Looking to a Future Climate-Smart Development in Bangladesh

1
Looking to a Future Climate-Smart Development in Bangladesh:
A Critical Review of Bangladesh Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan
Dhaka, December 2013
Oxfam in Bangladesh

2
Research Team
This report has been prepared by a group of experts under the over-all guidance of Dr. M. Asaduzzaman,
BIDS, Dhaka. Other members of the team are:
1. Dr. Mahfuzul Haque, Formar Secretary and Adjunct Professor, DU, Dhaka
2. Dr. Mizan R. Khan, Professor, Department of Environmental Sciences, NSU, Dhaka
3. Md. Ziaul Haque, Deputy Director, Department of Environment (DoE), Dhaka.
4. Mirza Shawkat Ali, Deputy Director, Department of Environment (DoE), Dhaka.
Mohammad Reazuddin, Acted as Contact and Coordinator to study.
The members produced their set pieces which were further developed and synthesized by Dr.
Asaduzzaman who is finally responsible for the errors and omissions in the report.

3
Executive Summary
There is an increasing awareness that climate change may nullify much of the hard earned economic and
social gains in Bangladesh. In addressing the problems associated with climate change, the Government
prepared the Bangladesh Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan (BCCSAP), a 10-year program, in
2008 which was revised somewhat later in 2009. The BCCSAP, purportedly a knowledge-based action
plan is a 10 year action plan to build capacity and resilience with in the country to meet climate change
challenges over the next 20-25 years under six thematic areas for action. These thematic areas are : (i)
food security, social protection, and health; (ii) comprehensive disaster management; (iii) infrastructural
development; (iv) research and knowledge management;(v) mitigation and low-carbon development; and
(vi) capacity building and institutional strengthening. The BCCSAP had been an approved programme of
the Government which has been subsumed within the Sixth Five Year Plan as well as the Perspective
Plan for the country.
To operationalise the BCCSAP, the Government also established the National Climate Change
Fund and allocated about $45 million to it in the budget for the year 2008-09 which has been replenished
several times since then. Furthermore, a Bangladesh Climate Change Resilience Fund, multi-donor trust
fund was established to pool funds from development partners to implement a long-term strategy to adapt
to the adverse effects of climate change in Bangladesh.
Despite all these, there are concerns regarding the slow pace of implementation of the BCCSAP.
Furthermore there had been issues which have come up since the formulation of BCCSAP. These issues
have implications for proper implementation of the Action Plan. Time is now ripe to revisit the BCCSAP
and critically review a few issues of importance related to the Action Plan. Oxfam Bangladesh therefore
contracted out the present study on “Review of BCCSAP-2009” to review and identify barriers and
constraints to its implementation including its prioritization, mainstreaming and monitoring & evaluation in
particular.
As the magnitude and long-term nature of the climate change threat is increasingly better
understood, it is becoming clear that simply implementing a set of adaptation projects, although useful, is
not going to be sufficient. If long-term resilience to climate change impacts is to be built into the economy
and society of the country, then climate change adaptation (as well as mitigation) needs to be embedded
(or mainstreamed) into regular national development planning and actions at all levels. The present study
therefore aims to identify barriers & constraints to and to provide a policy direction towards enhanced of
implementation of BCCSAP. To realize the broad objective, several activities were envisaged. The
specific objectives included the following:
i. a prioritization of the programmes and projects under BCCSAP;
ii. explore principles of adaptation and its mainstreaming into development plan;
iii. prepare for mitigation with the formulation of a NAMA (a post-BCCSAP development);
iv. monitoring and evaluation of the BCCSAP activities; and
v. knowledge management.
The only limitation here in terms of content is that it leaves out many other relevant issues such as
whether policies have been harmonized so far.
Prioritisation
Discussion and analyses have identified the limitations of implementation of BCCSAP in terms of the
above elements under study. Prioritisation principles have been discussed and it has been pointed out
that the sensible approach at the moment would be to use a few specific criteria which may include the
following:
- Relevance to the national plans or sectoral Plans
- Strategic alignment to BCCSAP
- Project benefits and costs
- Sustainability of the projects and

4
- Institutional and human capacity of the implementing agency.
Using a suggested matrix and the above criteria, a ranked list of projects may be prepared and further
action may be taken accordingly.
Mainstreaming of Climate Change Adaptation in Development Planning
The process of mainstreaming has to be grounded on certain principles that include inter alia:
precautionary principle, stitching the NAPA and NAP into a coherent whole, realizing co-benefits with
mitigation, principle of learning by doing, accountability and transparency, participation of all stakeholders,
efficiency and cost-effectiveness, synergy with national and sectoral policy objectives and other
multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs), flexibility and adaptiveness and subsidiarity i.e
decentralization of decision-making, etc.
Moreover, mainstreaming climate change into planning needs to be done at every level, not just
national plans. Thus sectoral ministries such as water management, agriculture, health and others also
need to mainstream climate change into their respective sectoral plans. Also very important is the need to
mainstream into local level planning where possible. It is to be also noted that NGOs have a very strong
role to play, especially in mainstreaming of adaptation. Many NGOs are working already at local level for
enhancing the community-level adaptive capacity. Climate change adaptation is mainly local, and NGOs
have access to remote, marginalized areas in Bangladesh.
While adaptation projects are a useful place to start, the long-term nature of climate impacts will
require an altogether greater effort to develop a climate resilient economy. Thus, instead of developing
separate, stand-alone, National Adaptation Plans (NAP) as many countries are doing, it is better to
mainstream climate change into regular national plans. Therefore, the NAP process should be seen as a
process of mainstreaming rather than producing a stand-alone plan.
Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMA)
Since Bali when the issue of NAMA was first raised, the NAMA process is still developing an initial
shopping list for NAMA sectors may include the following;
i) Energy production and Supply
ii) Transport and its Infrastructure
iii) Industry
iv) Residential and Commercial Buildings
v) Agriculture
vi) Forestry
vii) Waste Management, etc.
Note that all these have been mentioned under the 5th pillar of the BCCSAP.
Given the overwhelming importance of energy production and use in green house gas emission
and that energy services are absolutely necessary for sustainable development, the following may be
taken as the first partial list of sectors and activities for initial NAMA mainly for improved efficiency in
electricity generation and use:
a) Combined Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT) to replace Steam Turbine (ST) plants,
b) Rehabilitation and modernization of old power plants,
c) Upgrading and rehabilitation of transmission and distribution lines of electricity for the reduction of
loss,
d) Coal fired supercritical boilers in place of sub-critical boilers,
e) Biomass gasification or biogas plant based electricity fed to the grid,

5
f) Waste based electricity fed to the grid,
g) Efficiency improvement of rice parboiling,
h) Industrial cogeneration or utilization of waste heat from captive generators,
i) Wind and solar PV electricity fed to the grid,
j) Solar PV irrigation pumps to replace diesel or present on-grid electricity driven pumps,
k) Improved cook stoves,
l) Solar PV lanterns to replace kerosene lamps,
m) Use of efficient lighting devices, etc
Monitoring and Evaluation
For any large scale programme of action by any entity, the success or failures along with the constraints
and also for learning from them for future actions, a system of monitoring and evaluation should be built
into them. This issue was not specifically included in BCCSAP possibly because the implementation
mechanism was not certain at the time of its formulation and/or revision. Attention is to be provided to put
in place a robust monitoring and evaluation procedures to monitor implementation of the projects under
the two funds which support BCCSAP.
The BCCTF, the domestically financed und for implementation of the BCCSAP, has under its
guidelines logical frameworks for project designing. As has been shown such a logframe can be turned
into a tool for performance or result based monitoring which is strongly advocated for BCCSAP projects.
Illustrations have been provided for adaptation projects under agriculture and for solar energy projects.
Knowledge management
The BCCSAP, under the pillar of research and knowledge management suggested to establish a “Centre
for Research and Knowledge Management” on Climate Change (or a Network of Centres) to ensure
Bangladesh has access to the latest ideas and technologies from around the world, and to ensure that
data is widely and freely available to researchers. While quite a few knowledge management and data
banks apparently have been set up in Bangladesh, these suffer from inadequate attention and proper
planning.
In order to get a Climate Change Knowledge Management (CCKM) system functioning, one
needs to prepare a complete inventory of knowledge available on climate change and climate variability
and all related information. CCKM would be the national node for knowledge on climate change and
vulnerability as well as mitigation activities and scientific knowledge and expected to use information
technology to identify, create, structure and share knowledge. It would help improving decision-making
and dissemination at the grass-roots level. CCKM would build innovative community partnership with
evolved technologies to encourage a positive impact at the grassroots with respect to climate change risk
management and adaptation.
CCKM is expected to develop a “National Road Map” on science and technology for climate
change adaptation and mitigation and all supporting activities. It would collect, document and disseminate
in user-friendly form all information and data in original and processed form, if so demanded, related to
climate change science, technology, adaptation concepts and practices, mitigation concepts and
practices and their impact, funding opportunities, technology and intellectual property rights and climate
change talks and their implication and analyses. Some of these will be available directly while for others
adequate references and links may be provided.
Under CCKM system, the following specific activities may be undertaken: a) Establishment of a
Database/Knowledge Bank; b) Setting up of a Web-Portal; c) Using of Mobile-SMS based Applications;
d) Introduce Radio messages; e) Establish Call-Centre; f) Information Centre; and g) Hackathon. It may
be mentioned here that none of the knowledge management networks or centres so far have not matched
these ideas in practice.

Way Forward
None of the issues discussed above have so far been really put in practice or been practiced only in very
limited manner. The prime need right now is to have climate change issues, more specifically NAP and
NAMA to be integrated with development planning. Some related activities such as climate proofing of
development projects or designing projects with built-in climate proofing has just begun by introducing
climate change issues in the Development Project Proformas. But integration of BCCSAP into
development planning is yet to begin. The implementation of BCCSAP would also require significant
strengthening of the coordination capacity of the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MOEF) with
relevant ministries and agencies.
While the integration goes on, this should not keep other things in waiting. These include
prioritization, M&E activities and knowledge management. NAP and NAMA may also not wait but needs
to be carefully done. Pilot NAP and NAMAs may be prepared and attempts should be made to integrate
them with appropriate development programmes and policies so that over time with the experience
gained in planning may be further improved for better integration.
In fact, it appears that given the experience so far of the implementation of the BCCSAP under
two funds, probably time is ripe for revisiting it and integrate into it the issues discussed and analysed in
this report. Such a review may give attention to, apart from those that have been described above)
several of the missing issues such as loss and damage and their estimation, break down BCCSAP into
elements of NAP and NAMA, integration of NAP and NAMA into development planning process, policies
for climate change management in all its aspects (adaptation, mitigation, finance, technology, capacity-building),
and harmonization of existing policies.
With regard to the barrier of its implementation, the issue of institutionalization needs to be given
clearer focus, particularly the roles of different ministries, particularly the MoEF and MoP as well as major
stakeholders. Furthermore, the role of the private sector and the non-state actors will have to be clarified.
If need be the Rules of Business of the ministries may be revisited and reformulated because climate
change and its effects permeate every endeavour of human action and hence unless clear ideas emerge
and practice done based on the specific roles of various administrative arms of the government, it would
be a chaotic situation and the price would be paid dearly by the nation, particularly the poor.
6

7
Towards Climate-Smart Development in Bangladesh:
A Critical Review of Bangladesh Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan
I. Introduction
Bangladesh, despite many odds, natural and man-made, has over time come a long way from the
nineteen seventies when seventy percent of its population of 75 million at that time, were poor. Now
almost four decades later, near about 30% of the estimated 160 million people are estimated to be poor.
This has been possible due to rising growth rate of GDP which is still not that high while agriculture
despite all its inefficiencies had been able to feed the people. In about a decade’s time, if everything goes
as expected, the country may graduate out of the league of least developed countries as a lower mid-income
country. This will necessitate a rise in its GDP growth from present 6% or thereabout to
somewhere 8% and beyond. However, in the mean time, the ugly spectre of climate change (CC) has
reared its head to devour all the gains of the past decades and keep semi-permanently in chains of low
productivity-low employment and income-low quality of life. Given the country’s extreme vulnerability to
the adverse impacts of CC has become now the most pressing development concern in Bangladesh.
The footprints of CC is increasingly becoming visible all over the country and is manifested in rise
in average temperature, rainfall anomalies of shifting seasonal distribution, drought during traditional rainy
months, signs of a rise in sea level and salinity ingress, and an increase in the frequency and intensity of
tropical cyclones and storm surges. Much of the evidence, however, is still largely anecdotal and is yet to
be rigorously scientifically investigated and modeled. On the other hand, the third round effects on the
human system while better documented can not thus be related specifically to climate change as this
remains to be scientifically probed. Given this, however, and that globally this has been proved beyond
doubt and the manifestations in many countries including the impact on human systems already
documented, there can be no doubt that near absence of rigorous scientific proof can not be an argument
for inaction. Tomorrow or day after, CC will manifest itself with all its adverse impact and it is the poor, the
weak and the infirm in the society who will suffer most. At least this much is known that the climatic
variability and weather uncertainties already play a major role in constraining the growth path of the
country. Hence it becomes a wise move to prepare for the eventuality in earnest and with all seriousness.
The potential impact of climate change threatening the significant achievements Bangladesh has
made over the last few decades in increasing incomes and reducing poverty, including those related to
the Millennium Development Goals on eliminating poverty and hunger; ensuring food, health security, and
human rights; and promoting environmental sustainability. Additionally, in association with other
socioeconomic, environmental and political factors in Bangladesh, climate change is expected to amplify
the country’s existing environmental stresses, contributing further to food insecurity and conflict over
natural resources.
In addressing the problems associated with climate change, the Government prepared the
Bangladesh Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan (BCCSAP), a 10-year program, in 2008 which was
revised somewhat later in 2009.1 The BCCSAP, purportedly a knowledge-based action plan is a 10 year
action plan to build capacity and resilience with in the country to meet climate change challenges over the
next 20-25 years under six thematic areas for action. These thematic areas are : (i) food security, social
protection, and health; (ii) comprehensive disaster management; (iii) infrastructural development; (iv)
research and knowledge management;(v) mitigation and low-carbon development; and (vi) capacity
building and institutional strengthening. The BCCSAP had been an approved programme of the
Government which has been subsumed within the Sixth Five Year Plan as well as the Perspective Plan
for the country.
To operationalise the BCCSAP, the Government also established the National Climate Change
Fund and allocated about $45 million to it in the budget for the year 2008-09 which has been replenished
several times since then. Furthermore, a Bangladesh Climate Change Resilience Fund, multi-donor trust
fund was established to pool funds from development partners to implement a long-term strategy to adapt
to the adverse effects of climate change in Bangladesh.
1 The BCCSAP revision in 2009 was cosmetic in that only a few programmes were added while no thrust theme was
changed.
2 This does not of course means that each and every project or action, even if very small, has to consider cliamet
change management issues one way or other. It may not simply be at all cost-effective to do so.

Despite all these, there are concerns regarding the slow pace of implementation of the BCCSAP.
Furthermore there had been issues which have come up since the formulation of BCCSAP. These issues
have implications for proper implementation of the Action Plan. Time is now ripe to revisit the BCCSAP
and critically review a few issues of importance related to the Action Plan. Oxfam Bangladesh therefore
contracted out the present study on “Review of BCCSAP-2009” to review and identify barriers and
constraints to its implementation including its prioritization, mainstreaming and monitoring & evaluation in
particular. The ToR for the study is given in Annex 1 to this section.
II. Broad and Specific Objectives
The present study aims to identify barriers & constraints to and to provide a policy direction towards
enhanced of implementation of BCCSAP. To realize the broad objective, several activities were
envisaged. The specific objectives included the following:
vi. a priritisation of the programmes and projects under BCCSAP;
vii. adaptation and its mainstreaming into development plan;
viii. preparing for mitigation with the formulation of a NAMA;
ix. monitoring and evaluation of the BCCSAP activities;
x. knowledge management.
III. Rationale for the particular focus and specific objectives
The BCCSAP can be divided into two parts. The first part provides the background based on physical and
climate contexts, core socio-economic realities and policies in the country and the consequent rationale
for a strategy on climate change. The thrust of the strategy is on sustainable development, poverty
reduction and increased well-being of all vulnerable groups in society with special emphasis on gender
sensitivity. The second part elaborates a set of programmes based upon six pillars or broad areas of
intervention which have been elaborated in the first part. The BCCSAP sums up Bangladesh’s current
thinking on desirable activities to build climate resilience into the economy and society of Bangladesh
through adaptation to climate change as well as mitigation for a low carbon development path and
associated complementary activities related to knowledge creation and knowledge management as well
as capacity building.
However, as the magnitude and long-term nature of the climate change threat is increasingly
better understood, it is becoming clear that simply implementing a set of adaptation projects, although
useful, is not going to be sufficient. If long-term resilience to climate change impacts is to be built into the
economy and society of the country, then climate change adaptation (as well as mitigation) needs to be
embedded (or mainstreamed) into regular national development planning and actions at all levels.2 But in
doing that a few principles must be kept in mind.
Need for prioritization:
The resources (financial, institutional, human skill as well as awareness) available for implementing the
BCCSAP are limited. That means some kind of prioritization has to be done to implement them. BCCSAP
has prioritized the project ideas very broadly as those of immediate need and those which may be taken
up over the short, medium and long run. It has also indicated which ministries and agencies might be
involved for developing the project ideas fully and implementing them. In any case there is a necessity for
a full-blown prioritization exercise. The Sixth Plan has made a priority list which appears to be quite at
odds with what the background paper to the Sixth Plan had suggested. There are other such anomalies
also. In any case, what should be the nature of these priorities and what should be the outcome of such
an exercise. Are the prioritization principles generate conflicts or complementarities? The prioritization
principles and the practice so far are discussed first in this report.
8
2 This does not of course means that each and every project or action, even if very small, has to consider cliamet
change management issues one way or other. It may not simply be at all cost-effective to do so.

Integrating climate change into development plans and actions:
Development planning is by its nature intended for laying the basis of and working for long term
development of a country. Climate change impacts are also long term in nature. Even if the emission of
all the green house gases are stopped today, the accumulated gases in the earth systems will continue to
be influenced by them and continue to impact adversely on the environment and earth systems and
consequently the human systems of agriculture, water management, infrastructure, industry,
transportation and the poor who are involved in these human systems. That means that while adaptation
programmes and projects are a useful place to start, the long-term nature of climate impacts will require
an altogether greater effort to develop a climate resilient economy. Thus, instead of developing separate,
stand-alone, plans such as National Adaptation Plans (NAP) as many countries are doing, it is more
effective and cost-wise probably more efficient to mainstream climate change into regular national
development plans and their constituents.
Against this backdrop, the National Adaptation Plan (NAP) process should be seen as a process
of mainstreaming rather than producing a stand-alone plan. And it may be noted here that the need for
such integration had been highlighted under the BCCSAP as the second programme under the sixth pillar
on capacity-building. Right after the prioritization exercise, we therefore get into the one of how
adaptation and development planning and action may be integrated with each other.
Low carbon development and NAMA:
The Bali COP in 2007 in its decision 1/CP13 called for nationally appropriate mitigation actions by
developing countries including LDCs. This was at that time voluntary. But by now, as has been decided in
Durban COP in 2011, all countries will come under a legally binding agreement for cutting green house
gas emission on mandatory basis. This will necessitate the preparation of a plan for Nationally
Appropriate Mitigation Action or NAMA. Indeed, the BCCSAP has low carbon development as one of its
six themes. The very first action that had been stated under the pillar is to “Develop a strategic energy
plan and investment portfolio to ensure national energy security and lower green house gas emissions”
which is the essence of NAMA. So far this has not been attempted in the country but will be necessary if
international support is to be attracted in terms of finance, technology and capacity building. For this
reason, an attempt has been made here to find out how such a move may be undertaken.
Monitoring and evaluation:
For any large scale programme of action by any entity, the success or failures along with the constraints
and also for learning from them for future actions, a system of monitoring and evaluation should be built
into them. This issue was not specifically included in BCCSAP possibly because the implementation
mechanism was not certain at the time of its formulation and/or revision. For this reason, it has been
decided to explore the issue along with an examination of the procedures for the implementation of
projects under the two funds which support BCCSAP.
Knowledge management:
From the very beginning, BCCSAP has put thrust on research and knowledge management because
much of the impacts of CC are still uncertain as to their timing, extent and severity as well as spatial
spread. Without continuous research and knowledge management including tracking whatever is
happening elsewhere, it would become extremely difficult for taking policy decisions regarding types of
programme pr projects to be undertaken. So far there is no clear guideline on this issue.
Summary:
The ideas of basic contents of this report may now be summarized. The report will discuss and analyse
issues related to (i) prioritization; (ii) adaptation and its integration with development planning; (iii) low
carbon development and NAMA; (iv) monitoring and evaluation; and (v) knowledge management. The
only limitation here in terms of content is that it leaves out many other relevant issues such as whether
9

policies have been harmonized so far. Despite being a part of the Sixth Plan and the Perspective Plan,
the BCCSAP is yet to be subsumed in sectoral policy thinking. Note however that some similar exercise
at least in case of agriculture and food policies have already been completed recently which hopefully will
complement the exercise here.3 For this reason and to avoid duplication and resource conservation, we
have not attempted to carry out this exercise here.
IV. Methodology
The study team after careful analysis of ongoing activities on BCCSAP by different actors chalked out a
work plan for its work and placed before the inception workshop. The inception workshop held on 10
July 2012, after detailed review and discussion recommended the following work programme
- A critical review of BCCSAP and a study on policy harmonization for enabling policy
10
environment.
- Developing the methodology and approach and the institutional framework for economy wide
exercises for preparation NAP and NAMA with participation of relevant Ministries, private
sector and NGO/CBO,s.
- Prioritization of BCCSAP action programs in view of 6th 5 year plan, resiliency development in
the vulnerable areas and for providing relief to the already affected population.
- Developing a country framework for mainstreaming adaptation. architecture for institutional
coordination and tracking investments and preparation of tools and guidelines to assist
implementation..
- Developing a framework of indicators for monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of BCCSAP
programme.
- Developing a framework on knowledge management on climate change
Note that it has already been stated earlier that of these the policy review part has not been attempted
while the NAP was also later dropped from consideration although a lot of the NAP issues are subsumed
under mainstreaming adaptation.
The preliminary findings of the study were shared in a workshop (2nd workshop under the study)
on 30th March 2013. Based on the recommendation of the interim workshop, the study elements
methodology and approach were further fine tuned.
V. Prioritization of BCCSAP Identified Adaptation Actions
Preamble
The issue of prioritization is extremely important as indicated earlier when resources including financial,
institutional capacity and human capability are limited. This becomes more so when a lot of activities
need to be taken up. The present Climate Change Trust Fund (CCTF) has allocated BD. Taka 2355 crore
from financial year 2009-2010 to 2013-2013. So far, 139 projects are under implementation by different
government agencies with allocation of 1531.89 Crore taka from CCTF.4 In addition 63 projects of
different NGOs and private sectors with a financial outlay of 25.06 crore taka has also been provided by
CCTF. For selection of projects, there is an elaborate mechanism but CCT doesn’t follow any prioritization
process.
Against this backdrop, we try to reflect upon the concept of prioritization while also briefly clarify
available project prioritization process. In addition, an attempt will be made to shed light on how
prioritization was considered in previous adaptation initiatives in the country. We will also discuss the
3 Asaduzzaman, M and M. Qamar Munir, Policy and Policy Harmonization for Adaptation and Mitigation in
Agriculture under Climate Change in Bangladesh, 2013, a study carried out for IFPRI, Delhi, Sustainable
Development Networking Foundation, Dhaka (unpublished).
4 MoEF/CCTF website; accessed in August 2013

prioritization under the Sixth Five year plan on climate change interventions. Finally, recommendations
have been made on a prioritization method for the future CCTF projects.
Concept of prioritization
The most generic principle of prioritization of programmes, projects or actions is to choose the ones that
serves the main purpose of these programmes, projects or activities. Having said this, there are a few
issues that need to be considered first. For whom the prioritization is being done? Is it the private sector
or the public or the non-state actors such as NGOs. For the private corporate sector, the main
consideration is profit maximization. Hence any prioritisation they do has an eye on profit.
The main purpose of the public sector action is not profit per se but ensuring maximum welfare to
the public in general and the poor in particular. What is meant by welfare may vary by type of action as
well as the main problem that is being managed. In case of climate change adaptation, the main issue is
minimization of vulnerability of people in all aspects, physical, economic and social. This immediately tells
us what should be the basic prioritization principle. If there are two projects both dealing with adaptation,
nature and extent of vulnerability have to be first defined or understood and then the one which can
ameliorate the vulnerability most should be chosen in the first step. But the question remains how do we
understand vulnerability? Is it the number of people affected, the area under crops that is damaged or the
damage that is done to the infrastructure without which the future economic activity will be harmed
greatly. May be all will have to be considered in some degree.
But this is not all. The project not chosen initially is not taken from the list yet, One will then have
to look into the technical aspects and associated costs of the project, the time of implementation,
availability of funds, necessary institutional steps and their legal basis or its lack, availability of the
necessary technology, and finally, the cost-benefit analysis or cost-effectiveness. Note that all these
prioritization activities are exercises for determining technical, economic, social, environmental and finally
to get an integrated picture. Only then the final prioritization can be done.
It would be instructive here to review the global guidelines for NAPA preparation. Annotated
guidelines for the preparation of NAPA included the following criteria for selecting priority activities and
techniques for prioritization.
1. Level or degree of adverse effects of climate change;
2. Poverty reduction to enhance adaptive capacity;
3. Synergy with other multilateral environmental agreements and
4. Cost-effectiveness.
Note that the very first issue relates to vulnerability as pointed out earlier as the basic premise. The
second one relates to social acceptability and third one to environmental considerations as well as co-benefits.
11
And the fourth indicates getting the job done most cheaply.
NAPA guide also suggests three techniques for selection and prioritization of projects; these are;
• Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA)
• Cost Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) and
• Multi-criteria Analysis (MCA).
Of these the first two relates to economic criteria while the multi-criteria is an amalgam of several
indicators and may be the penultimate prioritization method.
One needs to take note here that prioritization of projects and programmes may not be the same.
What we are discussing here is prioritization among projects under a programme. We shall be coming to
the prioritization of programmes in a short while when we discuss that under BCCSAP.
Prioritisation in BCCSAP
BCCSAP includes six thematic areas which are

12
1. Food Security, Social Protection and health
2. Comprehensive Disaster Management
3. Infrastructure
4. Research and Knowledge Management
5. Mitigation and Low Carbon Development
6. Capacity Building and Institutional Strengthening
Each thematic area has several programme areas, in total there are 44 programme areas and various
activities under each programme area.
The thematic areas or pillars have no prioritization as such but food security and security of life,
and property are most basic to human existence, the first two are the most important with food security
taking precedence over all others. Except for pillar 5 on low carbon development (to be discussed in the
following section), the rest of the themes are actually supportive in nature. Thus, theme three on
infrastructure basically relates to water management which is a precondition for many of the adaptation
activities as vulnerabilities often arise due to too much or too little water and at the anomalies they create
in agriculture and food production as well as intensifying natural hazards.
BCCSAP has also made another prioritization in terms of the time line within which a programme
should be examined and relevant actions taken. These indicate which ones to be taken immediately and
which ones later over the short, medium and long run. Thus, while the Programme T!P1 on institutional
capacity and research towards climate resilient cultivars and their dissemination is a medium to long term
programme as it takes quite a while to make institutional changes and also because these may be quite
resource intensive. The programme T2P1 on improvement of flood forecasting and early warning systems
on the other hand is for immediate and continuing action because unless done so, people’s lives and
livelihood would be under grave threat. In a similar vein, T2P2 on improvement of cyclone and storm
surge warning is for immediate action.
What BCCSAP has not done is the inter se priority among activities or project ideas within a given
programme. But here too, one often finds that the activities are listed some kind of logical sequence.
However, any given activity may be carried out in different formats, under organizational, technological
and financial arrangements. Thus these may become different among which one may have to prioritise.
Prioritization in the Sixth Five Year Plan
The sixth Five Year Plan includes Climate Change in Chapter 8 and named it as ‘Environment, Climate
Change and Disaster Management for Sustainable Development’. Under this Chapter less than a page
has been dedicated to prioritization; nevertheless, it has identified two priorities for 2011-2015 period;
1. The first priority is the repair and maintenance of coastal polders and defences which have been
washed away first by Cyclone Sidr and then by Cyclone Aila and
2. The second priority is the mainstream of Climate Change issues of adaptation, Mitigation and
capacity building.
It is worthwhile to mention that there appears to be some apparent divergence in the priorities of
BCCSAP and Sixth Five Year Plan. In the sixth five year plan ‘repair and maintenance of coastal polders
and defences which have been washed away during Cyclone Sidr and Cycloe Aila’ have been given the
highest priority, while in the BCCSAP this is not mentioned. It should be pointed out however that Aila did
not happen when BCCSAP was formulated. Secondly, the background paper for the Sixth Plan on
climate change issues did indicate immediate priority for repair and maintenance of coastal polders.5 And
exactly that is what had been done in the Sixth Plan in the particular context.
5 Asaduzzaman, M, Ahsanuddin Ahmed, A. K. M. Enamul Haque and M. Qamar Munir, Towards a Climate-
Resilient and Climate Sensitive Development in Bangladesh, in Mujeri, M. K. and Shamsul Alam, Sixth Five Year
Plan of Bangladesh: Background Papers, Vol. 2, Economic Sectors, September 2011

In the sixth five year plan the second priority is ‘the mainstream of climate change issues of
adaptation, mitigation and capacity building’; while the mainstreaming of climate change issues of
adaptation and mitigation is under Capacity Building which is described last. Two things should be noted
here. First as indicated earlier capacity building is a supportive activity and this point always comes last
not because it is the least important but because one needs to understand first the necessities of different
activities and then decide what capacity needs to be built up. Second, again this was recommended as
another immediate activity in the background paper and exactly that is what the Sixth Plan has done.
Bangladesh Climate Change Trust Fund priorities
Government of Bangladesh has established a Climate Change Trust Fund to finance adaptation activities
in the country. In 2009-2010 government allocated US$ 100 million to the Trust Fund. During the next 3
Financial Year government allocated additional US$250 million from its own resources. The trust fund is
operated by a 16 member Trustee Board. A climate change Unit was established to provided secretarial
support to the Board. Recently the Unit has been transformed into a Climate Change Trust.
Financing and prioritization of adaptation projects from Climate Change Trust Fund
Ministry of Environment and Forests seek project proposals from various Ministries, Divisions, Research
Organizations and Departments in prescribed formats. Which is then scrutinized by the officials of MoEF
and Climate Change Unit/Trust, placed it to the Technical committee for evaluation. If approved by the
technical committee then the selected projects are placed in the trustee Board’s meeting for final
endorsement for funding.
To guide the implementation of the projects under the Trust Fund a Trust Act, 2010 has been
enacted. No specific guidance or direction in the Act on how project prioritization should be considered.
According to the Trust Act the projects that will be funded through the trust fund will be in addition to the
existing development and revenue Projects. The fund will provide support to short, medium and long term
development projects. So, it may be concluded that while selecting or prioritization of the projects
duplication of the projects should be avoided.
The Act further suggests that the projects that will be funded should be in line with the
Bangladesh Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan (BCCSAP, 2009). So, these issues may be
considered while suggesting any future prioritization idea or matrix.
Prioritization in NAPA
Bangladesh prepared its NAPA in 2005. The objective of NAPA was to support the immediate and urgent
adaptation activities. The question was then as to which ones are the immediate and urgent adaptation
activities. For the exercise, fifteen vulnerable sectors were clustered into six sectoral groups. The six
sectoral groups later came up with about sixty priority projects and later through a consultation and
prioritization process 15 priority projects were identified for the NAPA document. Note that while the
selection of the projects were through a consultative process and so in a sense reflected economic and
social desirability based on people’s ideas of vulnerability, the detailing of project costs and other details
were left out to be elaborated by project sponsors at a later stage.
Proposed Prioritization for CCTF for the future
In relation to the above discussion it may be suggested that the two priorities identified in the sixth five
year plan should be given the highest priority, together with, alignment to the thematic areas of BCCSAP,
while selecting the projects from submitted projects from various Ministries.
As discussed earlier the major criteria for the matrix may be as follows; though ideally the prioritization
Team or officials may discuss and finalize the criteria depending upon the type or group of projects.
13
1. Relevance to the national plans or sectoral Plans
2. Strategic alignment to BCCSAP

14
3. Project benefits and costs
4. Sustainability of the projects and
5. Institutional and human capacity of the implementing agency.
Using the suggested matrix (see below) and methodology described above, a ranked list of projects may
be prepared and placed by the Technical committee to the Trustee Board for final approval for funding.
Prioritization Matrix
Criteria Relative importance/relevance with score Aggre
gate
score
Characteristics Highly
relevant
Very
relevant
Relevant Slightly
relevant
Not
relevant
5 4 3 2 1
Relevance/Strategic Alignment
• Sixth Five Year Plan
• Sectoral Priority
Strategic Alignment
• with thematic areas of
BCCSAP, programme and
activity
Project costs
• Financial cost (discounted)
• Social cost (discounted)
Project Benefits
• Economic benefits (based on
discounted value)
- Cost-benefit ratio
- Internal rate of return
- Net present value
• Social benefits (poverty
reduction/employment)
• Social benefits (gender
sensitivity, ethnic sensitivity)
• Environmental benefits
Sustainability of the project
• Exit strategy of the project
(how to sustain after the
project completion)
• Risk Analysis (what would
happen if project is delayed or
incomplete properly)
• Cascading effect on similar
sectors/projects
• Address Climate Change
issues at local level &
enhance capacity of the local
people
Institutional capacity
• Expertise to carry out the
project
• Logistical support
Total score
Note: A scale of 1-5 may be used for evaluating the projects.

15
Any of the above characteristics may be manifested in several ways as is the case with economic
benefits.
Relative Scales may be as follows:
Highly relevant: 5
Very relevant : 4
Relevant : 3
Slightly relevant: 2
Not relevant : 1
VI. Mainstreaming Adaptation into Development Process
Introduction
Developing a climate-resilient society is the ultimate goal for mainstreaming adaptation into development
planning. However, at the international level, this mainstreaming is a contested issue for several reasons
both from conceptual and practical points of view. Though the rationale for mainstreaming is not
contested any more, but how to go about or sources of support for doing it are issues of great
contestation in the UNFCCC negotiations. The world does not have much experience in addressing this
new set of problems. The Sixth Five Year Plan (SFYP) and the BCCSAP have adopted a pro-poor
climate change management strategy and an integrated approach that `avoids a dichotomy between
environment and development.’ The approach sounds realistic, but the challenge, as mentioned, is –
how to contexualize this in Bangladesh? How to arrest the undoing of development efforts from
increasing climate disasters? How to mainstream locale-specific adaptation measures into national and
sectoral development strategies? What are the policy, institutional and process parameters for the
purpose? Where will resources come from? These are the challenges that stand in the way. This section
attempts to lay down a roadmap for mainstreaming adaptation into the development process.
Approach and methodology for mainstreaming
Approach: The present roadmap has been developed based on a participatory and consultative
approach, involving stakeholders at different levels - government, private sector, NGO/CBOs and
development partners. An inception workshop was held where a draft of the roadmap was presented. It
was participated by both GO and NGO representatives. As a result, it is expected that the ownership of
the larger stakeholders including the government for the proposed roadmap will be ensured.
Methodology: The preparation of the roadmap is based on both secondary and primary data and
information. Literature review, both of international and national, formed the sources of secondary data.
Primary data has been collected from a review of government documents and discussions with officials of
different development ministries and agencies including the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF)
and the Department of Environment (DoE), while taking the Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) as the Case
Study. This Ministry has been selected because agriculture is the most impacted sector from climate
change impacts. How the MoA works in its adaptation effort to CCIs has been analyzed, based on
discussions with senior officials of the Ministry as well as with its retired officials. Besides, several
meetings have been held among the study team for fine-tuning the focus and methodology of the study.
The findings are expected to be validated in a national workshop, to be participated by all the
stakeholders, both from the GOs, NGOs and donor communities.
Conceptualizing the Relationship between Development and Adaptation
Unlike the straightforward approach of defining mitigation, adaptation is really difficult to conceptualize
and define, because of its inseparable linkage with development issues. It is difficult to distinguish
climate change and climate variability (Gupta, 1997, 146). Actually, the conceptual controversy over

climate change adaptation is attributed to the definition of climate change risk under the Convention,
which attributed such risks only to human-induced climate change, rather than vulnerability in general.
The Convention understanding of adaptation does not include risks from climate variability. It has no
specific article on adaptation, and as noted by Schipper (2006), `the lack of specific definition of
adaptation, even more confused by its association with other aspects of the climate convention, posed a
significant constraint to furthering policy on adaptation’ (p.90). Besides, this does not incorporate the
locally and contextually specific nature of climate vulnerability (Ayers, 2009; Adger, 2003). The latter is a
result very much of a combination of physical impacts from climate change as well as from socio-economic
and political factors prevailing in a country. It is well recognized that vulnerability is a social
construct as well (Adger, 2003). However, IPCC in their conceptualization of adaptation includes climate
variability. So the capacity to adapt depends upon local and national factors such as access to resources
and information, income level, education and training, social capital, and so on. In other words,
adaptation to human-induced climate change impacts and the building of “climate resilient societies” are
difficult to separate from general development initiatives in a society. We believe that a `development
first’ approach to adaptation that addresses the complex context of vulnerability, rather than addressing
just the impacts of climate change, is a vastly more useful perspective (Schipper, 2006; Burton, 2004;
Adger et al., 2003; Khan and Roberts, 2013; Khan 2013).
Differentiating between mitigation, development and adaptation is reflected in how adaptation is
being funded (Ayers, 2009). Bodansky (1993, 451) argues that the concept of `incremental cost’
establishes a type of causation test for adaptation activities under Article 4.3, which proves difficult for
countries seeking aid for adaptation. Lemos and Boyd (2010) argue that some rules of access to
adaptation funding, specifically additionality, may not only fail to support vulnerable countries to prepare
for, cope with and adapt to climate change, but may also place further burdens on these countries. They
argue that this is the case for three reasons. First, developing nations are required to invest upfront in
proving additionality. Second, they may be incentivized to prioritize policies that meet additionality rather
than sustainable development criteria and needs of local communities. Finally, in countries where
structural inequality and lack of resources critically shape vulnerability, the additionality requirement may
obstruct policies that integrate climate adaptation into development policy and create positive synergies
between them (see also Klein et al. 2007; Lemos et al 2007).
For example, in meeting the additionality criteria, it is easier for developing country governments to
build water storage structures or to invest in drought resistant crops than to implement household income
diversification policies that have shown to improve adaptive capacity regardless of what the weather does
(Agrawal 2008; Eakin 2000). However income diversification or income stabilization policies involve
costs, which are not covered by additionality criteria coming from funding agencies. In fact, climate
change is among many stresses that define vulnerability, and it makes little sense to prioritize
additionality over the need to integrate across policies to adapt to multiple stresses (Bizikova, et al 2007;
Huq et al 2005; Jerneck and Olsson 2008; Klein et al. 2007).
16
Ayers et al. (2010) usefully point to several factors that hinder the integration of climate adaptation
and development planning. First, a climate-impacts view of adaptation discourages investment in
adaptation because of the inevitable uncertainty in measuring and predicting when and how climate
change is actually going to unfold on the ground. Therefore, pre-emptive action against an uncertain
threat may actually be maladaptive (Ayers, 2009). Second and very importantly, technology-based
measures that address climate impacts are only partially effective because they don’t address non-climatic
factors that underline and drive particular vulnerability of poor communities and developing
countries. Polder building, particularly its management is a typical example of technology-based
adaptation to climate variability. But it has been proved that it was a maladaptation in Bangladesh.
Further, the lack of social, political, and economic resources of the poor is the main factor of their inability
to cope with climatic change (Adger 1999; Sen 1999). And third, a technology-based discourse on
adaptation excludes non-technical expertise for adaptation on the ground. Technical knowledge and
expertise about adaptation turns out to be far less useful in predicting what measures will be successful
for adaptation in a community than is local understanding of the sources of social vulnerability, and what
has worked to overcome it in the past. There are well-documented instances of initiatives for reduction of
poverty which actually increased vulnerability (Klein, 2010). For example, in Bangladesh conversion of
mangrove forests into shrimp farming brings in more income, but it leaves the coastal communities more
vulnerable to climate disasters and health and nutrition hazards from saline intrusion and lack of fresh
water.

Other analysts argue that fixation or preoccupation with additionality may not serve the purpose of
integration of adaptation into development planning (Fankhauser and Burton, 2011). McGray et al (WRI,
2007) identify a continuum of measures that address both development and adaptation needs in the
following lines: a) policies to reduce vulnerability more broadly include human development and poverty
reduction; b) creation of `response capacity’ in resource management practices, planning and building
effective public institutions; c) management of current climate risks including floods, droughts, disaster
preparation and risk management, i.e. integrating disaster risk reduction with adaptation planning, and d)
policies specifically addressing climate change impacts, such as sea level rise and increased incidence of
extreme weather events. Similar approaches have been suggested by other analysts (Klein and Persson,
2008).
17
Yohe and Tol (2002) estimated that for every percentage point in economic growth in a country,
vulnerability falls by the same degree. Obviously, climate-resilient development and poverty reduction
provide the best form of adaptation, as socio-economic indicators like level of income, literacy and
institutional capacity are positively associated with lower vulnerability (Leary et al, 2008). Noy (2009)
shows that countries with better adaptive capacity can better withstand disaster shocks. This is the
reason perhaps Thomas Schelling, the Nobel Laureate in Economics, argued over two decades ago that
investments in development and good governance are the best forms of adaptation (Schelling, 1992). In
a similar vein Stern very cogently argues that Adaptation is development in adverse climate (Stern, 2008).
However, from international policy and funding perspective the physical vulnerability of poor
countries, imposed from beyond, should not be mixed with existing socio-economic vulnerability that
communities suffer from. So the proposed solution of a development focused adaptation and resilience-building
does not absolve the industry countries of their agreed responsibility under Convention Article 4.4
of meeting adaptation costs in the developing countries. Therefore, the question of what is fair in terms of
responsibility underlines the political struggle between the developed and developing countries in setting
the rules for adaptation funding (Lemos and Boyd, 2010). So, Klein (2010) concludes that from
operational point of view, it makes `common sense’ to integrate adaptation with development strategy, but
from policy perspective, it makes problematic to differentiate between adaptation finance and overseas
development assistance (ODA).
However, adaptation as development blurs the distinction between adaptation finance and ODA, which is
favored obviously by the development agencies, and some donor partners. Developing countries are
apprehensive that this dilution of adaptation and development might be à ploy to avoid new and
additional funding for adaptation’ (Klein, 2010: 46). It may be recalled that over a decade ago, back in
September 2002 at the LDC Capacity Building Conference held at Hotel Sonargaon in Dhaka, when this
author, a resource person of this project, made a presentation, together with a UK colleague from the
Department for International Development (DFID), on mainstreaming adaptation into development, there
was fierce opposition from the delegates. The reason was that the LDC negotiators saw in this attempt a
dilution of the agreed `new’ and àdditionality’ principles in funding of adaptation in these countries. In
fact this issue of àdditionality’ in funding is blurred in this framing of `mainstreaming adaptation.’ So the
developing country apprehension is not unfounded, and this is the reason they support for stand-alone
adaptation projects (Klein, 2010), with realization that all the MDG goals are directly or indirectly related to
climate change, and hence the rationale of mainstreaming adaptation. Figures 1 and 2 show this
rationale and the kind of anticipatory/planned adaptation needed for addressing the challenge.
So, while summarizing the above discussion, we can say that there are basically two approaches to
operationalizing adaptation:
• The first approach is that adaptation should address only the climate change impacts: Adaptation
leads to vulnerability reduction, which leads to development. This is an impact-based approach.
• However, the second approach to adaptation is that it needs a broader focus, with inclusion of
socio-econ vulnerabilities, since the latter is very much a social construct. So, this is a
vulnerability-focused approach. Under this approach, climate-resilient development leads to
vulnerability reduction, which leads to impact reduction, and hence results in stronger adaptation.
So, basically adaptation is development in adverse climate, which includes both climate change and
climate variability. In this framing, all kinds of vulnerabilities – both physical and socio-economic, are
taken into consideration. This Vulnerability-focused understanding better suits for mainstreaming, but the
problem remains with funding: Climate finance is blurred with ODA in this approach! So at the moment, it

is suggested that generation of sources for adaptation funding should be kept separate from mobilization
of ODA, while utilization of adaptation finance in vulnerable developing countries could be integrated into
the conventional ODA, as additional. Without this separation of the two at source level, the apprehension
in developing countries of diverting ODA to implementation of adaptation projects of donor interests and
preference will persist. Therefore, this requires a constant monitoring of the trends in ODA and climate
finance at global and country levels. It may be mentioned that if the Annex II countries fulfill their long-agreed
target of providing 0.7% of their GNI as ODA, more than $200 billion extra funding becomes
available for much-needed development. However, current level of ODA is less than half of this share in
real terms. Against this broken promise, Annex II Parties fight for even providing $10-15 billion a year as
climate finance. And the share of adaptation money is just about 20% of overall climate finance. However,
several EU countries already fulfill this target, and the UK promised to reach this target by end of 2013.
Conceptualizing Mainstreaming
Approaches: Mainstreaming refers to inclusion of concerns of climate change and climate variability, both
current and projected, into development discourse and planning and making sure that each ministry,
agency and sector considers climate change in what it does and adapts its own policies and programs
accordingly. The SFYP indicates an integrated approach to mainstreaming climate change issues. It
seems integration goes much farther than even mainstreaming.
There is a debate over integrating versus mainstreaming adaptation. A UK-based NGO, Tearfund (2011)
suggests that integration goes further than mainstreaming, as the latter has limited effectiveness. It
argues that “Integrated adaptation is holistic, coordinating the interactions between agencies operations
from the beginning, rather than optimizing them separately. It is about action across government
ministries and involving all levels of society.” This approach involves senior political leadership,
undertakes consultative and participatory evidence-gathering, improves communication, develops robust,
inclusive, country-strategic adaptation plans, aligns national development plans with adaptation strategy,
establishes dedicated adaptation fund, builds capacity at local government and community level and
promotes alignment with donor agencies.
However, in a workshop in Tanzania held in October 2012 on mainstreaming adaptation, the participants
discussed progress on this issue, and they coined the term: mainstreamlining as a more accurate
approach to integration of adaptation into development process. In any case, whatever way
mainstreaming is conceived, it relates to making is as part of the whole planning exercise for
development, and not an add-on with projects, but as an internalized process. This will require
coordination of review of legislative, regulatory, policy, strategy and implementation arrangements at all
levels.
Principles of Mainstreaming: The process of mainstreamlining, if we call it, has to be grounded on certain
principles, which can be the following:
• Precautionary principle: Article 3.3 of the UNFCCC prescribes this principle on the understanding
that climate change has the danger of irreversibility. So based on projections of future climate
change, an anticipatory planning process needs to be introduced.
• Stitching the NAPA and NAP into a coherent whole: NAPA process for the LDCs was based on
immediate and urgent needs and the LDCs have already submitted them. Many countries are
already implementing some NAPA projects. And the NAP process as mid-and long-term planning
has just begun. However, these two planning processes need to be stitched into a coherent
whole, aligning the short, medium and long-term goals of adaptation as part of development.
• Realizing co-benefits with mitigation is another principle. There are many co-benefits from
pursuing either adaptation or mitigation projects, for example, in areas of energy efficiency and
conservation, renewable energy, and in agriculture. So, projects with co-benefits should be put
on a preference scale, given the limited resources. This has to be done, with clear assessments
of proposed programs and projects.
18

• Principle of learning by doing, in light of past lessons. As there are elements of uncertainty in
how the climate change unfolds, despite the IPCC findings, the approach to planning for
development needs to be built on the lessons from experiences of coping with past climate
disasters.
• Accountability and transparency: As mainstreaming involves the whole strata of the society,
accountability and transparency in activities of all stakeholders has to be ensured, so that each
loop in the chain is transparently linked and can function as a coordinated team.
• Participation of all stakeholders including politicians: This is the key to success in the exercise of
integrating adaptation into development. Active participation particularly from higher political
leadership will create ownership of this national project.
• Efficiency and Cost-effectiveness: Because of the paucity of resources of all types, this aspect
needs to be taken care of so that maximum can be achieved with minimum input. This will
require developing options.
• Subsidiarity - decentralization of decision-making: Adaptation virtually is local, and therefore, the
local governments have to be the main loop in the process, with full autonomy of decision-making
and resource mobilization. The national government has to serve as the coordination and
facilitation center for the purpose.
• Synergy with national and sectoral policy objectives and other multilateral environmental
agreements (MEAs): As any country will have national and sectoral policies and plans, along with
being party to many MEAs, integration of adaptation considerations needs to be stitched into a
coherent whole, so that synergy can be achieved in the process.
• Flexibility and adaptiveness: This integration business has an element of learning by doing
because of uncertainty with how climate system works & how extreme events unfold, there has to
be elements of flexibility and adaptiveness in the planning process, so that it can adjust with new
understanding and developments.
19
Elements of Mainstreaming
• Participatory and consultative process in impact and vulnerability assessments (IVAs) including
cost estimation of loss and damage. This is very important in view of the practical value of
indigenous knowledge in specific locales. However, this exercise at specified intervals, to be
decided by the stakeholders, needs to be based on the evolving interdisciplinary adaptation
science. This latter combines community knowledge.
• Disaster risk reduction and rehabilitation: This is very much a part of the process. Based on the
Hyogo Framework of Action, integration of adaptation needs to be built into the DRR process.
Research has shown that investment in ex-ante DRR is more cost-effective than ex-post
rehabilitation and recovery, though the latter would be needed to some extent in any case.
• NGOs and private sector role: The former in many countries are involved very much in the
process particularly for soft measures of adaptation. However, the private sector is not yet there
as needed. The assets and properties of private agents are very much at stake from climate
change, so they need to be involved more intimately for both soft and hard adaptation options.
• Financing of adaptation mainstreaming: As mentioned before, this is the most crucial issue in
view of the burden on the LDCs imposed from beyond, with their extremely little contribution to
the problem. So, a climate fiscal and financial framework needs to be in place, which can
combine both national budgetary and international grant flows. It may be mentioned that
adaptation finance for the LDCs needs to be accepted only as grant allocation, based on the
UNFCCC Article 4.4.
• Implementation of the mainstreaming agenda: In many developing countries, particularly in the
LDCs, implementation of policies and programmes is the weakest link in the policy cycle. So, a
clear-cut implementation plan needs to be in place, with clear assigning of responsibilities across
the line agencies.

• Assessment framework for M & E: This is an important element, because the taste of the pudding
is what matters at the end. So, a framework with clearly-identified set of both quantitative and
process indicators for M & E has to be worked out.
• International networking with Governments and NGOs: This is very important for LDCs, as the
burden cannot and should not be borne by the country alone. So, resource and capacity
mobilization through active climate diplomacy and networking needed for projecting both the
predicaments from climate change and the national level efforts in addressing the challenge.
• Capacity Building for all these elements is utterly critical, as many LDCs lack capacity in
developing and planning for projects and utilization of money. There are some provisions under
the UNFCCC and other channels for the purpose. This needs to be harnessed.
• Coordination and communication at multiple levels and sectors. This is often another weak link in
a multi-scalar and multi-level process exercise. Mainstreaming process involves both horizontal
and vertical levels including local governments and sectors. So, an effective coordination and
communication strategy is a vital part.
• Above all, an enabling policy and institutional framework is what all the other elements depend on
for success of the whole exercise of main/streaming/streamlining adaptation. The whole policy,
planning and institutional processes need to be geared into a coherent whole, which can avoid
bureaucratic red tape and institutional bottlenecks.
A Reality Check of Adaptation Niche in Bangladesh: Status and Barriers
As one of the most vulnerable countries to climate change impacts, Bangladesh has from the beginning
been active in taking measures against the challenge. The successive governments have initiated
adaptation projects of different kinds. The sensitivity of the government was evident from the fact that
around 34 times climate change issues were mentioned directly in the earlier PRSP of Bangladesh.
Again Bangladesh as one of the pioneer countries submitted its NAPA to the UNFCCC Secretariat back
in 2005. Also the Second National Communications is ready to be submitted. The SFYP has included
climate change concerns in details, as evident from the following elements:
• Recognition of Bangladesh as one of the MVCs.
• Strategy and approach: a pro-poor climate change management strategy and an integrated
20
approach that avoids `Development’ versus `Environment’ dichotomy.
• Priorities mentioned in the SFYP Strategy are the following:
Adaptation
DRR
Low carbon development
Mitigation
Technology transfer, and
Mobilization of adequate finance, particularly international
Again, Bangladesh is perhaps the pioneer country among the developing world which has developed a
strategy and action plan to address climate change and also set up two funds which have been discussed
before. Now, about 6-7% of our budget is spent on climate-sensitive activities. However, several lacunae
can be observed in the policy-institutional process:
• Loan funding in climate change activities dominate (82%), 97% of which is in adaptation activities.
• Sectoral investments of over one billion dollar/year for climate change activities are not based on a
coherent and coordinated, mainstreamed approach; it is done kind of an ad-hoc basis.
• The strategy is not transacted yet into policy-institutional terms yet:
No plan is based on costs of assessed needs for adaptation.

Based on BCCSAP, no prioritization of adaptation activities has been done yet.
Climate change adaptation is mostly local, but no local-level climate resilient development plan
yet has been undertaken for integrating into national development plans.
Planning commission is yet to play more active and coordinating role in balancing among
national, sectoral policy goals and BCCSAP targets and communicating across scales, sectors
and agencies.
The above lacuna in policy-institutional arena can be ascribed to many barriers, such as weak
knowledge and sensitization base, particularly at senior policy and political levels, poor coordination, lack
of human resource and managerial capacities and their absence in the rights places, meager budgets
relative to needs, lack of fully transparent and accountable fund management, as well as sufficient policy-institutional
21
support, etc.
Here is a synopsis of the discussion on barriers/bottlenecks in the way of mainstreaming. These candid
discussions were held at different levels of government officials as well as with some NGO leaders. So,
no names have been ascribed to particular ideas. However, discussions with officials of the Ministry of
Agriculture were given prominence, for its being the most hard-hit sector from climate change.
1. Many senior officials rarely heard about climate change in their ministry considerations, or the need of
its consideration for adaptation mainstreaming into their ministry activities. This shows that there is
no awareness or sensitization in many ministries about mainstreaming of adaptation.
2. Here are few other barriers/obstacles that came out in the way of discussion:
a. The government agencies work in a manner, where they respond to issues of their own
agency interests and programs. If any agency has stakes in an issue, discussed with other
agencies or in inter-ministerial meetings, the ministry or agency then takes it up for
consideration within its own domain.
b. However, if there is any specific project to be undertaken on mainstreaming, then only the
ministries/ agencies react. So, the approach is project-based yet.
c. Usually, the program/project review meetings in all ministries, other than the host ministry,
are attended by junior officials, who even don’t report back to the senior hierarchy if the
concerned ministry/agency has no direct relevance; in like manner, the ministries organize
project review meetings, with participation of other agency officials, with the main purpose of
validating their projects and activities. This process is regarded as mere formality.
d. Bureaucrats in the ministries get transferred on a regular basis; so they don’t develop any
specific commitment to issues, viewed by the society as important and topical. Also, the
officials react only to issues directed by their bosses.
e. The existing planning cells of the ministries may make good TAPPs, but don’t have the vision
or expertise in mainstreaming, for which a wider vision and perspective is needed while
examining the project details. So, here is the question of specific capacity for mainstreaming
of adaptation.
f. The MoEF as the coordinating body of mainstreaming climate change issues including
adaptation is very weak, in terms of officers, staff and budget, compared to other ministries.
Usually, the strength of any ministry/agency is reflected in the size of the government budget
it handles. In this regard, MoEF has a tiny budget compared to, for example, the MoA or
some other development ministry. Obviously, the MoEF does not have the clout over other
more powerful ministries. To this is added the fact that many officials with ambition of moving
up don’t prefer to be posted in weak ministries, or agencies, such as the Planning
Commission. This stands in the way also of MoEF’s being as the effective coordinator of
environmental/climate change issues. However, during the last years, things have improved
a lot under the leadership of the incumbent MoEF Minister.
g. The departments/agencies within the ministries are not empowered enough to act on their
own, even they don’t operate within the discretion given. But the departments under
ministries serve as the main institutional memory for continuity of any policy/program. This
shows that technical agencies under the ministries are lot weaker than needed.
h. The Agriculture Policy of 1998 does not have anything about mainstreaming of climate
change issues, nor has it been revised as yet.

i. The NGOs in the environment and climate change arena still work mainly in the shadows of
22
political and administrative hierarchy; so they don’t have autonomous power to influence
policy choices or instruments.
A Roadmap for Mainstreaming/Mainstreamlining/Integration of Adaptation
Policy process: How to do it?: The whole mainstreaming process has to be grounded on the nine generic
principles mentioned above. Here it can be mentioned again, because of its great salience for the
purpose. These are: i) pre-cautionary principle, ii) Stitching the NAPA and NAP development and
implementation into a coherent whole, iii) Co-benefits of adaptation and mitigation, iv) Accountability and
transparency at all levels, v) Consultative process, vi) Principle of subsidiarity, vii) Synergy with other
MEAs implementation, viii) Learning by doing and ix) Flexibility and adaptiveness. Based on these
principles, the following roadmap can be followed:
A holistic approach for policy development, planning, coordination and implementation among
different relevant hubs from the outset, and not optimizing them separately (Fig. 1).
Two types of Integration have to be ensured:
Horizontal – integration of adaptation activities among ministries, agencies and sectors
into national development plans.
Vertical - integration of adaptation activities among hierarchical levels, inclusive of all
stakeholders, such as local, national, regional and international. For example,
mainstreaming adaptation in the geographical milieu of Bangladesh warrants a regional
approach, particularly in disaster planning and water resource management.
This approach generates a holistic picture – international, national, sectoral, local, community –
into a climate-resilient development, creating synergy. However, as the SFYP prescribes, a pro-poor
adaptation framework requires to be undertaken (Fig. 2), in which resilience building and
capacity development of poor get priority.
But measuring mitigation is easier than adaptation; the latter with no baseline is difficult to
quantify and this difficulty is compounded by the difficulty of segregating climate change and
climate variability. But the approach should be resilience building to face existing climate
variability; once this can be done successfully, facing climate change eventualities will be lot
easier. Based on such a holistic approach, this mainstreaming has to be done in two phases:
Policy/plan preparation phase and their implementation phase (Huq & Khan, 2003).
Integration of Adaptation during the Preparation Phase of National Development Strategy:
• Establish a Ministerial level National Adaptation Team: very high profile, team leader must come
from the Finance Ministry, two Deputy leaders from the MoEF and the Planning MInistry, and at
least one member from the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Environment (PSCoE).
• Review of all existing national plans and policies, to see the space allocated for adaptation:
SFYP, BCCSAP, Water Policy, Agriculture Policy, etc.
• Inclusion of adaptation issues – spatial (national, regional and local), sectoral (development
sectors), and temporal dimensions (immediate, short, medium and long-term; this virtually is the
integration of NAPA and NAPs in a coherent chain).
• Public and community consultation of adaptation agenda.
• Coordination and communication across national and local levels.
• However, as Fig. 1/Fig.3 shows, the process can begin with a step-based approach:
awareness/sensitization programs at all levels, then capacity building through targeted training at
the relevant loops, then initiating pilot projects for learning by doing. In this step, as Fig. 6 shows,
some screening with an appropriate adaptation lens has to be done to ensure that the project has

internalized the adaptation agenda. The final step is full-scale mainstreaming adaptation into
development process.
23

Then comes the integration during Implementation Phase of the development strategy, represented by
the Gob documents, such as the SFYP and the BCCSAP: two kinds of interventions likely will facilitate
the process of integration:
• Reorient policies and practices that already integrate current climate variability. The purpose is to
25
internalize projected climate change impacts. Examples:
o Designing and enforcing appropriate construction codes across all regions, including
coastal and physical structures.
o Disaster management practices to focus on ex-ante, not ex-post coping mechanisms.
o Integrated management of land and water systems; and
o Ensuring synergies in implementing the measures under the UNFCCC, CBD and
UNCCD.
• The second group of interventions focuses on filling policy gaps to address climate variability;
achieving this would enhance resilience of the society to climate change. Few examples of
actions are given below:
o Provision of insurance and microinsurance to cushion the security of assets against
climate shocks. This needs to be done particularly in view of the latest decision at
COP18 in Doha in December 2012 regarding loss and damage, which decided to
establish institutional arrangements including an international mechanism to address loss
and damage.
o Appropriate pricing of water and natural resources to improve efficiency in management;
also to ensure sustainable access of the poor.
o Land use management and agricultural practices that improve productivity and protect
soil and water; here in view of the new agenda of Agriculture under the UNFCCC, some
projects of synergy (win-win options) between adaptation and mitigation may be
undertaken.
o Land use planning that avoids marginalizing the poor and forcing them to live in hazard
zones.
o Community-based resource management, which has already shown great promise in
Bangladesh through community-based adaptation, particularly in the north-east region,
and also in the south-west coastal belt of the country.
o Strengthening health services of the poor, and
o Budgetary allocation for adaptation, particularly from the Climate Resilience Fund.
Institutional framework for Mainstreaming
The following steps are vital:
As mentioned before, establishing a high-level national climate change adaptation Focal Point
(CCAFP), with sectoral CCAFPs as members. This committee led by the Planning Commission
will work at the operational level, with guidance from the National level Adaptation Committee,
headed by the Minister of Finance.
A chain of adaptation committees, down from the Union Parishad, upwards to UpaZilla, Zilla,
Division and National levels, to be formed and made functional on a regular basis, both for plan
development and implementation phases.
A strong team to negotiate for defining climate finance and align the inflow for mainstreaming with
the budgetary process.
New focus to be given on implementing the COP decisions for climate-resilient development.

26
Strengthening local governments as the main loop as an immediate priority for the purpose.
Appropriate mechanisms for ensuring fiduciary standards in fund management.
Focused and targeted capacity building for mainstreaming, as mentioned above.
Building a strong bridge among policy-makers, academia and action research.
Monitoring and Evaluation of Mainstreaming: Sample of Few Indicators of M & E
In Bangladesh, the weakest link is the implementation loop. So, it is of utmost importance that a set of
effective indicators of M & E needs to be developed, in order to measure Progress in adaptation
mainstreamlining. These M & E should touch both the policy and operational level, to ensure `climate-proofing’
of development at every level and scale. Again, a bridge needs to be built up between top-down
institutional monitoring and bottom-up community-level monitoring. Below is a set of sample indicators
for the M & E roadmap:
1. Financial indicators: share of GDP devoted to adaptation actions; Donor contribution to
adaptation, Costing of adaptation options, etc.
2. Adaptation-awareness development indicators: these can be adapted from indicators for the
MDGs and Sustainable Development; there are overlaps among these goals, and also statistical
information is there for the MDGs and SD.
3. Sectoral policy indicators: Adaptation issues considered in Project Proforma and investment
decisions. Indicators to reflect interactions between sectors and climate change impacts
including positive and negative feedbacks of sectoral activity on climate variability, cost-benefit
analysis of sectoral adaptation measures, etc.
8. What Role NGOs and Civil Society can Play: Since independence of Bangladesh, NGOs have
started working in the development and disaster management sector. Gradually, the scope of works of
the NGOs increased over time, and they have become a vivrant sector in the society. In the service
delivery sector, particularly the NGOs have been playing a very effective role. This has been recognized
both by the development partners as well as by the Government. The development strategy of
Bangladesh now has an inclusive approach, with recognition of their participation and contribution in the
development of the country.
In the adaptation activities in particular, NGOs have a very strong role to play, especially in
mainstreaming of adaptation. Many NGOs are working already at local level for enhancing the
community-level adaptive capacity. Climate change adaptation is mainly local, and NGOs have access to
remote, marginalized areas in Bangladesh. Here NGOs can play a really potent role, together with the
Government. The NGOs can assist the local governments in drawing local adaptation plans with taking
each Upazila as the unit for such planning. Further, NGOs can have very active representation and
participation in adaptation committees from Upazila to national levels. In this regard, OXFAM UK and its
Bangladesh office can play the lead role on behalf of theNGOs. Besides, OXFAM GB has its many
partner NGOs. Together, it can form a network specifically meant for implementing the proposed
roadmap for mainstreaming adaptation.
Learning from and transferring NAPA experience into the NAP Process
As mentioned before, stitching the NAPA and NAP into a coherent whole should be the goal as a vital
element of mainstreaming adaptation. NAPA process for the LDCs including Bangladesh was based on
immediate and urgent needs and Bangladesh has submitted the NAPA to the UNFCCC Secretariat back
in 2005. Bangladesh is already implementing few NAPA projects. And the NAP process as mid-and
long-term planning has just begun. However, these two planning processes should be aligned together,
as a continuum from short to medium and long-term goals of adaptation as part of development and
mainstreaming.
However, the lessons learnt from the NAPA process need to be considered for preparing the
NAP. One basic lacuna, as this author observed then as a member of the LDC Expert Group, was that
the Bangladesh NAPA was not a participatory process in the real sense of the term. At the beginning, six

agencies were selected for developing their sectoral perspectives of NAPA. Of course, there were public
consultations organized by these agencies, but community inputs were not reflected much in the final
outcome. The priorities of these agencies were given preference in selecting 15 NAPA projects. Later, a
revision process was initiated.
So, the NAP process should begin with real participation of the communities of each and every
ecological zones in Bangladesh. These first hand inputs can be processed by national level experts, with
their scientific and planning expertise. Again, the draft NAP should be put to public consultations and
hearings from local to national levels. Thus, an iterative process should guide the NAP preparation
exercise. Finally, the adaptation committees at different levels as representatives of all stakeholders in
the process, should vet the final output for adoption. In all these exercises, mainstreaming of adaptation
measures into sectoral, regional and national development strategies should be the target goal.
Conclusion
The above discussion shows that adaptation and its mainstreaming, though sounds an easy process, is
actually extremely tricky, in view of its dilution with the development process. But as discussed, a country
like Bangladesh has to adopt a development first approach, with a vulnerability-focused strategy to
address adaptation. This will strengthen development process, with reduction of poverty. Also keeping
the sources of generation of adaptation finance and ODA separate is extremely important to gauge the
new and additional aspects in climate financing. There is a strong move on the part of the donors to blur
these differences and providing adaptation finance even as loans. There are already precedents for that
even in the LDCs. This needs to be guarded. Taking all these considerations into the proposed
Roadmap, the paper concludes with the final suggestions, culled through the discussions with
stakeholders at GO and NGO levels:
27
a. There is a need for revision of many sectoral policies including the Agriculture Policy, with
insertion of the agenda for mainstreaming, its rationale and direction. Though in most of the
cases, policies don’t matter so much in the day-to-day activities of any ministry, a good policy
at least serves as a reference point and a moral pressure for implementation along the
prescribed track.
b. As mainstreaming is a real issue for internalization into policy process, the actions have to be
initiated both up and down, as mentioned above. Here is a summary, with few added
elements:
i. First, the senior hierarchy of the government needs to be sensitized. In the case of
MoA, the Minister who is usually a senior and influential member of the Cabinet,
needs to be convinced first by officials within her/his ministry; then the Minister can
take up the issue at the Cabinet meetings attended by his/her colleagues and the
highest authorities of the government. In this process, the Cabinet may issue a
Decree or a Rule to the effect of mainstreaming climate change into development
strategies of the country. Only then, all the ministries will take up the issue seriously
for carrying forward. This culture of centralized management, though not good, but
operates in Bangladesh. Also, the Parliamentary Standing Committees of each
ministry should be taken on board, because they represent the voter constituencies,
who may put pressure on the government for sustaining their respective programs
and projects.
ii. In this process, the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Planning, with the
Planning Commission hold the key to mainstreaming, because they control the
resource flow and the process.
iii. With a Cabinet decree, a climate change mainstreaming cell should be created under
the High-level Ministerial Committee, as mentioned before, which may be headed by
the Chair of the BARC, who holds a secretary level position. With his/her expertise
and long years of working experience with the government, she/he will have easy
access to the highest authority and can exert her/his clout for the purpose. This body
should be empowered with necessary budget for effective coordination. BARC Chair
is the right position for carrying out such a role, as BARC has done a good job of
institutionalizing important and effective agricultural research and their

implementation in Bangladesh, through its elaborate National Agricultural Research
System.
28
iv. Together, a bottom-up approach should also be pursued. The communities of
important agriculture and ecological zones in Bangladesh, such as food granary and
coastal belts, should be sensitized about the need for mainstreaming adaptation.
Then they can put pressure on the government authority at different levels. In this
task, the NGOS, with appropriate backgrounds, may be involved for mass
mobilization.
v. Together, the local governments including the Upazila Chairman’s office should be
strengthened and decision-making authority should be decentralized, particularly in
handling climate change issues, since adaptation is mostly local and community-based.
Without this, mainstreaming will never be successful.
vi. Each ministry should strengthen the planning cell, with internalizing the expertise
needed for mainstreaming climate change into development projects and programs.
vii. An inventory of agricultural lands including existing so-called wastelands may be
initiated, to understand the impacts of climate change on specific eco-zones. This
will help in strategizing on how to mainstream in specific areas.
viii. A series of policy briefs on mainstreaming targeting constituencies, both up and
down, can be prepared and disseminated on a regular basis. The language and
vocabulary of these briefs should be easily understandable by the target audience.
ix. As mentioned before, the NGO/CBO representation, particularly with democratically-run
NGO/CBOs, should form an important part of the mainstreaming exercise. Here
OXFAM-GB can lead the NGO/CBO stakeholder group.
x. Private sector needs to be taken on board in earnest, as it was not involved so much
in adaptation business historically. Both on a business and corporate social
responsibility (CSR) model, the private sector needs to be made an important
stakeholder in terms of their property and asset stakes.
Finally, there was agreement among the stakeholders that for a sustainable mainstreaming of climate
change issues into the development planning process, the current project-based approach as done with
call for Proposals by the government agencies and NGOs, will not serve the purpose. This approach,
done incoherently, with no prioritization and no backward or forward linkage, is not effective at all.
Instead, each ministry and agency, taking the science-based short, medium and long-term impacts of
climate change, should develop their plans and programs, in a phased manner, align with national plans
and then go for their implementation as loops in the chain. In this process, NGOs can serve as facilitator
for community mobilization and reaching out to all rural and urban communities. In such an approach,
budgetary allocations should automatically be internalized, based on the estimated costs of
mainstreaming of adaptation activities. This part of the budget needed for implementing the
mainstreaming activities, both for concrete projects and the related facilitative and capacity building
activities, must come from international climate finance.
References
Adger, W.N. et al. Adaptation to Climate Change in the Developing World, Progress in Development
Studies 3(3), 2003:179-195.
Adger W. N. 1. Social vulnerability to climate change and extremes in coastal Vietnam,’ World
Develoment 27, 1999: 249-269.
Agrawal, A. The Role of Local Institutions in Livelihoods Adaptation to Climate Change,” in Social
Dimensions of Climate Change, Washington, DC: Social Development Dept, World Bank, 2008.
Ayers, J. Financing urban adaptation, in J. Bicknell, D. Dodman and D. SAtterthwaite (eds), Adapting
Cities to Climate Change. London: Earthscan, 2009.
Ayers, J and D. Dodman. Climate change adaptation and development: the state of the debate,
Progress in Development Studies, 2010 10(2): 161-168.
Ayers, J and S. Huq, “Supporting adaptation through development: what Role of ODA? Development
Policy Review 27(6) 2009: 675-692.

Bernauer, T. and Gampfer, R. `Effects of civil society involvement on popular legitimacy of global
environmental governance,’ Global Environmental Change, 2013, 23: 439-449.
Bernauer, T. and Betzold, C. `Civil Society in Global Environmental Governance,’ The Journal of
Environment and Development, 2012, 2191): 62-68.
Biermann, F. and I. Boas. `Preparing for a Warmer World: Towards a Global Governance System to
Protect Climate Refugees,” Global Environmental Politics 10(1), 2010: 60-68.
Bizikova, L.J, L. J. Robinson and S. Cohen. Linking Climate Change and Sustainable Development at
the Local Level,” Climate policy 7, 2007: 271-77.
Burton, I. Deconstructing Adaptation … and Reconstructing,’ 5:1 Delta, 1994: 14-15.
Burton, I. `Beyond borders: the need for strategic global adaptation,’ in Sustainable Development Opinion
2008, IIED, London.
Burton, I. The growth of adaptation capacity: practice and policy. In Smith J. et al. eds. Adapting to
Climate Change: An International Perspective, Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, USA, 1996.
Ciplet, D., Field, S., Madden, K., Khan, M. and Roberts, T. “The Eight Unmet Promises of Fast-Start
Climate Finance.” International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) Briefing, November
2012. Policy briefing.
Govt of Bangladesh, 2009: Bangladesh Strategy and Action Plan, Ministry of Env & Forests, Dhaka.
Gupta, J. The Climate Change Convention and Developing Countries: From Conflict to Consensus?
(Boston, London, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1997).
Houghton, J.T. et al. (eds), Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, IPCC WG1 contribution to the
Third Assessment Report (Cambridge University Press, 2001).
Huq S et al. Linking Climate Adaptation and Development: A Synthesis of Six Case Studies from Asia
and Africa,” IDS Bulletin IDS 36(4), 2005: 117-122.
Huq, S. & Reid, H. `Mainstreaming Adaptation in Development’ IDS Bulletin 2005 35(3), 15-21.
IPCC. Summary for Policymakers, in M.L. Parry, M.L Conziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and
C.E. Hanson (eds), Climate Change 2007: Impact, Adaptation and Vulnerability: Contribution of the
Working GroupII to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovenmental Panel on Climate Change
P(London, Oxford University Press, 2007).
Jerneck, A and L. Olsson. Adaptation and the Poor: development, resilience and transition, Climate Policy
8, 2008: 170-82.
Khan, Mizan and Roberts, J.T. Towards a Binding Adaptation Regime: Few Levers and Instruments’ in
Moser, S and Max, B. (eds) Toward Successful Adaptation, forthcoming by Routledge in early 2013.
Khan, M.R. 2013. Toward A Binding Climate Change Adaptation Regime - A Proposed Framework
London: Routledge/Earthscan.
Khan, M. R. and Roberts, J.T. 2013. Adaptation in International Climate Policy, WIREs Climate Change 4:
171-189.
Klein, R.J.T. et al. Portfolio screening to support the mainstreaming of adaptation to climate change into
development assistance,” Climatic Change 84, 2007: 23-44.
Lemos, M.C. et al. Developing Adaptation and Adapting Development,” Ecology and Society 12, 2007.
Lemos, M.C. and E. Boyd. The Politics of Adaptation Across Scales: The Implications of Additionality to
Policy Choice and Development,” in Boykoff, M (ed), The Politics of Climate Change: A Survey
(Routledge: London and New York: 2010).
Mcgray H et. al., Weathering Storms - Framing Adaptation and Development, Washington, DC. WRI,
2007.
29

MoEF, 2005. Ministry of Environment and Forest Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh :
The National Adaptation Program of Action (NAPA). Final Report
Prowse, M. Grist, N. and Sourang, C. ODI Project Briefing, No. 21, ODI, 2009.
Schipper, L. `Conceptual history of Adaptation in the UNFCCC process,” Review of European Community
and Inernational Environmental Law 15, 2006: 82-92.
Schelling, T. `Some economics of global warming,’ American Economic Review 1992, 82: 1-14.
Sen, A.K. Develooment as Freedom (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1999).
SMRC, 2000. SAARC Meteorological Research Center, Dhaka.
Stern, N. The Economics of Climate Change, American Economic Review 98, 2008: 1-37.
Stern, Nicholas (2006), Stern Review: The Economics of Climate Change: Executive Summary, London,
UK Treasury.
Tearfund, Adaptation United, Building Blocks from developing countries on integrated adaptation, March
2011, available at: http://tilz.tearfund.org/research.
Yohe, Gary and Tol, Richard, 2002: “Economic Coping Capacity: Moving toward a Working Definition of
Adaptive Capacity,” Global Environmental Change 12, 25-40.
30

Looking to a Future Climate-Smart Development in Bangladesh

Looking to a Future Climate-Smart Development in Bangladesh

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Looking to a Future Climate-Smart Development in Bangladesh

Similar to Looking to a Future Climate-Smart Development in Bangladesh (20)

More from Policy Adda

More from Policy Adda (14)

Looking to a Future Climate-Smart Development in Bangladesh