Comments & Feedback on “Policy Brief on Towards Climate Change Resilience Building of Vulnerable Mountain People and their Local Governments” Bhushan Tuladhar

Comments on “Relevant Policies” Toolkit for Community Based Vulnerability Assessment is not a policy and need not be mentioned. Some sectoral policies may be relevant as well although they may not explicitly mention Climate Change o In the context of Ramechaap, Water resources (or water supply) and local governance related policies could also be analyzed

Key Policy Gaps The four gaps identified (integrating agency; communication mechanism; arrangement for identifying vulnerable areas; role of ‘learning by doing’) focus on mechanisms for implementing the policy rather than the policy as a whole. Need to analyze “what is in the policy” as well as “how it is to be implemented”

Climate Change Policy Vision Mission Goal Quantitative targets (7) Objectives (7) Policies (61 policies under 7 broad headings) Strategies Institutional Financial aspects Legal aspects All aspects of CC Policy, not just implementation strategy, should be done

Examples of policy gaps in the CC policy One of the stated objective is, ”To establish a Climate Change Center as an effective technical institution to address issues of climate change and also strengthen existing institutions” May be its objective should be to establish an effective institutional framework for addressing issues related to climate change both at the central and the local level in a coordinated manner

Gap 1: Lack of effective integrating agency at the central level to push the climate agenda in an effective and holistic manner “Climate Change Council, is too high an authority to ensure effective implementation” – CC Council is not supposed to ensure effective implementation. It is the sectoral agencies that do the coordination for implementation. At the central level MoE and NPC are two agencies responsible for coordination. According to the CC policy, “Coordinating all climate change programmes by the Climate Change Council at policy level and by the MoE at functional level” “lack of explicit arrangement regarding who will insure implementation of LAPA framework.” – NAPA says that local governments are responsible for implementing NAPA at the local level. This would include LAPA. Energy and Environment Unit within DDC could play an important role

Lack of resources in MoE has been rightly pointed out but the policies do talk about strengthening MOE “Role of MLD has been overlooked” – not completely when NAPA clearly mentions that 80% of the resources will go to local governments. But yes this is a key ministry and their role should be more explicitly mentioned. Role of NPC should also be explicitly mentioned. No robust agency to address water scarcity – This responsibility is scattered across various ministries & Departments (DHM, DWSS, DOLIDAR, Dept of soil conservation, etc). May be WECS could address this at the policy level. At the local level D-WASH-CC could play an important role Gap 1: Lack of effective integrating agency at the central level to push the climate agenda in an effective and holistic manner

Gap 2: Lack of two-way communication mechanisms among and between the center and the local levels If we consider MLD, instead of MOE to be responsible for adaptation at the local level, then there would be a two-way communication mechanism “reflective shield” between centre & local should be analyzed to define this more clearly. Is this the knowledge provider, message, medium, or recipient. “Ensuring adaptation intervention as rights of the local communities appears an uphill struggle when viewed at the current community belief system which tend view the current climate crisis as a divine” – not clear

Gap 3: Weak arrangements to rightly identifying and to intervening the vulnerable areas and communities Use of vulnerability assessment is being done and it is good but the methodology is not clear. E.g. a recent study commissioned by MOE as part of the 2 nd National Communication Report has come up with totally different conclusions regarding vulnerability of different districts. So the gap is not in the arrangement. It is on using this arrangement properly. Now with the toolkit for doing community based vulnerability assessment, we have a tool for use at the local as well.

Gap 4: Role and space for ‘learning by doing’ is not adequately emphasized by policy The four points describing this gap does not really do describe this. It focuses on “intersectoral approach” rather than “learning by doing”

Comments on Recommendations Recommendations are related to implementation of policies rather than improving the policy framework Recommendations should be based on and linked to evidence from the field work in Ramechaap First recommendation: “establish Climate Change Council at the apex level” ? CCC is already there. If we meant to say CC Centre, it is not the apex body Recommendations need to be specific. o E.g. type of coordination mechanism in the district? DMRC under CDO; D-WASH-CC under LDO; DCCAM Network in Nawalparasi o Solution to water stress – e.g. IWRM NAPA does stress on water. All 9 priority activities are related to water

Comments on Recommendations Not sure if MoE needs to go the grassroots by itself Some recommendations are too broad o Impervious layer hindering effective communication between the centre and the local level must be severed with ultimate aim of insuring unhindered to-and-fro flow of information Others are too specific o Possibilities of crop & livestock insurance have to be explored Ways to strengthen the planning and implementing mechanism at the local level needs to be recommended if this is a major problem Overall, focus on policy framework and make the recommendations evidence based and specific