TOOLS FOR INTEGRATING CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION AND DISASTER

REDUCTION INTO DEVELOPMENT

Thomas Tanner (Institute of Development Studies, UK)

Anne Hammill (International Institute for Sustainable Development, Geneva)

EADI/DSA Conference September 20th 2011

Positionality

Context Risks to poverty reduction

Responses New programmes New policy and organisational change Development on risk management tools

See: Hammill and Tanner 2011; Mitchell and Tanner 2006; Wilby and Vaughan 2010

Rationale Tool overload!

Our focus on User perspectives Implications for harmonisation Process guidance tools

See stock-takes at: Tanner and Guenther 2007; Klein et al 2007; Gigli and Agrawala 2007; Olhoff and Schaer 2010; Ecofys/IDS 2011

Method Sample of 10 tools in bilateral agencies and NGOs

Interviews with 50 tool developers and users

Linking tools with decision-making steps

Project Identification

Project appraisal

Project design

Project implementation

Monitoring & Evaluation

Projectcyclesteps

Raising awareness

Identifying current and future vulnerabilities and

climate risks

Identifying adaptation measures

Evaluating and selecting

adaptation options

Evaluating “success” of adaptation

Adaptationdecision-makingsteps

Climate info Vulnerability / poverty / development information

DATA & INFORMATION PROVISON TOOLSMarketing Tool sharing Feedback, refinement

KNOWLEDGE SHARING TOOLS / PLATFORMS

Communication Screening Assessment Analysis Evaluation Integration M&E

PROCESS TOOLSCRM /climateadaptationtools

Tool conceptual approaches

What role for partners

Assessing tools 4 Organisational change

Awareness-raising a key reported benefit

Tools to provide agency to take action

Association with others to work on the issue

Demonstrated action on climate change

Awareness

Association

Agency

Action / reflection

After Ballard 2007

Limitations Awareness and association is partial

Partner engagement is varied

Embedding tools in donor management systems only

Capacity gaps in government

Action failures

Failure to address multiple stressors (integration)

Dealing with strategic risks

Assessing budget support

How to learn from implementation / M&E

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

Organisational change Most agencies characterised by efficient management

Response Description

Core business focused

Organisations with a short term focus

Stakeholder responsive

Managers will respond but not proactive. May be a ‘tick box’ exercise.

Efficient management

Managers recognise that the issue needs to be managed systematically, rather than occasionally. CC is usually delegated to someone lower down the organisation; senior managers may think they’ve cracked it.

Strategic experimentation

Bridge from operations to strategy. Projects used to make breakthroughs in practice and understanding, but strategic decisions remain unaffected.

Strategic resilience

Organisation becomes more able to put in place programmes to ensure itsresilience in what is likely to be a very different and fast-changing future.

The champion organisation

Organisations choose to go further and seek to lead wider social change to slow and reverse climate change itself.

Source: Adapted from Ballard 2007

Critique Of climate risk management

Tools as a fix

Technical / managerial solution

Climate science less helpful than robust decision making (Wilby 2011)

Of incremental change Adaptation as tweaks and incremental change

Response as stability not transformation

Of organisational change strategy in tools-led approach Offers potential to showcase without embedding change

Limited use within organisation – pigeon-holed

Thank you

Experience of tool useTypes 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).

MandatoryTrained, tools applied as part of mandatory agency policy.

Use of climate information

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

• Disconnect between Type 1 and Type 2 tool users

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

Sources: Mitchell and Tanner 2006; Klein et al 2007; Wilby and Vaughan 2010

Tool development• Motivations

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

• Development process• Driven by headquarters (with input from field offices / partners)• Collaborative and iterative• Organisational change as part of development

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