1. NAPA Experiences First thoughts for the ECBI Workshop Naivasha, 28-30 September 2006 Balgis Osman Elasha Tom Downing

2. The process ● Interviews with NAPA teams ● Questionnaire ● Review of draft and final NAPA documents ● Expert dialogues

3. Interview with NAPA teams Issues discussed ● Approaches for developing NAPA ● Lessons learned ● Strengths and weaknesses ● The way forward

4. Questionnaire ● General information ● Status of the NAPA ● Focus of the assessment ● Methods employed ● Ranking process ● Lessons learned (what worked best, gaps and constraints etc. ) ● Opportunities

5. Expert dialogue in Cape Town ● Knowledge of climate change may be low in some ministries and organisations, but experience in resource and risk management ● Expertise (and mandate) for adaptation may not be located in organisations with a lead for coordinating NAPAs ● Criteria agreed for the NAPA process have led to urgent projects that are oriented toward basic development ● Need to bridge scales, between implementation at the local level and national to international policy

6. Review of draft and final NAPA documents

7. Scale of project targets ● Majority are sector-wide efforts ● None target specific vulnerable social group or pool efforts across countries

8. Project types ● Vast majority are investment in specific development interventions ● A range of projects seek to raise awareness, develop the information base for adaptation and/or build institutional capacity ● Relatively few propose reforming institutions and regulation ● Two propose insurance as an adaptation mechanism

9. What worked well ● Awareness created ● Capacity building at all levels ● Involvement of experts from different sectors ● Selection of sectors and stakeholders ● Etc.

10. Ranking process (1) ● Using a computer software ( e.g. Definite, HiView, NAPASSESS) ● Targeting specific groups (e.g. livelihood- sensitive matrix) ● Using participatory stakeholder consultation process ● Stratified ranking (contribution to social, economic and env. Issues)

11. Ranking process (2) ● Social (quality of life, no. of beneficiaries, etc.) ● Env (reducing degradation) ● Economic (contribution to SD) ● Weights given to different criteria vary according to local priorities ??

12. Ranking process (3) ● Technical feasibility ● Economic costs and benefits ● Levels of stakeholders involvement ● Losses avoided ● Sustainability of livelihoods ● Cross cutting issues and synergetic approach ● Magnitude of impacts

13. Policy issues ● What is the project baseline? – GEF guidance on the additional action justified as adaptation to climate change ● What is the policy aim? – Climate proofing, climate resilience, climate aware ● What is the justification for funding the action from limited climate change sources rather than mainstream development funding? – Link between urgent needs and additional climatic risks: baselines, trends, scenarios ● How can we learn from our experience? ● Project-level and community-scale activities, program approach or integration with sectoral policies ??