Putting Climate Change Adaptation in the Development Mainstream: Moving from Theory to Practice Shardul Agrawala WDR 2010 – Workshop on Climate Governance and Development Berlin, 28-30 September 2008

OUTLINE The Case for Integrating (Mainstreaming) Adaptation How good are we at Mainstreaming Adaptation ? - In a development context ? - In OECD countries ? Key Challenges to Implementing and Mainstreaming Adaptation Some Priorities for the Road Ahead

1. THE CASE FOR MAINSTREAMING ADAPTATION

THE CASE FOR MAINSTREAMING ADAPTATION Adaptation is closely intertwined with development priorities Development activities often automatically enhance adaptive capacity Other development activities, however, risk promoting mal-adaptation Climate change impacts, meanwhile, can undermine many development projects and priorities Adaptation is therefore not a stand-alone agenda, but needs to be integrated in national, sectoral, regional, and local planning processes, as well as at the project level

THE CASE FOR MAINSTREAMING ADAPTATION From a development co-operation perspective, very significant ODA flows are directed at activities that are climate sensitive – incorporating consideration of climate change risks in such investments will be critical

2. HOW GOOD ARE WE AT MAINSTREAMING?

HOW GOOD ARE WE AT MAINSTREAMING ADAPTATION? Considerable progress has been made on addressing adaptation within climate change specific activities (assessments, action plans etc.) but such initiatives have generally not made the cross-over to “line Ministries” or national budgetary processes. Donors have also recognised adaptation in high level declarations, and have made progress on screening projects for climate risks. However, National Development Plans, Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers, Donor Country Assistance Strategies, and project documents generally do not pay attention to climate change, or often not even to current climate risks. Policy coherence between immediate development objectives and what might be needed for adaptation is also a major concern. Many development choices driven by short term objectives frequently result in mal-adaptation

HOW GOOD ARE WE AT MAINSTREAMING ADAPTATION? But What About Developed Countries ?

Progress on Adaptation in OECD/Annex-1 Countries Gagnon-Lebrun and Agrawala, 2008

HOW GOOD ARE WE AT MAINSTREAMING ADAPTATION? Mainstreaming adaptation to climate change remains more aspirational than operational ….. in both developing country and OECD contexts In other words, the resource gap – while important in a negotiations context - might not be the only key bottleneck The debate about financing – while clearly important – might obscure much more fundamental challenges faced in the successful integration of climate risks.

3. BARRIERS TO MAINSTREAMING ADAPTATION

Some Barriers to Mainstreaming Adaptation We don’t quite know how! ...Especially at the strategic level. Mainstreaming adaptation remains more mantra than practice We don’t quite know how much it would cost Sectoral planners/development agencies already face a “mainstreaming overload” from agendas ranging from gender to sustainable development competing for inclusion.

Some Barriers to Mainstreaming Adaptation Many development projects are funded for 3-5 year time horizons and may not be the best vehicle for long-term climate risk reduction Adaptation might also be less attractive than more visible investments such as disaster recovery and where funding modalities are better established Adaptation to the longer term risks posed by climate change may also require greater specificity/certainty in climate projections (particularly at the local level) than might be currently available. Often, even information on baseline climatology is uneven.

Some Barriers to Mainstreaming Climate Change There might also be genuine trade-offs between Climate and Development - Diversion of scarce resources from more pressing priorities - Climate considerations might at times require not developing critical resources which might be seen as hampering development - Inclusion of climate considerations in projects might be viewed as one more “checkbox”, complicating operating procedures and raising costs - There may also be downside risks associated with making decisions based on uncertain climate projections

4. SOME PRIORITIES FOR THE WAY FORWARD

1. Need Whole of Government Approach to Integrating Adaptation National Level Policies and Plans National Visions; Poverty Reduction Strategies; Multi-year Development Plans Sectoral Level Sector Development / Investment Programme Urban / Municipal level Project level Project Cycle Community level Individual, household & local institutional action to manage climate risks Allocate budget Propose investment / expenditure in different sectors Propose projects that support sectoral goals Identification & selection of projects Community as Decision-making TARGETS / BENEFICIARIES Top-down Project implementation Community as decision-making RESOURCES / PARTICIPANTS Bottom-up project identification, design, implementation, monitoring & evaluation Top-down Project implementation Enabling Conditions for local-level adaptation Learn-by-doing: Generation of adaptation-relevant information through experiences & learning Local information about development priorities, climate risks / changes, vulnerabilities and coping capacities Feeding local information into decision-making at different levels 1. Need Whole of Government Approach to Integrating Adaptation

Example: Integrating Adaptation in National Processes

An Example: Integrating Adaptation in National Processes National Policies Apply a climate lens Public Finances Mobilise new resources Add climate adaptation screen to criteria for assessing programmes Institutional governance framework Cross-sectoral coordination needed Updating/greater flexibility of climate sensitive regulations/standards Government analytical and information sharing capacity New tools & skills required for applying climate lens & screening

4. Some Priorities for the Way Forward 2. Making climate information more relevant and usable Multi-model projections, clear articulation of uncertainties Emphasis on implications at the scale at which development decisions are made Need national / regional priority rankings [instead of catalogues] for key climate change impacts based on urgency, certainty, timing, and the significance of the resource affected

4. Some Priorities for the Way Forward 3. Better Information on Costs and Benefits of Adaptation - Global “price-tags” problematic, and might be counter-productive - Greater emphasis needed on costs of policy integration - Better understanding of transition versus long term costs - Better understanding of direct versus economy wide costs - Costs without clear articulation of associated benefits of adaptation measures (and their sustainability) have limited value

4. Some Priorities for the Way Forward 4. Greater Clarity of Role of Dedicated Adaptation Financing - When to use dedicated funds (as opposed to mainstreaming) ? - How to best utilise scaled up funds for adaptation ? - How to prioritise across countries/sectors ? - Project based or strategic approaches ? - How to measure Progress ?

4. Some Priorities for the Way Forward Not just Financing, but also Incentivising Adaptation - A majority of adaptation actions would be undertaken by private actors. The role of public policy (and public financing) in this context is to establish the right enabling environment and incentives for internalisation of the risks of climate change in these private choices Regulations (e.g. zoning), market mechanisms (pricing of scarce resources, risk sharing), and public private partnerships should therefore also be given much greater emphasis

Putting Climate Change Adaptation in the Development Mainstream: Moving from Theory to Practice Shardul Agrawala WDR 2010 – Workshop on Climate Governance and Development Berlin, 28-30 September 2008