Speaker 1 african priorities-results from aap countries_07march2011

690 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
690
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • (From Ian’s Presentation at the Board Meeting) *It is worth noting that a majority of the participating countries are the Least Developed Countries (LDCs), the Landlocked Developing Countries (LLDCs) or the Small Island Developing States (SIDS).
  • (From Ian’s presentation at the Board Meeting)
  • (From Ian’s presentation at the Board Meeting)
  • (page 2)
  • (page 5-6)It is worth noting that a majority of the participating countries are the Least Developed Countries (LDCs), the Landlocked Developing Countries (LLDCs) or the Small Island Developing States (SIDS). *This analysis aims to measure the complexity of AAP projects. ** We used the typology of adaptation responses that was originally proposed by Mcgray et all (2007) and slightly adjusted: Changing natural resource/ management practices; Building institutions; Launching planning processes; Raising awareness; Promoting technology change; Establishing monitoring/early warning systems; Changing agricultural practices; Empowering people; Promoting policy change; Improving infrastructure; Providing social protection; Financing; Other strategies ***We analysed whether countries target at specific sectors (e.g. agriculture, water resources management, disaster risk reduction, coastal zone management, ecosystems management) or multiple sectors (e.g. national development planning, financing planning). ****Through this analysis, we intend to identify whether countries prefer “no-regret policies,” which bring positive consequences regardless of climate change probabilities (Ribot et al 1996)
  • *Twenty AAP countries proposed a total of 238 outputs, which we categorized into the typology that was originally proposed by Mcgray et all (2007) and adjusted to include adaptation responses for financing. * “Raising Awareness” received the most attention for outcomes from AAP countries
  • (page 10) * as both employ risk management approaches and there are opportunities for coordination. **Cost-benefit analyses are becoming a popular tool for decision makers to make adaptation decisions. ***including increased capacities to mobilize resources from national and international funds.
  • (page 14) *Some adaptation responses target at certain sectors such as agriculture, water, disaster risk management, environment, health, energy, tourism, coastal zone management, land management and others. * On contrary, some adaptation responses do not target at a specific sector but aim at multiple sectors such as overall development, planning and financing. These multi-sector approaches often aim to produce wide and systematic changes.
  • (page 15) 71 percent of adaptation responses are at the national level. This demonstrates that most of AAP outputs aim to achieve widespread, systemic impacts. This finding is consistent with the results of the sector analysis above, which found that a majority of AAP activities are not sector-specific but aim to achieve broader impacts across multiple sectors.
  • (page 15) *Hard interventions involve physical structures such as improving infrastructure, strengthening weather stations and early warning systems and establishing micro-hydro power systems. *Soft interventions focus on frameworks, procedures, institutional and individual capacity development
  • (page 16) *  implying that countries are aware of cross-sectoral nature of climate change adaptation and making efforts to promote multi-disciplinary approaches towards climate change.  
  • (page 17)
  • (page 16) *Countries are therefore keen to catalyse systemic changes and produce widespread, sustained impacts under AAP **Countries therefore chose activities that are aligned with UNDP’s comparative advantages. ***Yet, we find the outcome framework broad enough for countries to choose wide-ranging adaptation options. Thus, we consider that the outcome framework affected countries decisions only to a limited extent. ****African governments have therefore ostensibly responded in an appropriate manner by focusing most of their AAP funding on awareness raising and creating the appropriate institutional environment for catalyzing and implementing adaptation on a large scale in different sectors.
  • Speaker 1 african priorities-results from aap countries_07march2011

    1. 1. Africa Adaptation Programme  “ What African Countries Perceive to be Key Adaptation Priorities: Results from 20 Countries in the Africa Adaptation Programme” Presented for the AfricaAdapt Symposium 2011
    2. 2. Africa Adaptation Programme <ul><li>Government of Japan funding </li></ul><ul><li>$92m over three years 2009-11 </li></ul><ul><li>Projects running in 20 countries </li></ul>Burkina Faso Cameroon Congo Ethiopia Gabon Ghana Kenya Lesotho Malawi Mauritius Morocco Mozambique Namibia Niger Nigeria Rwanda Sao Tome Senegal Tanzania Tunisia Regional team in Dakar, Senegal Satellite office opened recently in Nairobi
    3. 3. Africa Adaptation Programme Objectives <ul><li>Enhancing the adaptive capacity of vulnerable countries to climate change and disaster risks </li></ul><ul><li>Promoting early adaptation through evidence-based solutions and initiatives for action </li></ul><ul><li>Laying the foundation for long-term investment to increase resilience to climate change across the African continent </li></ul>
    4. 4. Africa Adaptation Programme Outcomes <ul><li>Country Projects have been designed to </li></ul><ul><li>achieve …. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Strengthening long term planning to enable countries to manage both existing and future risks associated with climate change and other causes </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Building effective leadership and institutional frameworks for enhanced coordination and cohesion of programmes </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Supporting the piloting of adaptation initiatives in the field </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Identifying a range of financing options for sustained adaptation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Building knowledge management systems and promoting information sharing. </li></ul></ul>Planned activities to ensure that inter- regional expertise and capacity development is provided to 20 countries including..... <ul><li>Advice and assistance relating to enhanced Government policy-making and planning in this field </li></ul><ul><li>Support for leadership development and institutional reform as well as enabling individual development </li></ul><ul><li>Encouraging exposure to world best practice and data </li></ul><ul><li>Support in finding innovative funding options </li></ul><ul><li>Creation of region-wide databases and learning opportunities </li></ul>
    5. 5. Purpose of the Study <ul><ul><li>“ In order to cope effectively with climate variability and change, it is recognized that countries need capacities at systemic, institutional and individual levels including policy/legal frameworks, institutional mechanisms, economic and social capital, human resources, technologies and resilient ecosystems.”* </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Governments face a considerable challenge in prioritizing measures, and in forging multi-disciplinary links to ensure that their adaptation strategies complement existing national development / sectoral strategies . </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Recognizing country priorities for climate change adaptation will: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>help shape development initiatives for long-term cross-sectoral success </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>point to solutions for addressing the zero-sum development reality and inevitability of priorities </li></ul></ul></ul>
    6. 6. Methodology <ul><li>We reviewed the project documents of the 20 participating countries for AAP to analyse the priority adaptation responses identified by the countries </li></ul><ul><li>We analysed the priority adaptation options from the following four perspectives: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>What types of adaptation options did countries identify as priority adaptation options?** </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What sectors do countries focus under AAP?*** </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What are the scales of AAP’s priority adaptation options? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Are AAP’s priority adaptation options soft or hard interventions?**** </li></ul></ul>
    7. 7. Typology of Adaptation Measures Type of Interventions # % Raising Awareness 106 24% Promoting Policy Change 66 15% Financing 52 12% Building Institutions 42 10% Other Strategies (knowledge management) 30 7% Establishing Monitoring/Early Warning Systems 28 6% Empowering People 28 6% Changing natural resource/management practices 19 4% Promoting Technology Change 16 4% Launching Planning Processes 14 3% Improving Infrastructure 14 3% Changing Agricultural Practices 13 3% Providing Social Protection 8 2%
    8. 8. Emerging Trends of Adaptation Options Proposed by Countries <ul><li>Countries target wide-ranging groups i.e. parliamentarians, national and local government officials, NGOs, community-based organizations (CBOs), private sector </li></ul><ul><li>Some countries intend to empower vulnerable groups i.e. women/youth </li></ul><ul><li>Many countries aim to promote cross-practice approaches towards adaptation, establishing and enhancing multi-sectoral coordination platforms </li></ul><ul><li>Many countries intend to mainstream climate change adaptation into policy frameworks in a comprehensive manner, including strategies, policies, plans and budgets </li></ul><ul><li>Some countries aim to harmonise climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction * </li></ul><ul><li>Cost-benefit analysis or economic assessment a priority** </li></ul><ul><li>Securing a steady flow of resources for future adaptation a priority*** </li></ul>
    9. 9. Sectors of AAP Outputs 57% percent of AAP’s adaptation options cover multiple sectors . Sector Count Percentage Multi-Sectoral 160 57% Environment 20 7% Agriculture 18 6% Coastal Zone 18 6% Water 17 6% Health 15 5% Energy 14 5% Disaster Risk Reduction 13 5% Others 8 3% Total 283 100%
    10. 10. Scale of AAP Outputs Level Count Percentage National 197 71% Sub-national 59 21% Community 23 8% Total 279 100%
    11. 11. “ Soft” versus “Hard” Interventions Soft-interventions are often considered “no-regret” as they bring benefits to countries, societies and communities regardless of the extent to which climate change materializes Type Count Percentage Soft 220 90% Hard 25 10% Total 245 100%
    12. 12. Findings <ul><li>AAP focuses on soft, “no-regret” options covering multiple sectors at the national level. </li></ul><ul><li>A majority of AAP measures intend to develop capacities at the systemic, institutional and individual levels, such as </li></ul><ul><ul><li>promoting policy change </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>enhancing institutions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>raising awareness of climate change issues </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Countries demonstrated their desire to pursue various financing options, particularly identifying and securing national and international funds for adaptation. </li></ul><ul><li>Promoting multi-sectoral coordination is a priority* </li></ul>
    13. 13. Overall Finding African governments have ostensibly responded in an appropriate manner by focusing most of their AAP funding on awareness raising and creating the appropriate institutional environment for catalyzing and implementing adaptation on a large scale in different sectors.
    14. 14. Four Reasons for the Findings <ul><li>Countries gave priority to soft, multi-sectoral interventions with focus on capacity development at the systemic, institutional and individual levels under AAP* </li></ul><ul><li>Findings of the analysis are in line with UNDP’s comparative advantages, which are the development of capacities at the national level such as enhancing policy/regulatory frameworks and institutional development.** </li></ul><ul><li>AAP’s outcome framework which consists of 5 outcomes restricted countries’ selection to some extent.*** </li></ul><ul><li>Adapting to climate change is a complex and relatively new initiative for governments, Complex, new initiatives tend to require education of practitioners and development of plans and systems for implementation.**** </li></ul>
    15. 15. Thank you! Presentation based on the paper by Mihoko Kumamoto and Anthony Mills “What African Countries Perceive to be Key Adaptation Priorities: Results From 20 Countries in the Africa Adaptation Programme”

    ×