.yale.edu/esi.2.LEG(2002).AnnotatedGuidelinesforthePreparationofNationalAdaptationProgrammesofAction.LeastDevelopedCountriesExpertGroup.Bonn:UNFCCC.http://unfccc.int/files/not_assigned/b/~application/pdf/annguide.pdf.

3.TheguidelinesindicatedapreferenceforMCAandallteamsfollowedthisapproach.However,

therearemanyrankingprocedures,andmanyvariantsofmulti-criteriaassessmentthatcouldbeexploredinsettingpriorities.

4.Someanalystshavecalledattentiontothe'adaptationdeficit',thelackofeffectiveadaptationtocurrentclimaticconstraintsandhazards,ortheinabilitytotakeadvantageofclimaticopportunities.Overcomingthisdeficitisseenasapriorityandprerequisitetotacklinglongerrunclimatechange.

5.TheworkofLambertetal.isinstrumentalinmakingthispoint,seeLempert,R.J.andM.E.Schlesinger,2000:Robuststrategiesforabatingclimatechange.ClimaticChange,45(3/4),387401.;Lempert,R.J.,M.E.Schlesinger,S.C.BankesandN.G.Andronova,2000:Theimpactsofclimatevariabilityonneartermpolicychoicesandthevalueofinformation.ClimaticChange,45(1),129161.Followingconceptsofsociallearning,riskmanagementandrobustdecisionmaking,theSEIanditspartnersaredevelopingtheClimateEnvelope/AdaptationRiskScreeningPlatform,asetofmodulestoassistplanningin

makingrobustdecisionsregardingclimateadaptation.
http://www.yale.edu/esihttp://unfccc.int/files/not_assigned/b/http://unfccc.int/files/not_assigned/b/http://www.yale.edu/esi

Documents

Review of NAPAs, 2007