CLIMATE RISK AND ASSESSMENT TOOLS: MAKING SENSE OF A CROWDED FIELD Anne Hammill (IISD) Tom Tanner (IDS) October 12, 2010

Study approach Methodology Documentary review 40 interviews with tool developers and users Survey of developing country government officials

representing potential tool users

Context Climate risks to poverty reduction Growing range of adaptation tools; maturity

Starting point: Other stocktakes Project and programme not sector or national focus Limited economic costing Large differences in levels of stakeholder engagement Points of departure:

Limited understanding of User perspectives Potential for harmonisation

Tanner and Guenther 2007; Klein et al 2007; Gigli and Agrawala 2007; Olhoff and Schaer 2010

Terminology No  single  definition  of  ‘Climate  risk  management’ “Tools”:  documents, computer programmes, websites that

help undertake part of risk screening / assessment process Screening & assessment as part of climate risk management

Tools Typology

• Here we focus on Type 2 tools

Linking tools with decision-making steps

Project

Identification Project

appraisal Project design

Project implementation

Monitoring & Evaluation

Project cycle steps

Raising awareness

Identifying current and future vulnerabilities and

climate risks

Identifying adaptation measures

Evaluating and selecting

adaptation options

Evaluating “success”  of  adaptation

Adaptation decision- making steps

Climate info Vulnerability / poverty / development information

DATA & INFORMATION PROVISON TOOLS Marketing Tool sharing Feedback, refinement

KNOWLEDGE SHARING TOOLS / PLATFORMS

Communication Screening Assessment Analysis Evaluation Integration M&E

PROCESS TOOLS CRM / climate adaptation tools

Tools analysed here Tool name Description

DO

NO

R T

OO

LS

Asian Development Bank

Draft Risk Screening Tool Screening tool

GTZ Climate Proofing for Development Screening and assessment tool

USAID Guidance Manual Screening and assessment tool

DANIDA Climate Change Screening Studies

Screening tool

DFID Strategic Programme Review Assessment process

NG

O T

OO

LS

Tearfund Tearfund Assessment tool

CARE Climate vulnerability and capacity analysis Assessment tool

IISD, IUCN, SEI, IC

CRiSTAL Assessment tool

Christian Aid Adaptation Toolkit Assessment tool

Acknowledges multiple tools and initiatives in these agencies

Tool development • Motivations (common)

• Development threatened by climate change • Disconnect between external and internal work • NGOs: Demand from field staff & local partners, social justice • Donors: Top-down policy commitments, fiduciary risk management

• Development process • Six months to one year • Driven by headquarters with input from field offices and partners • Collaborative and iterative

• Drawing  from…

• NGOs: PRA tools • Donors: Risk management procedures for EIA/SIA

• Organizational change

Tools: Problem framing Framing: Relevance to organisational goals, objectives,

priorities (E.g. USAID, CA) Starting point of analysis: Climate impacts (across

multiple time horizons) Not vulnerability Direction of impact always climate development Some look at development adaptive capacity

Project/programming cycle

Tool  users’  profile Background or training

Some already understood the basics of CC before using

the tool Most users had environment / NRM background not

generalists

Tool  users’  profile  (2) • Roles and responsibilities

• Actual basically matches intended, although with donor tools have more consultants than originally envisaged

Experience of tool use Types of users identified: Training, incentives, resources available. Voluntary No formal training, aware of tool through own professional

networks, Internet, reference documents. Use tool on ad-hoc, as-needed basis.

Trained and ready

Received training, ready and willing to apply tool as needed. May do it without prompting or support. May seek out funding opportunities.

Applying as part of project

Usually trained, required to use tool as part of project – i.e. tool elaboration and application are discrete project activities with associated budget lines.

Applying as part of job description

Usually trained, staff or consultants, hired to apply tool in designing and managing development strategies. Hired to use the tool(s).

Mandatory Trained, tools applied as part of mandatory agency policy.

Role of partners • Not driving the process (at this point in time) • Directly involved

• Part of the screening or assessment team • Consulted for input

• Met departments, universities • Communities (observations and experiences, risk management

options) • Local governments, districts (planning processes) • National governments

• Trained to carry on the process (training of trainers)

Use of climate information

Outsource the climate analysis

• Hire consultants, experts

Use pre-fabricated climate information

products

• Draw from ready-made climate change summaries (projections, impacts), and adaptation options that accompany tool

Rely more heavily on local observations and experiences

• Seek out some information (e.g. NAPA), extract general conclusions

• Research and emphasise community observations and experiences

• Growing emphasis on developing informed consumers of climate information (what, where, who)

• Disconnect between Type 1 and Type 2 tool users

Reported benefits of tool application Top 3 reported benefits: Design of climate-resilient development strategies Awareness-raising with partners / colleagues Capacity building

Empowerment (e.g. better understanding of CC science) Demonstrated action on climate change

Common limitations How to address multiple stressors

Moving from assessment to implementation to M&E

Dealing with strategic programming

Assessing budget support

Partner engagement

Stronger among NGOs (training, support,

Donor engagement limited or a secondary concern

Implications for climate risk management beyond aid

Usually very limited capacity among government partners

Harmonisation opportunities Strong rationale for multiple tool development

Common climate /vulnerability information sites or summaries?

Common skeleton for elements of process? Screening criteria

Checklists for risk assessment, risk management analysis, options evaluation

Cost benefit / effectiveness analysis

Approaches to strategic climate risk management Partner-oriented

Portfolio-wide

Sector / budget support

Common M&E framework