A 2-day workshop hosted by the CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security www.ccafs.cgiar.org from 13-14 November, Warsaw, Poland brought together 37 representatives from 10 different countries across Asia, Africa and Latin America to share their lessons and experiences in developing climate adaptation plans for the agriculture sector. For more information see: Planning climate adaptation in agriculture http://ow.ly/qSO1R New report highlights lessons from national adaptation planning http://ow.ly/qSO2y

1. Sector Wide Approach
• Sector Investment Programme (SIP), Sector
Programme
SWAp

2. Sector Wide Approach (SWAp)
•
•
•
•
(1) a single sector policy and expenditure programme,
(2) under government leadership,
(3) adopting common approaches across the sector,
(4) uses government procedures to disburse and
account for all funds”
(Foster et al 2000)
• (5) Sector-wide in scope
• (6) All donors sign on
• (7) Local stakeholders involved
(Harrold and Associates 1995))
SWAp

3. • “Sector wide programmes are found
exclusively in highly aid dependent poor
countries. Roughly 80 sector programmes are
being prepared and implemented. The vast
majority of those, 85%, are in Sub Saharan
Africa.”
(Foster et al 2000)
SWAp

4. Challenges (in Agriculture)
• “The agricultural sector is usually dominated
by private sector producers and represents a
significant share of national output and
employment, thus making SWAps less
relevant”
(Foster et al 2000)
SWAp

5. Challenges (in Agriculture)
• “Most of the important government actions which
influence the sector are concerned with policy
rather than service delivery.”
• E.g. exchange rates, interest
rates, prices, trade, taxation, land reform, market
structures, and input and output subsidies
(Foster et al 2000)
SWAp

6. Challenges (in Agriculture)
• “Public action in agricultural SWAps must face
and pass stiffer tests than social sectors
where the main issues is the provision of
services to groups previously denied to them”
• i.e. farmers must be able to ‘translate’ SWAp
contents in to market opportunities
(Foster et al 2000)
SWAp

7. Challenges (in Agriculture)
• “One size does not fit all. Unlike education and
health SWAps, one approach [agricultural
policy] cannot be nationally replicated, hence
the economies of scale and of standardization
arguments for a SWAp are weaker”.
(Foster et al 2000)
SWAp

8. Challenges (in Agriculture)
• “Farmers are experts too; in agriculture, the
exchange of knowledge needs to be two way
in agricultural SWAps”
(Foster et al 2000)
SWAp

9. Challenges (in Agriculture)
• “Many problems with agricultural SWAps
result from the contested and shrinking role of
the state in the agricultural sector”
(Foster et al 2000)
SWAp

10. Challenges (in Agriculture)
• “A SWAp defined to correspond to the
responsibilities of the line ministry in Health and
Education sectors will come far closer to covering
key sectoral interests than can be achieved within
agriculture”
• i.e. “the most important public expenditures for
supporting agriculture may not be in the
agricultural sector. Think roads and markets, for
example.
(Foster et al 2000)
SWAp

11. SWAps Decentralization
• “It may be that the most appropriate form of
SWAP for supporting agricultural development
and sustainable rural livelihoods involves
supporting the development of local
government, with the Ministry of Local
Government as the partner through which
districts receive support”
(Foster et al 2000)
SWAp

12. Why Agricultural SWAp failed in Zambia:
• Donors insisted on separate national identification of their
contributions.
• Funding the SWAp was irregular as ‘basket funding’ wasn’t
working.
• SWAp was poorly integrated in to the government’s
administrative structure
• Decentralization should have PRECEDED SWAp
implementation, not be seen as a part of the plan.
• Private sector interest waned in the early implementation
phase.
(van Donge 2007)
SWAp

13. Flexible SWAps
• [Basket funding] All partners involved in funding a sector sit at the
negotiating table on policy, irrespective of whether they participate in
basket funding or not. The contributions of those that do not fit in the basket
are fitted in to general policy concerns.
• [Projects] Projects are welcome if they fit and do not contradict the policy
direction of the SWAp.
• [Harmonization] There is pressure on those that have not harmonized
procedures to incorporate them gradually in to their work, especially new
comers.
• [Policy] Attempts are made to formulate a comprehensive policy, but the
emphasis is on annual work plans. The aim is evidence-based policy
making, with the stress on the development of information collection and
analysis oriented to outcomes.
• [Comprehensive nature] A basket may cover only part of a sector (for
example a district basket), and several SWAps may be allowed in one sector”.
[The SWAp idea was used to open up possibilities rather than to prescribe
cooperation]
(van Donge 2007)
(Cassels 1997)
SWAp

14. SWAp Implications for CC
• Agricultural policy, needs to develop strong
synergies with other sectors, including
forestry, water, and land use.
• In-tune with macroeconomic (politicaleconomic) context
• Projects are needed for experimentation and
innovation
• Decentralization (first) is key
• We can start small -- district pilots
SWAp

15. Trade Policy/Agreements
Execu ve Branch Legisla ve Branch
Central Bank
Cabinet
Climate Change Council
Budget Guidelines
Parliamentary Select Commi ees
Na onal Planning Commission
Planning Guidelines
Mo Environment
Mo Agriculture
Medium Term Plan
Mo Health
Other Sector Policies
Mo Energy
Agricultural Policy
Mo etc etc
District Offices
Village Offices
Central Budget (Internal Genera on)
Growth and Poverty Reduc on Strategy
Mo Educa on
Regional Offices
Fer lizer Policy
Mo Finance
Mo Local Govn’t
Budget Coding Guidelines
PPP Policy
Joint-Sector Working Groups
Manifestos
Seed Policy
NAP
Forest Policy
Donor Budget Support
KP Adpt. Fund
LDCF
GCF
SCCF
Poli cal Par es
Engagement Strategy
Private Sector
Development Partners
NAPA
Investment Plan
Bi/Mul Lateral Agencies
NAMAs
Decentraliza on Policy
H20 Policy
LAPA
Central Policy ‘Pool’
Farmer Based Organiza ons
Coopera ves
Traders
Local NGOs
GEF
Academia/Research
Na onal Climate Change Policy
Sector Working Group
Mul -Stakeholder Pla orms
En tlements/Safety Nets
UN Conven ons
PPCR
Africa Adapt
NAPA Guidelines
NAP Guidelines
Tradi onal Ruling Structures
Input Providers
Actor/Ins tu on Environment
NEXUS

16. CC Integration Guidelines
3
Trade Policy/Agreements
3
Execu ve Branch Legisla ve Branch
Cabinet
Climate Change Council
3
Budget Guidelines
Mo Environment
Mo Agriculture
Mo Educa on
Medium Term Plan
PPP Policy
Mo Health
Regional Offices
Other Sector Policies
Mo Energy
Agricultural Policy
Mo etc etc
District Offices
Village Offices
Mo Finance
5
Fer lizer Policy
Mo Local Govn’t
Budget Coding Guidelines
Joint-Sector Working Groups
Manifestos
Seed Policy
NAP
Forest Policy
Donor Budget Support
KP Adpt. Fund
LDCF
3
GCF
SCCF
Poli cal Par es
Engagement Strategy
Private Sector
Development Partners
NAPA
Investment Plan
Bi/Mul Lateral Agencies
NAMAs
Decentraliza on Policy
H20 Policy
LAPA
Central Policy ‘Pool’
Farmer Based Organiza ons
Coopera ves
Traders
Local NGOs
GEF
Academia/Research
Na onal Climate Change Policy
Sector Working Group
Mul -Stakeholder Pla orms
3
Central Budget (Internal Genera on)
4
Growth and Poverty Reduc on Strategy
4
En tlements/Safety Nets
Parliamentary Select Commi ees
Na onal Planning Commission
Planning Guidelines
Central Bank
UN Conven ons
PPCR
Africa Adapt
NAPA Guidelines
NAP Guidelines
Tradi onal Ruling Structures
Input Providers
Actor/Ins tu on Environment
NEXUS

17. • Methods for cross-sector CCA planning could
include:
– (1) the establishment of thematic working groups
which combine to produce working portfolios (Nepal),
– (2)a combination logical framework analysis
(LFA)/Multi-criteria analysis (i.e. Akropong Approach)
(Ghana),
– (3) Integrated Adaptation Assessments (India forthcoming),
– (4) guidelines for integration with development
planning (Tanzania)
NEXUS

18. NEXUS

19. AKROPONG
• The approach aims to reduce the number of
discussions by identifying those activities
where an in-depth discussion would be most
useful using a comparatively rapid
activity, while avoiding detailed discussion of
activities that are likely to be independent of
one another. The approach was refined and
formalized during a workshop held in
Akropong Akuapim, Ghana, and has been
named the ‘‘Akropong Approach.’’
NEXUS

20. NEXUS

21. Local Adaptation Plans of Action
• LAPA pilots were conducted in 2010 Climate
Adaptation Design and Piloting Project (CADPN), supported by DfID
• From this, a legal framework
was developed and approved
by parliament
LAPA

22. • Pilot Implementation reached 69 Village
Development Committees (sub-district admin
units) and 1 Municipality under the Nepal
Climate Change Support Programme (NCCSP)
• Three national NGOs LI-BIRD, Rupantaran
Nepal, and BNMT were involved with the pilot
LAPA preparation
LAPA

23. • “Both NAPA and the Policy have made
mandatory provisions to disburse at least 80
percent of the available budget for the
implementation of adaptation and climate
change activities at the local level.” (GoN LAPA
Framework)
LAPA

24. • 2998 adaptation actions have been identified
in the 70 LAPAs prepared to date
• Approx. 60% of “most urgent and immediate
actions” will be implemented over a three
year period (600 actions/year)
LAPA

25. LAPA

26. RISK ASSESSMENT AND RANKING
LAPA

27. RISK ASSESSMENT AND RANKING
• This risk assessment and prioritization is NOT
completed by sector at the community
level, which is a-typical of planning
approaches at higher levels
• Local, contextual, high-resolution methods
(hazard mapping, institutional mapping,
LAPA

28. DESIGN OF STRATEGY AND MEASURES
“Based on those countries that did include this level of detail, it appears
multicriteria analysis, nominal group methods, criteria weighing and cost-benefit
analysis are most commonly used, and often in multistep prioritization
processes.”
LAPA

29. Implementation
CLIMATE CHANGE COUNCIL
NATIONAL BUDGET
MULTISTAKEHOLDER CLIMATE CHANGE
INITIATIVE COORDINATION COMMITTEE
(MCCICC)
MINISTRY OF SCIENCE,
TECHNOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT
(MoSTE)
DONOR PROJECT FINANCING
THREE YEAR PLAN (2011-2014)
NATIONAL ADAPTATION PROGRAM
OF ACTION (NAPA)
NCCSP
(LAPA)
CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY (CCP)
NATIONAL FRAMEWORK
ON LOCAL ADAPTATION
PLANS OF ACTION
MINISTRY OF FEDERAL AFFAIRS
AND LOCAL DEVELOPMENT
(MoFALD)
OTHER LINE MINISTRIES
EU
UNDP
DfID
DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT
COMMITTEE (DDC)
DISTRICT ENERGY, ENVIRONMENT AND
CLIMATE CHANG SECTIONS (DEECCS)
DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
LAPA
VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT
COMMITTEE (DDC)
CADP-N

30. Challenges
• Limited capacity and CC awareness at DDC
and VDC levels
• Limited ownership (apart from MoSTE)
• There exists institutional coordination, but
there is limited legislative support to impose
sanctions and legitimize actions
• Long term funding
LAPA

31. What LAPA does well
• Supplies high resolution, context specific risk
assessment and vulnerability studies (albeit of
the CURRENT system)
• Establishes new institutions and assigns clear
responsibility (for LAPA development, NOT
implementation)
• Provides clear channel for integration of
adaptation planning in to DDC development plan
(downward accountability)
• Provides a pathway for reassessment of NAPA
priorities (adaptive institution)
LAPA

32. Decentralization
• “any act in which a central government formally
cedes powers to actors and institutions at lower
levels in a political-administrative and territorial
hierarchy” (Ribot 2001: v., citing Mawhood 1983
and Smith 1985).
• ‘downwardly accountable representative actors
with significant domains of discretionary
power’.(Ribot 2001)
• Regions, Districts, Villages
DECENTRALIZATION

33. • “most of the literature on decentralization
focuses more on expectations and discourses
than on practice and outcomes”. (Ribot 2001)
DECENTRALIZATION

34. • Fiscal decentralization
– Improved income generation through taxation
• Administrative decentralization
– Improved participation in bureaucratic planning
processes (localized needs assessment)
• Political decentralization
– Improved representation and increased decision
making authority
DECENTRALIZATION

35. Decentralization Challenges
• [Admin/Financial Dec.] Limited
human/Financial resource capacity at subnational administrative levels
• [Admin Dec.] Too much responsibility too fast
• [Political Dec.] Upward accountability through
central level political appointments at
subnational levels
• [Political Dec.]Dominance by local elite
figures, and the acute gender inequalities
DECENTRALIZATION

36. Implications for CC
• LAPAs and other local CC initiatives will rely on
sub-national administrative units
• NAPA Limitation was its one-off nature, NAPs
can facilitate policy learning, but only with
input from subnational units
• Sensitization and capacity building should
happen at sub national levels
• CC can provide and impetus to further
decentralization efforts
DECENTRALIZATION

37. Stakeholder Influence Mapping

39. • Who (which agency) is most influential in the
development of National Adaptation Plans?
– Institutional Arrangements
– Prioritization of actions
– Arrangement of financing

40. •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
National Planning Commission
Political Parties
Private Sector
President/PM
Bilateral Donors
Multi-lateral donors
Farmers
Ministry of Agriculture
Ministry of Environment
Ministry of Finance
Ministry of Local Government
Climate Change Council
UN Agencies
International NGOs
Local NGOs
Research Agencies/Academia