NAP Expo - Delivering effective and adequate adaptation.pptx

Editor's Notes

• #2 Welcome the participants. Thank them for joining the session. The session is co-organized by UNEP, UNDP, the FAO and the NAP Global Network. Present the agenda: keynote, panel discussion, knowledge clinic.
• #3 To introduce yourself. To kick-start our session today, I will present you one number.
• #4 85. This curious/random number is actually a percentage which brings us together this week: 85% of countries have at least one national-level adaptation planning instrument in place. This number is updated every year through the Adaptation Gap Report, and last year the authors of the report proposed to go deeper, to assess whether the planning instruments, which are NAP documents in most cases, were adequate and effective to deliver adaptation.
• #5 To do so, the AGR authors have adopted 5 criteria to assess whether the adaptation delivered is effective and adequate: Comprehensiveness: are climate risks, hazards and vulnerability identified, and are they the foundation of the adaptation process? Inclusiveness: is the NAP process engaging all stakeholders and paying due regard to differentiated needs of women and men? Implementability: will the planning lead to implementation? Integration: is adaptation planning mainstreamed vertically and horizontally? Monitoring and reporting: is adaptation planning monitored and evaluated? I believe that these 5 criteria are a helpful compass for our NAPs, to make sure we don’t lose track of what we’re trying to do. We don’t simply want to develop a NAP document, we want to deliver effective and adequate adaptation in each country.
• #6 So let’s look at how the world is doing as per these criteria. This table shows the results of screening all adaptation plans with the 5 criteria. We can see that countries are performing well in terms of comprehensiveness and inclusiveness of their NAPs. For instance, 81% of countries have identified adaptation options addressing assessed risks (78% of LDCs), 83% of countries are engaging stakeholders in the NAP process (87% of LDCs), and 71% of countries are integrating gender considerations (76% of LDCs). However, countries are performing less well in terms of implementability, integration, and monitoring and evaluation of their national adaptation planning processes. For instance, only 42% of countries have incentives in place (30% of LDCs), only 32% have subnational adaptation plans (15% of LDCs) and only 8% have published an evaluation report (2% of LDCs). That’s why we propose in this session to deep-dive into these 3 key aspects of adaptation planning. We hope that the experiences of the country representatives you’re just about to listen to will help us to strengthen our NAP along these 3 areas to drive transformational adaptation on the ground and for the benefit of local communities and economies most at risk. Source: AGR, 2023
• #7 This year saw the hottest summer on record globally by a large margin, unprecedented flooding in China, extreme heat and wildfires in Canada and the US, and the continuation of a multi-year drought in East Africa, among others.   Evidence is clear that climate impacts are rising and are increasingly translating into limits to adaptation, some of which may have already been reached.   To protect vulnerable populations and avoid increasing losses and damages, we must urgently ramp up adaptation efforts alongside rapid cuts to greenhouse gas emissions.   The AGR 2023 shows why adaptation is slowing on all fronts when it should be accelerating to catch up with climate impacts.
• #8 And just before I hand over to Saran, if you want to read more about how the AGR criteria translate into the NAPs, please have a look at our latest publication where we reviewed our 23 countries and their lessons learned. Thank you.
• #9 To add logos from FAO, UNDP, NAP GN
• #10 And just before I hand over to Saran, if you want to read more about how the AGR criteria translate into the NAPs, please have a look at our latest publication where we reviewed our 23 countries and their lessons learned. Thank you.
• #12 To add logos from FAO, UNDP, NAP GN
• #13 Welcome the participants. Thank them for joining the session. The session is co-organized by UNEP, UNDP, the FAO and the NAP Global Network. Present the agenda: keynote, panel discussion, knowledge clinic.
• #14 To add logos from FAO, UNDP, NAP GN
• #15 LOU: please clarify whether this timeline was compiled based on an average over the xx NAPs – how many were assessed in the publication? This timeline is based on the 18 NAP projects which were under implementation at the time of preparation of the study: Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Eswatini, Ghana, Honduras, Iraq, Lao PDR, Lesotho, Malawi, Mauritania, Mongolia, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Uganda, Zimbabwe. The figures in the next slides are also based on 18 NAPs. The key messages however are based on the 6 countries that had progressed the furthest in their NAPs (Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Iraq, Nepal, Sao Tome and Principe and Zimbabwe), with case studies outside of these 6 countries. The first finding is that, as you may have already experienced, the different phases of the NAP process overlap. You can see on the graph how the assessment of development needs and climate vulnerabilities (A4, in green) starts about 1 year into the NAP process, and continues until its end. It overlaps with the integration of CCA into national and subnational development and sectoral planning (B5, orange), capacity building (C3, bleu) and the monitoring phase (D). Many of the steps and activities take place in parallel, which can require a high level of national coordination. It is evident that some activity areas are dependent on others, especially climate vulnerability assessments to guide other steps. This figure is a useful tool which can help you navigate the sequencing of your NAP process, to have the big picture of which steps comes when, and how long it takes in average. We can take home that 1) the various steps of developing and implementing a NAP is not linear, and 2) also recognize that each country setting is different, with different partners engaged in the NAP process, which has to be factored in the coordination effort and timeline.
• #16 LOU: Please clarify i) what the numbers (A3, B1 etc) relate to (NAP Technical guidelines?) – add a note to the slide ii) what NAP technical guidelines activity areas are represented by the blue etched segment. The numbers relate to the NAP technical guidelines stages, as presented in the timeline graph before. I’ve added reference in italic in the notes below. The blue etched is the preparatory elements phase (step B from the technical guidelines: B1- Analysis current climate and future CC scenarios, B2- Assessing climate vulnerabilities and identifying AO, B3 – Reviewing and appraising AO, B4- Compiling and communicating NAPs, B5- Integrating CC adaptation into national and subnational development and sectoral planning). We also found out that most countries focus on the “preparation” phase (B1, B2 and B5 in the table to the left), which is not surprising as the activities involved in developing the evidence base is the foundation for a successful NAP process. As a result, there has been a significant effort on the 5 stages of the technical guidelines shown on the table to the left. In terms of budget, the NAPs have an average budget of $2.45 million. The bulk of the funding across all countries studied (18 NAPs under implementation) was allocated to the “Preparatory elements” of the NAP process (blue crosshatched). For example, activities such as assessing climate vulnerabilities, identifying adaptation options and analysing current climate and future climate change scenarios constituted the greater part of the budget proposals.
• #17 ADAPTATION GAP REPORT DESCRIPTION OF COMPREHENSIVENESS: “Identifying climate risks and hazards and assessing vulnerability to existing and future climate hazards and impacts constitute foundational steps of the adaptation planning process. Countries can then use this information to prioritise sectors for adaptation measures and develop a comprehensive adaptation plan by identifying adaptation options that align with these priorities and respond to the risks, hazards and vulnerabilities they face.
• #18 ADAPTATION GAP REPORT DESCRIPTION OF INCLUSIVENESS “For adaptation planning to adequately reflect existing and forthcoming risks and vulnerabilities and to effectively enhance the ownership of any implementation, engage all stakeholder groups, paying due regard to differentiated needs of women and men.”
• #19 ADAPTATION GAP REPORT DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL FOR IMPLEMENTATION “Planning can be assumed to be effective if it leads to real implementation by public and private actors. As such, planning can benefit from a central administrative body that is officially in charge of adaptation policymaking and a variety of policy instruments, including investment, incentives and regulations that lead to the desired outcomes.”
• #20 ADAPTATION GAP REPORT DESCRIPTION OF INTEGRATION “Integrating or mainstreaming adaptation planning and action horizontally (across sectors) and vertically (across levels of administration) is increasingly recognized as an important component of effective adaptation planning. This helps ensure that adaptation planning is comprehensive, avoids the duplication of effort or maladaptation, and enhances synergies.
• #21  Nepal: 25 federal ministries and 753 local governments) ADAPTATION GAP REPORT DESCRIPTION OF MONITORING AND REPORTING “For planning to remain adequate and effective, it must be monitored and evaluated