So far, two UNDP-hosted workshops (June and October 2017) – attended by over 70 officials from departments under MoAC – have focused on prioritization for adaptation planning, using multi-criteria analysis (MCA); and developing a preliminary screening system for ranking and fine-tuning ongoing climate-sensitive projects and programmes. The workshop in June focused on providing an overview of MCA as a tool to priority actions. Participants gained a better appreciation of the process and key steps involved, as well as its strengths and limitations in the context of climate adaptation planning. Feedback and key insights were also gained by MOAC on how MCA could be used in the context of implementing Thailand’s new sectoral climate change strategy (ACCSP). In a follow-up workshop in October, participants learned the key steps to apply tools and methods in the context of their work. After identifying key areas from the revised five-year Agricultural Climate Change Strategic Plan 2017-2021, MoAC’s is enhancing its capacity with the support of the NAP-Ag programme to to prioritize these activities, which will be funded under the Ministry’s annual budgetary cycle and put forward to international climate funds.

1. Examples of MCA application in various
countries
Workshop ‘Smart Decision-Making for Climate Change Adaptation Supported by Multi-Criteria Analysis’
Presented by Martin Rokitzki
(PlanAdapt, International consultant)

2. Examples from:
• Canadian Arctic (MCDA)
• MCA for Adaptation in Netherlands
• Rwanda’s NAPA
• MCA for Urban Adaptation in Bangladesh
• MCA for national adaptation planning in Cambodia

3. Use of MCDA in the Canadian Arctic
Source: Champelle et al 2015

4. Use of MCDA in the Canadian Arctic
• Used various criteria:
• Equity: Is the adaptation equitable to all? i.e. does not adversely affect other
groups or areas
• Timescale: How long does the adaptation option take to
implement, how soon will the effect be felt and how long will the
effects last for?
• Sustainability: Is the adaptation option sustainable?
• Total cost: How much does the adaptation cost?
Source: Champelle et al 2015

5. Use of MCDA in the Canadian Arctic
• Gantt chart used to rank them in the order these should be implemented
and show the delay and timescale of each option’s effects
Source: Champelle et al 2015

6. MCA for Adaptation in the Netherlands
Source: De Bruin et al 2009

7. MCA for Adaptation in the Netherlands
Source: De Bruin et al 2009
Utilised the following criteria:
• (i) the importance of the option in terms of the expected gross
benefits that can be obtained;
• (ii) the urgency of the option, reflecting the need to act soon
and not later;
• (iii) the no-regret characteristics of the option (it is good to
implement, irrespective of climate change);
• (iv) the co-benefits to other sectors and domains; and
• (v) the effect on climate change mitigation (for instance
through changes in land-use that reduce emissions of
greenhouse gases as a side effect).

8. Rwanda’s NAPA: Weighted Sum Model
Source: Dixit and McGray 2013

9. Example of Rwanda’s NAPA
Source: Rwanda NAPA p44
How were these criteria derived?
• The national team used criteria mostly recommended by Least
Developed Countries Expert Group and also adapted to
national context such as:
• Impact on vulnerable groups and resources,
• The contribution to sustainable development (Socio-cultural, ecological
and economic),
• the synergy with MEA (Multilateral Environment Agreement),
• Risks reduction,
• Cost-efficiency (financing)

10. Example of Rwanda’s NAPA – Comparing
weighed and none-weighed results
Source: Rwanda NAPA
Which options were selected?
• In the first MCA, the same importance was given to each of the 5 criteria.
• The technical team judged it useful to weight the criteria in relation to
others. Hence the impact on groups and vulnerable resources got a higher
weighting.
• Hence the weighed index of each option is obtained – leading to a second
MCA 2 classification different from the first.
• Comparing the two classifications, it appears that some options kept the
same positions or similar positions
• From these results, 6 priority options were selected:
1. Integrated water resources management (IWRM)
2. information systems of hydro agrometeorologic early warning system and rapid
intervention
3. Promotion of income generating activities
4. Promotion of intensive agriculture and animal husbandry
5. Introduction of varieties resisting to environmental conditions
6. Development of energy sources alternative to firewood

11. Review of Rwanda MCA Approach
• Unnecessarily Combines Multi-Attribute Utility Theory and
Weighted Sum Approach.
• Several limitations:
• No clear guidance with respect to original scoring system. How scores were
agreed remains unclear.
• Apparent error when standardising scores to a 0-1 scale.
• Standardisation unfortunately influences final score.
• Standardisation would not be needed if all criteria were given the same
scoring system to begin with.
• Too many options scored the same for many criteria/indicators.
• Very few criteria/indicators.

12. Benefits of Sensitivity Analysis
Options Equal
Weighting
(final rank)
Adjusted
Weighting
(final rank)
Promotion of non rain-fed agriculture 0.42 (9) 0.325 (9)
Intensive agro-animal husbandry 0.68 (5) 0.765 (4)
Varieties resistant to drought 0.63 (7) 0.739 (5)
IWRM: Integrated water resource management 0.82 (1) 0.903 (1)
Stocking and transformation of agricultural products 0.49 (8) 0.310 (10)
Information system of early warning and rapid intervention. 0.76 (2) 0.813 (2)
Development of energy sources alternative to firewood 0.67 (6) 0.726 (6)
Preparation and implementation of land development plan 0.32 (10) 0.326 (8)
Access to health facilities and fight against water-borne diseases 0.05 (11) 0.031 (11)
Promotion of non agricultural activities of income generating
schemes
0.71 (4) 0.800 (3)
Preparation and implementation of forestry development plan 0.74 (3) 0.633 (7)

13. Use of MCA in an Urban Context in Bangladesh
Source: Haque et al 2009
Adaptation options were identified based on existing proposed measures as well as additional
options based on a vulnerability index:

14. Use of MCA in an Urban Context in Bangladesh
Source: Haque et al 2009
• The criteria for selection were selected in a participatory manner based on
stakeholders’ assessment.
• Key stakeholders were identified covering public and private sectors and
also community representatives from different groups i.e. business,
agriculture etc.
• Focus Group Discussion (FGD) were conducted with the stakeholder group
in order to identify the most important aspects and criteria to be
considered during adaptation assessment:
• Vulnerability reduction
• Costs
• Enhancement of ecological condition
• Public and political acceptance
• Employment generation
• Achievement of MDG
• Institutional and technical capacity

15. Use of MCA in an Urban Context in Bangladesh
Source: Haque et al 2009

16. Bangladesh – Combination of stakeholder and
expert scoring
Source: Haque et al 2009
The scores given by the experts were combined with the weights decided by the stakeholders in
order to get the weighted scores:

17. MCA for selecting adaptation options between
ministries: Cambodia
• MCA used within National Adaptation Planning process to scoring
adaptation options across criteria
• Advantages of Cambodia approach
• Simple yet structured approach to assessing agricultural
adaptation options.
• Structured manner in which scores are provided.
• Clear defined indicators for each criteria which themselves cover
important topics of consideration

19. Effectiveness Co-benefits Feasibility
Selected Priority Actions for Agricultural
Sectors
Scaleofclimaterisk
Costper
beneficiary
Mitigationcost
effectiveness
Economic
Social
Environmental
Political
commitment
Capacity
Easetoimplement
Promoting and up-scaling sustainable
farming system that resilient to climate
change
2 3 1 1 2 2 3 3 3
Promote post-harvest technology for cereal
crop and tuber crop, and conduct the
research and transfer appropriate post-
harvest
1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3
Develop crop variety suitable to AEZ resilient
to CC (include coastal zone)
2 1 2 2 1 1 3 3 2
Promote research work on appropriate
climate-smart agriculture technology /
techniques to adapt and mitigate climate
change
2 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 3
Development of knowledge and information
system on climate change
2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 3

20. Scoring system for ‘Reduction in Climate
Risk’ indicator
Score Explanation
3 Major reduction in a risk arising from climate change that threatens
the livelihoods of beneficiaries or critical ecosystems (eg drought
resistant new varieties, water storage, flood protection, clinics in
areas vulnerable to malaria etc., forest protection, relocating village in
flood prone areas).
2 Intermediate reduction (eco-tourism linked to biodiversity protection,
capacity building for climate change planning).
1 Modest reduction of a risk arising from climate change that does not
threaten the livelihoods of beneficiaries or critical ecosystems (eg
rural road proofing, general health programmes, water quality
programme without explicit climate proofing).
0 No reduction in risks arising from climate change.
-1 Increases the risks arising from climate change that threaten the
livelihoods of beneficiaries or critical ecosystems

23. Group work
• 1) read the 3 project descriptions
• 2) discuss the guiding question in view of the 3 projects
• 3) do the scoring
• 4) provide feedback