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

2. 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

3. 1. THE CASE FOR MAINSTREAMING ADAPTATION

4. 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

5. 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

6. 2. HOW GOOD ARE WE AT MAINSTREAMING?

7. 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

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

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

10. 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.

11. 3. BARRIERS TO MAINSTREAMING ADAPTATION

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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

15. 4. SOME PRIORITIES FOR THE WAY FORWARD

16. 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

17. Example: Integrating Adaptation in National Processes

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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 ?

22. 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

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