TOOLS FOR INTEGRATING CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION AND DISASTER REDUCTION INTO DEVELOPMENT Thomas Tanner (Institute of Development Studies, UK) Anne Hammill (International Institute for Sustainable Development, Geneva) EADI/DSA Conference September 20 th 2011

Positionality

Context Risks to poverty reduction Responses New programmes New policy and organisational change Development on risk management tools See: Hammill and Tanner 2011; Mitchell and Tanner 2006; Wilby and Vaughan 2010

Rationale Tool overload! Our focus on User perspectives Implications for harmonisation Process guidance tools See stock-takes at: Tanner and Guenther 2007; Klein et al 2007; Gigli and Agrawala 2007; Olhoff and Schaer 2010; Ecofys/IDS 2011

Method Sample of 10 tools in bilateral agencies and NGOs Interviews with 50 tool developers and users Agency Tool name DONOR TOOLS Asian Development Bank Draft Risk Screening Tool GTZ Climate Proofing for Development USAID Guidance Manual DANIDA Climate Change Screening Studies DFID Strategic Programme Review NGO TOOLS Tearfund CARE Climate vulnerability and capacity analysis IISD, IUCN, SEI, IC CRiSTAL Christian Aid Adaptation Toolkit

Linking tools with decision-making steps Project Identification Project appraisal Project design Project implementation Monitoring & Evaluation Project cycle steps Raising awareness Identifying current and future vulnerabilities and climate risks Identifying adaptation measures Evaluating and selecting adaptation options Evaluating success of adaptation Adaptation decision- making steps Climate info Vulnerability / poverty / development information DATA & INFORMATION PROVISON TOOLS Marketing Tool sharing Feedback, refinement KNOWLEDGE SHARING TOOLS / PLATFORMS Communication Screening Assessment Analysis Evaluation Integration M&E PROCESS TOOLS CRM / climate adaptation tools

Tool conceptual approaches

What role for partners

Assessing tools 4 Organisational change Awareness-raising a key reported benefit Tools to provide agency to take action Association with others to work on the issue Demonstrated action on climate change Awareness Association Agency Action / reflection After Ballard 2007

Limitations Awareness and association is partial Partner engagement is varied Embedding tools in donor management systems only Capacity gaps in government Action failures Failure to address multiple stressors (integration) Dealing with strategic risks Assessing budget support How to learn from implementation / M&E

Harmonisation opportunities Strong rationale for multiple tool development Common climate /vulnerability information sites or summaries? Common skeleton for elements of process? Screening criteria Checklists for risk assessment, risk management analysis, options evaluation Cost benefit / effectiveness analysis Approaches to strategic climate risk management Partner-oriented Portfolio-wide Sector / budget support Common M&E framework

Organisational change Most agencies characterised by efficient management ResponseDescription Core business focused Organisations with a short term focus Stakeholder responsive Managers will respond but not proactive. May be a tick box exercise. Efficient management Managers recognise that the issue needs to be managed systematically, rather than occasionally. CC is usually delegated to someone lower down the organisation; senior managers may think theyve cracked it. Strategic experimentation Bridge from operations to strategy. Projects used to make breakthroughs in practice and understanding, but strategic decisions remain unaffected. Strategic resilience Organisation becomes more able to put in place programmes to ensure its resilience in what is likely to be a very different and fast-changing future. The champion organisation Organisations choose to go further and seek to lead wider social change to slow and reverse climate change itself. Source: Adapted from Ballard 2007

Critique Of climate risk management Tools as a fix Technical / managerial solution Climate science less helpful than robust decision making (Wilby 2011) Of incremental change Adaptation as tweaks and incremental change Response as stability not transformation Of organisational change strategy in tools-led approach Offers potential to showcase without embedding change Limited use within organisation – pigeon-holed

Thank you

Experience of tool use Types of users identified: Training, incentives, resources available. VoluntaryNo formal training, aware of tool through own professional networks, Internet, reference documents. Use tool on ad- hoc, as-needed basis. Trained and ready Received training, ready and willing to apply tool as needed. May do it without prompting or support. May seek out funding opportunities. Applying as part of project Usually trained, required to use tool as part of project – i.e. tool elaboration and application are discrete project activities with associated budget lines. Applying as part of job description Usually trained, staff or consultants, hired to apply tool in designing and managing development strategies. Hired to use the tool(s). Mandatory Trained, tools applied as part of mandatory agency policy.

Use of climate information Outsource the climate analysis Hire consultants, experts Use pre-fabricated climate information products Draw from ready- made climate change summaries (projections, impacts), and adaptation options that accompany tool Rely more heavily on local observations and experiences Seek out some information (e.g. NAPA), extract general conclusions Research and emphasise community observations and experiences Growing emphasis on developing informed consumers of climate information (what, where, who) Disconnect between Type 1 and Type 2 tool users

Terminology No single definition of Climate risk management Tools: documents, computer programmes, websites that help undertake part of risk screening / assessment process Screening & assessment as part of climate risk management Sources: Mitchell and Tanner 2006; Klein et al 2007; Wilby and Vaughan 2010

Tool development Motivations Development threatened by climate change Disconnect between advocacy and internal actions NGOs: Demand from field staff & local partners, social justice Donors: Top-down policy commitments, fiduciary risk management Development process Driven by headquarters (with input from field offices / partners) Collaborative and iterative Organisational change as part of development Drawing from… NGOs: PRA tools Donors: Risk management procedures for EIA/SIA