NAPA Experiences

First thoughts for the ECBI WorkshopNaivasha, 28-30 September 2006

Balgis Osman ElashaTom Downing

The process

● Interviews with NAPA teams● Questionnaire● Review of draft and final NAPA documents● Expert dialogues

Interview with NAPA teams

Issues discussed ● Approaches for developing NAPA● Lessons learned ● Strengths and weaknesses● The way forward

Questionnaire

● General information● Status of the NAPA● Focus of the assessment● Methods employed● Ranking process● Lessons learned (what worked best, gaps

and constraints etc. )● Opportunities

Expert dialogue in Cape Town

● Knowledge of climate change may be low in some ministries and organisations, but experience in resource and risk management

● Expertise (and mandate) for adaptation may not be located in organisations with a lead for coordinating NAPAs

● Criteria agreed for the NAPA process have led to urgent projects that are oriented toward basic development

● Need to bridge scales, between implementation at the local level and national to international policy

Review of draft and final NAPA documents

Status No. of projectsBangladesh Submitted 15Bhutan Submitted 9

Submitted 12Cambodia Draft 39Comoros Draft 3Lesotho Draft 14Liberia Submitted 3Malawi Submitted 5

Mauritania Submitted 25

Niger Submitted 14

Samoa Submitted 9

Uganda Submitted 9

157

Burkina Faso

Scale of project targets

● Majority are sector-wide efforts

● None target specific vulnerable social group or pool efforts across countries

Project scale

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Community Sector National

Project types

● Vast majority are investment in specific development interventions

● A range of projects seek to raise awareness, develop the information base for adaptation and/or build institutional capacity

● Relatively few propose reforming institutions and regulation

● Two propose insurance as an adaptation mechanism

Project type

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Aw

are

ne

ss

Info

rma

tion

&

Re

se

arc

h

Ca

pa

city

bu

ildin

g, E

WS

Ma

ins

tre

am

ing

& p

lan

nin

g

Inv

es

tme

nt

Ins

titu

tion

al

refo

rm &

reg

ula

tion

Fin

an

cia

l &

ins

ura

nc

e

What worked well

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

Ranking process (1)

● Using a computer software ( e.g. Definite, HiView, NAPASSESS)

● Targeting specific groups (e.g. livelihood-sensitive matrix)

● Using participatory stakeholder consultation process

● Stratified ranking (contribution to social, economic and env. Issues)

Ranking process (2)

● Social (quality of life, no. of beneficiaries, etc.)● Env (reducing degradation)● Economic (contribution to SD)

● Weights given to different criteria vary according to local priorities ??

Ranking process (3)

● Technical feasibility● Economic costs and benefits● Levels of stakeholders involvement● Losses avoided● Sustainability of livelihoods● Cross cutting issues and synergetic approach● Magnitude of impacts

Policy issues● What is the project baseline?

– GEF guidance on the additional action justified as adaptation to climate change

● What is the policy aim?– Climate proofing, climate resilience, climate aware

● What is the justification for funding the action from limited climate change sources rather than mainstream development funding?– Link between urgent needs and additional climatic risks:

baselines, trends, scenarios

● How can we learn from our experience?● Project-level and community-scale activities, program

approach or integration with sectoral policies ??