Planning for a low carbon resilient future: bringing together adaptation and mitigation in national planning Simon Anderson and Susannah Fisher, IIED

Outline Background to the study Methodology Stakeholder views and networks No time to go in detail in country results, want to draw out high level cross cutting findings

Why this study Bringing the agendas together Lack of policy experience in this area Key area of interest National comparisons Little evidence in this area Policy enthusiasm running ahead of evidence Attempt to document and learn from national approaches through comparative approach 18 month programme of work looking at adaptation and mitigation national planning in the LDCs With research partners and government action partners and cross-country learning

Emerging area, changing international and national ideas. Discourses identified from a database of LDC strategies compiled in 2013. Changing discourse amongst national governments from Bangladesh as an early adopter seeing mitigation as a risk to Ethiopia and others now seeing it as an opportunity.

Methodology Policy and analysis review of main documents Interviews with 25 key stakeholders from four groups in each country government civil society and private sector, development partners research organisations Social network analysis of policymakers Rwanda, Bangladesh and Ethiopia main cases Chosen as front runners and early adopters Important to learn from their experiences for others

There are different approaches and pathways to LCRD Rwanda mainstreaming of environment and climate Ethiopia sectoral strategies and reduction mechanisms – emissions and vulnerability Bangladesh separate agendas, piecemeal approach Nepal low carbon development strategy and emphasis on adaptation To give detail on these approaches see the yellow issue paper I sent you the link to. This slide is just to give some intro to the policy approaches in the case study countries CRGE in Ethiopia agriculture moving ahead have joint overall vision, high level political support. CRGE facility being developed. Low carbon and green growth strategy in Rwanda, trying to mainstream into sectoral ministries. Again fund being operationalised –FONERWA. Bangladesh piecemeal approach through the BCCSAP and associated funds. Nepal – starting now on low carbon development strategy, coming after adaptation and climate change policy.

Stakeholder views from Ethiopia Idea Meaning Alignment Doing the agendas in parallel but not necessarily with overlap or synergies. Complementarity Agendas indirectly support each other. Separation Separate issues with no need for linkages Leveraging Brought together in an in-depth way to create better outcomes.   Alignment Complementarity Leveraging Separation International organisations and dev partners Technical Research organisations Corporate social responsibility Private sector   Government However, whilst a country may have a national approach in the policy documents in reality stakeholders still have a wide range of vies on what this means and how to do it in practice. In Ethiopia, there are diverse stakeholder views on how to bring agendas together in practice ranging from a complementary approach to leveraging greater transformative outcomes. For example this slide shows analysis from Ethiopia where the stakeholders had a range of views on what bringing together resilience with the green economy means including four main ideas of alignment, complementarity, separation and leveraging. Lack of agreement on PROCESS.

Stakeholder views from Bangladesh Storyline Meaning Who  No need for low carbon Adaptation is a national priority, mitigation is not Bangladesh’s obligation Government linked to environmental sector, civil Society, research organizations and development partners Separation  Clear separation between the two issues requires dedicated actions separately. Adaptation is the major priority. Civil society; development partners, IDCOL Sequential Adaptation continues to be a priority for now but low carbon growth should be added sequentially over time, as is strategic. Government linked to environmental sector Alignment Mitigation actions to be aligned with adaptation due to global commitments. This could be simultaneous alignment.   Government linked to environmental sector, research organizations and think tanks Co-benefits Prioritise those actions that have common mitigation and adaptation benefits (co-benefits), whilst not curtailing development.  Government linked to environmental sector and research organizations Low carbon as a feasible approach Low carbon is a growing priority and a more feasible option than building resilience; but barriers need to be addressed and the high costs and burden of mitigation needs to be shared. Ministry linked to power generation and energy Integration Integration of ‘adaptation’ and ‘mitigation’ concepts into policy and actions. Development partners In Bangladesh the difference was more pronounced and what is particularly interesting is the divide between different government ministries. This analysis of interview data shows how environment and power ministries say the policy approach as something very different and therefore support implementation in very different ways. This is likely to have a significant impact on how low carbon and resilience might be brought together across government.

Stakeholder views from Rwanda Main Ideas Examples Stakeholders Separate but gradual integration As a poor country, Rwanda does not pollute but is victim of pollution from rich world. Implementing green economy initiatives will not help much in the short term Need to prioritise CR first and think of green economy later; Some Government Ministries and agencies, Private sector Complexity and complementarily There is high complementarity between CR and LCD; same interventions cut-across the two issues Government ministries and Agencies, International organisation and development partners Long-term sustainability planning Implementing CR and LCD together leads to mutual benefits: socioeconomic and environmental benefits; In Rwanda, the ideas are linked to the broader environment and sustainability. This partly reflects their emphasis on mainstreaming where climate change is not seen as a separate issue. From the Rwandan stakeholders point on view, Low Carbon Resilient Development is still a new agenda and has not yet translated into some stakeholders’ plans and interventions. For the majority of stakeholders, bringing together CR and LCD primarily requires putting in place an awareness raising strategy in order to increase the understanding of different stakeholders involved in planning and implementation country’s priorities.   The stakeholders we interviewed have expressed varied views about how to bring the two issues together (see the slide). While some stakeholders suggested that there is no need for addressing the two issues together, other think that for sustainability purposes, it is very important to keep and address CR and LCD together.

Social networks showed organisations acting as hubs of information and connectors Diagram just an illustrative example from Ethiopia to show what we did. Organisations in red are those that acted as hubs of information – passing it on to others around the climate resilient policy process. Social network analysis showed that information about climate policy was not flowing easily between all relevant stakeholders within climate resilient policy development and between climate resilient and the green economy policy process. Those nominated to be co-ordinators were not necessarily those playing a co-ordination function Knowledge flowed through different people on the low carbon agenda and the resilience agenda suggesting there needs to more dialogue and information flow to find synergies and co-benefits Networks around the climate resilient process are less well connected and knowledge is more diffuse. More knowledge and new information is also needed. Some organisations may need to take a more leading role in knowledge sharing to ensure resilience has the same policy support as the green economy. Work also showed that policymakers relied on different types of knowledge and often relied heavily on internet based sources rather than peer reviewed journals or other scientific outputs

Need dialogue around the approach – alignment, sequential, integration Ministries, planners, private sector have different ideas on the implementation Dialogue can help build consensus or convergence on national approach Ideas will guide implementation Build up knowledge flows between policy areas and access to up to date information

There are opportunities and success stories emerging that need to be shared and built on Solar systems in Bangladesh LCDS in Nepal Agricultural programmes in Rwanda

Crucial to continue reflecting on approaches to synergies and co-benefits Still need to ground international ideas of adaptation and mitigation joint implementation (UNFCCC) Generate evidence of what is working and what is not Take the opportunities that support national priorities Build knowledge flows to support synergies

Conclusions Not just a technical agenda, ideas and discourses also affect implementation and ownership Diverse experiences emerging but lack of clarity on how agendas will come together Social networks around policy still developing – need support

Simon.anderson@iied.org Susannah.fisher@iied.org Thanks and questions Simon.anderson@iied.org Susannah.fisher@iied.org