Speaker 1 african priorities-results from aap countries_07march2011
•Download as PPT, PDF•
1 like•460 views
The document summarizes the key findings of a study analyzing priority adaptation options identified by 20 African countries participating in the Africa Adaptation Programme (AAP). The study found that AAP focuses on "soft", multi-sectoral options at the national level like raising awareness, policy changes, and capacity building. Specifically, over half of AAP's options cover multiple sectors and most aim to develop capacities at systemic, institutional and individual levels. The priorities identified align with UNDP's strengths in capacity development.
![Africa Adaptation Programme ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],Burkina Faso Cameroon Congo Ethiopia Gabon Ghana Kenya Lesotho Malawi Mauritius Morocco Mozambique Namibia Niger Nigeria Rwanda Sao Tome Senegal Tanzania Tunisia Regional team in Dakar, Senegal Satellite office opened recently in Nairobi]()
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (7)
Similar to Speaker 1 african priorities-results from aap countries_07march2011
Similar to Speaker 1 african priorities-results from aap countries_07march2011 (20)
More from AfricaAdapt
More from AfricaAdapt (20)
Speaker 1 african priorities-results from aap countries_07march2011
- 1. Africa Adaptation Programme “ What African Countries Perceive to be Key Adaptation Priorities: Results from 20 Countries in the Africa Adaptation Programme” Presented for the AfricaAdapt Symposium 2011
- 7. Typology of Adaptation Measures Type of Interventions # % Raising Awareness 106 24% Promoting Policy Change 66 15% Financing 52 12% Building Institutions 42 10% Other Strategies (knowledge management) 30 7% Establishing Monitoring/Early Warning Systems 28 6% Empowering People 28 6% Changing natural resource/management practices 19 4% Promoting Technology Change 16 4% Launching Planning Processes 14 3% Improving Infrastructure 14 3% Changing Agricultural Practices 13 3% Providing Social Protection 8 2%
- 9. Sectors of AAP Outputs 57% percent of AAP’s adaptation options cover multiple sectors . Sector Count Percentage Multi-Sectoral 160 57% Environment 20 7% Agriculture 18 6% Coastal Zone 18 6% Water 17 6% Health 15 5% Energy 14 5% Disaster Risk Reduction 13 5% Others 8 3% Total 283 100%
- 10. Scale of AAP Outputs Level Count Percentage National 197 71% Sub-national 59 21% Community 23 8% Total 279 100%
- 11. “ Soft” versus “Hard” Interventions Soft-interventions are often considered “no-regret” as they bring benefits to countries, societies and communities regardless of the extent to which climate change materializes Type Count Percentage Soft 220 90% Hard 25 10% Total 245 100%
- 13. Overall Finding African governments have ostensibly responded in an appropriate manner by focusing most of their AAP funding on awareness raising and creating the appropriate institutional environment for catalyzing and implementing adaptation on a large scale in different sectors.
- 15. Thank you! Presentation based on the paper by Mihoko Kumamoto and Anthony Mills “What African Countries Perceive to be Key Adaptation Priorities: Results From 20 Countries in the Africa Adaptation Programme”
Editor's Notes
- (From Ian’s Presentation at the Board Meeting) *It is worth noting that a majority of the participating countries are the Least Developed Countries (LDCs), the Landlocked Developing Countries (LLDCs) or the Small Island Developing States (SIDS).
- (From Ian’s presentation at the Board Meeting)
- (From Ian’s presentation at the Board Meeting)
- (page 2)
- (page 5-6)It is worth noting that a majority of the participating countries are the Least Developed Countries (LDCs), the Landlocked Developing Countries (LLDCs) or the Small Island Developing States (SIDS). *This analysis aims to measure the complexity of AAP projects. ** We used the typology of adaptation responses that was originally proposed by Mcgray et all (2007) and slightly adjusted: Changing natural resource/ management practices; Building institutions; Launching planning processes; Raising awareness; Promoting technology change; Establishing monitoring/early warning systems; Changing agricultural practices; Empowering people; Promoting policy change; Improving infrastructure; Providing social protection; Financing; Other strategies ***We analysed whether countries target at specific sectors (e.g. agriculture, water resources management, disaster risk reduction, coastal zone management, ecosystems management) or multiple sectors (e.g. national development planning, financing planning). ****Through this analysis, we intend to identify whether countries prefer “no-regret policies,” which bring positive consequences regardless of climate change probabilities (Ribot et al 1996)
- *Twenty AAP countries proposed a total of 238 outputs, which we categorized into the typology that was originally proposed by Mcgray et all (2007) and adjusted to include adaptation responses for financing. * “Raising Awareness” received the most attention for outcomes from AAP countries
- (page 10) * as both employ risk management approaches and there are opportunities for coordination. **Cost-benefit analyses are becoming a popular tool for decision makers to make adaptation decisions. ***including increased capacities to mobilize resources from national and international funds.
- (page 14) *Some adaptation responses target at certain sectors such as agriculture, water, disaster risk management, environment, health, energy, tourism, coastal zone management, land management and others. * On contrary, some adaptation responses do not target at a specific sector but aim at multiple sectors such as overall development, planning and financing. These multi-sector approaches often aim to produce wide and systematic changes.
- (page 15) 71 percent of adaptation responses are at the national level. This demonstrates that most of AAP outputs aim to achieve widespread, systemic impacts. This finding is consistent with the results of the sector analysis above, which found that a majority of AAP activities are not sector-specific but aim to achieve broader impacts across multiple sectors.
- (page 15) *Hard interventions involve physical structures such as improving infrastructure, strengthening weather stations and early warning systems and establishing micro-hydro power systems. *Soft interventions focus on frameworks, procedures, institutional and individual capacity development
- (page 16) * implying that countries are aware of cross-sectoral nature of climate change adaptation and making efforts to promote multi-disciplinary approaches towards climate change.
- (page 17)
- (page 16) *Countries are therefore keen to catalyse systemic changes and produce widespread, sustained impacts under AAP **Countries therefore chose activities that are aligned with UNDP’s comparative advantages. ***Yet, we find the outcome framework broad enough for countries to choose wide-ranging adaptation options. Thus, we consider that the outcome framework affected countries decisions only to a limited extent. ****African governments have therefore ostensibly responded in an appropriate manner by focusing most of their AAP funding on awareness raising and creating the appropriate institutional environment for catalyzing and implementing adaptation on a large scale in different sectors.