annotated guidelines for the preparation of national

Annotated guidelines for the preparation ofnational adaptation

programmes of action

Least Developed Countries Expert Group

July 2002

Table of Contents

Annotated guidelines for the preparation of national adaptation programmes of action 1

A. Introduction 1

B. Objective of NAPAs 2

C. Characteristics of NAPAs 2

D. Guiding elements 2

E. Process 3

F. Structure of NAPA document 6

Appendix A – NAPAs: Seeking synergies among Multilateral Environmental Agreements 11

A. Context 11

B. Why seek synergies between Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs)? 11

C. Common objectives among MEAs: The basis for achieving synergies 13

D. The ecological basis for synergy 13

E. The socio-economic basis for synergy 14

F. Seeking synergies in the process of developing NAPAs 14

G. Achieving synergies in implementation activities 15

H. Overcoming the barriers to achieving synergies 17

Appendix B – Mainstreaming NAPAs: Integrating adaptation to climate change 19into national development plans

1. The context 19

2. Why consider adaptation to climate change in development planning? 19

3. Integrating NAPAs into national development plans 21

4. Supporting mainstreaming during the preparation of NAPAs 22

5. Overcoming barriers to mainstreaming NAPAs 24

6. Final thoughts 28

Appendix C – Flowchart of main steps in developing a NAPA 31

Appendix D – Selection and prioritisation of options 33

1. Introduction 33

2. Some methodological issues 34

3. Cost effectiveness analysis 36

4. Cost benefit analysis 36

5. Multi-criteria analysis 37

6. A hypothetical example using MCA for selection/prioritisation 39

References 41


Identification of priority activities will be the main goal of the NAPA.The annotated guidelines address methodological approaches toidentifying these priority activities.

It is currently not possible to accurately predict climate change and itsadverse effects, particularly at the local and regional levels. The IPCCmaintains very strongly that learning to deal with climate variabilityand extremes is an excellent way of building adaptive capacity in thelong run.

Strategies to cope with current climate variability and extremes existat the community level. Hence one of the functions of the NAPA isto identify urgent action needed to expand the current coping rangeand enhance resilience in a way that would promote the capacity toadapt to current climate variability and extremes, and consequentlyto future climate change

All LDCs share a low adaptive capacity arising from their poor socio-economic conditions. More importantly, the poor amongst those liv-ing in the LDCs would be the most vulnerable and in need of extraprotection. The idea for NAPAs is to enable LDCs to treat some ofthe underlying causes of their vulnerability, and enable them toaddress those needs; for example, taking actions to reduce the impactof the next hazardous season, or putting in place policies (e.g., land-use zoning) that would facilitate future disaster response.

NAPA documents are intended to be concise communications andbrief documents (5–10 pages long plus about 2 pages for each activityprofile).

NAPAs are not obligations, but opportunities. They are a steptowards addressing a country’s urgent and immediate needs in regardsto climate change adaptation. Countries should not see the comple-tion of the NAPA document as the goal line, but a step towardsaddressing the needs identified in the NAPA.

A. Introduction

1. National adaptation programmesof action (NAPAs) will communi-cate priority activities1 addressingthe urgent and immediate needsand concerns of the least devel-oped countries (LDCs), relatingto adaptation to the adverseeffects of climate change.

2. The rationale for developingNAPAs rests on the low adaptivecapacity of LDCs, which rendersthem in need of immediate andurgent support to start adapting tocurrent and projected adverseeffects of climate change. Activitiesproposed through NAPAs wouldbe those whose further delaycould increase vulnerability, or leadto increased costs at a later stage.

3. The NAPA will be presented inthe form of a document specify-ing a list of priority activities, witha concise justification based on atight set of criteria.

4. The NAPA document will not bean end in itself, but rather a meansfor the dissemination, by an LDCParty, of its proposed programmeof action to address its urgentneeds for adaptation. The priorityactivities identified through theNAPA process will be made avail-able to the entity that will operatethe LDC fund referred to in deci-sion 7/CP.7, paragraph 6, andother sources of funding, for theprovision of financial resources toimplement these activities.

Decision 28/CP.7 Annotation

1 For the purposes of this annex, activities should include, inter alia, projects, integration into other activities, capacity building and pol-icy reform.

Annotated guidelines for the preparation of national adaptationprogrammes of action

Annotated guidelines for the preparation of national adaptation programmes of action2

The participation of men and women at the grassroots-level is essentialfor two reasons. First, they are able to provide information on currentcoping strategies that the NAPA seeks to enhance. Second, they will beaffected the most by climatic impacts and hence will benefit the mostfrom the actions prioritized in the NAPA. Opportunities for theinvolvement of the private sector, NGOs and civil-society organizationsshould be sought. Early engagement of people at the grassroots level willbe important in ensuring successful implementation of NAPA activities.

By drawing on many disciplines, the resulting NAPA will be moreintegrated and cross-cutting, capturing all the components of sus-tainable development (social, environmental and economic).

UNCCD NAPs and CBD NBSAPs are products of bottom-up par-ticipatory processes that have crafted their priorities for action basedon thorough and comprehensive knowledge and stakeholder involve-ment. In many cases, much of the groundwork for NAPAs willalready have been developed in these documents. LDC Parties areencouraged to make use of the paper by the LDC Expert Group(LEG) on synergies among Multilateral Environmental Agreements,which is attached in Appendix A.

Countries are encouraged to make use of the LDC Expert Grouppaper on mainstreaming NAPAs into development planning, includ-ed in Appendix B, and to build links between NAPAs and theirPoverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs) and the national devel-opment planning process.

B. Objective of NAPAs

5. National adaptation programmesof action will serve as simplifiedand direct channels of communi-cation for information relating tothe urgent and immediate adap-tation needs of the LDCs.

C. Characteristics of NAPAs

6. National adaptation programmesof action should:

(a) Be easy to understand;

(b) Be action-oriented and coun-try-driven;

(c) Set clear priorities for urgentand immediate adaptationactivities as identified by thecountries.

D. Guiding elements

7. The preparation of NAPAs will beguided by the following:

(a) A participatory processinvolving stakeholders, par-ticularly local communities;

(b) A multidisciplinary approach;

(c) A complementary approach,building upon existing plansand programmes, includingnational action plans under theUnited Nations Convention toCombat Desertification, nation-al biodiversity strategies andaction plans under theConvention on BiologicalDiversity, and national sectoralpolicies;

(d) Sustainable development;



Climate change will have different impacts on men and women, andin most cases, the adverse effects of climate change disproportionate-ly affect women. For example, with increasing drought it is womenwho have to walk longer distances to collect water. Women are oftenthe main repositories of vital local and traditional knowledge, andthey need to be recognized as key stakeholders in the consultationsand in decision-making.

The guidelines have chosen a non-prescriptive approach to honor thecountry-driven principle. This national focus does not precludeinvestigating opportunities for regional synergies.

Sound environmental management comprises many tools (environ-mental impact assessment, strategic environmental assessment, envi-ronmental management systems). A measure beneficial to only oneaspect of development (social, economic) should not come at theexpense of sound environmental management. This principle shouldbe applied whenever possible.

Cost effectiveness should be interpreted in the wider context of sus-tainable development, rather than least-cost alone.

The guidelines are not intended to be prescriptive. Depending oncountry circumstances, some LDCs may wish to address more ele-ments.

Please see Appendix C, which shows a flowchart describing theprocess for preparing a NAPA.

The climate change focal point is asked to establish the NAPA team,but this does not necessarily mean that the focal point should lead theteam. It may be more strategic to have the lead come from a centraldevelopment planning ministry in order to mainstream the NAPAmore effectively into development/poverty reduction plans. Theselection of civil-society representatives will require careful consider-ation to identify the most appropriate participants, as civil-societyparticipation will be a key factor in determining the NAPA. Forexample, a country with chronic food problems may consider engag-ing an NGO representative working at the local level on food andfamine issues. The NAPA team will work with a broader multidisci-plinary team to conduct the tasks in the preparation of the NAPA.

This will be the broader team entrusted with undertaking most of thetasks associated with preparing the NAPA. It will span all relevant dis-ciplines such as agriculture, forestry, health, urban planning andwomen’s issues, and will work under the guidance of the NAPA team.This team should include a social scientist familiar with participatorymethods.

(e) Gender equality;

(f) A country-driven approach;

(g) Sound environmental man-agement;

(h) Cost-effectiveness;

(i) Simplicity;

(j) Flexibility of procedures basedon individual country circum-stances.

E. Process

8. The preparation of the NAPAmay proceed as follows:

(a) The setting up of a nationalNAPA team: the national cli-mate change focal point willset up a NAPA team com-posed of a lead agency andrepresentatives of stakehold-ers including governmentagencies and civil society. Thisgroup would be constitutedusing an open and flexibleprocess that will be inclusiveand transparent. The NAPAteam will be responsible forpreparing the NAPA and coor-dinating the implementationof NAPA activities;

(b) The NAPA team will assem-ble a multidisciplinary team:



The information and knowledge on coping strategies that exist at thegrassroots level would be reviewed here, including results from assess-ments of adverse impacts of climate change including any resultsfrom National Communications where they have been completed. Asuccinct review of main national development goals and strategieswould be given (see the mainstreaming paper in Appendix B for fur-ther details).

See the paper on synergies among Multilateral EnvironmentalAgreements, which is attached in Appendix A.

The following work is intended tobe drawn from existing studies:

(i) To synthesize availableinformation on adverseeffects of climate changeand coping strategies,which would be collatedand reviewed, includingthe national strategies forsustainable development,the Programme of Actionfor the Least DevelopedCountries, the UnitedNations development assis-tance frameworks, andpoverty reduction strategypapers, if available in thecountries;

(ii) To conduct a participato-ry assessment of vulnera-bility to current climatevariability and extremeweather events, and toassess where climate cha-nge is causing increasesin associated risks;

(iii) To identify key climate-change adaptation meas-ures, based, to the extentpossible, on vulnerabilityand adaptation assess-ment; such measureswould also be responsiveto needs identified underother relevant processes,such as the preparation ofnational action plans underthe United NationsConvention to CombatDesertification and nation-al biodiversity strategiesand action plans under theConvention on BiologicalDiversity;

(iv) To identify and prioritizecountry-driven criteria forselecting priority activitiesto address needs arisingfrom the adverse effectsof climate change, draw-ing on the criteria referredto in section F.4 below.



The adequate dialogue with the public on the priority activitiesmeans that they need to be widely disseminated, ensuring that allParties affected are informed and consulted. Use of the most relevantmedia in communicating with stakeholders is encouraged, includinginnovative ways of ensuring feedback from those that would beimpacted the most.

(c) Development of proposals forpriority activities to addressneeds arising from the adverseeffects of climate change: thenational team will:

(i) Organize a national and/orsubnational consultativeprocess to solicit inputsand proposal ideas inorder to help develop ashort list of potential NAPAactivities. The nationalteam would facilitate thisconsultative process, andwould help in translatingideas into activities. Thisprocess will allow ade-quate dialogue betweenthe national team and thepublic, with time allowedfor public comment andrevisions;

(ii) Identify potential activi-ties, which may includecapacity building and poli-cy reform, and which maybe integrated into sectoraland other policies;

(iii) Select and identify priori-ty activities, based on theagreed criteria;

(iv) Propose profiles of priori-ty activities using the fol-lowing format:• Title• Rationale/justification

in relation to climatechange, including sec-tors concerned

• Description– Objectives and activ-

ities– Inputs– Short-term outputs– Potential long-term

outcomes• Implementation

– Institutional arrange-ment

– Risks and barriers– Evaluation and

monitoring– Financial resources



The public review process could include an open consultation on thedocument at the national, regional and local level, as well as a sec-toral/thematic review.

During the final review process, the revision referred to in (e) aboveis anticipated to be completed by the NAPA team.

It is expected that the UNFCCC secretariat will supply a copy of thecompleted NAPA to the LEG.

Information already included in the proposal for funding the NAPApreparation process need not be repeated in the NAPA documentitself. The GEF proposal-preparation process requires specific infor-mation and linkages to other enabling activities. Only essential pointsshould be repeated here.

Given the need for conciseness in the NAPA document, only infor-mation that is directly relevant to the content of the NAPA documentshould be included in this section.

(d) The development of theNAPA document: the docu-ment will be prepared fol-lowing the structure set outin section F below;

(e) Public review and revision:the NAPA document willundergo public review andbe revised accordingly;

(f) The final review process: theNAPA document, includingthe profiles, will be reviewedby a team of governmentand civil society representa-tives, including the privatesector, who may take intoconsideration any advicesolicited from the LeastDeveloped Countries ExpertGroup;

(g) National government endorse-ment of the NAPA: after theNAPA has been prepared, itwill be submitted to thenational government forendorsement.

(h) Public dissemination: theendorsed NAPA document willbe made available to the pub-lic and to the UNFCCC secre-tariat.

F. Structure of NAPA document

1. Introduction and setting

9. This introductory section willinclude background informationabout the country that is relevant tothe NAPA process. It will cover cur-rent characteristics, key environ-mental stresses, and how climatechange and climate variabilityadversely affect biophysical process-es and key sectors.



This section should clearly summarize hazards posed by climate andclimate change, and some summary of vulnerability, based on paststudies and/or from stakeholder knowledge of their situation. Thissection will set the context for the whole NAPA by clearly demon-strating what aspects of climate change are important for the country,based on the experience of its stakeholders. Such an approach cannotrely exclusively on academic literature, or Vulnerability andAdaptation reports, but mainly on the knowledge of practitioners atthe community level who have developed coping strategies over gen-erations.

The reference above to “projected climate change” implies drawingon existing national projections, if available.

While the NAPA identifies urgent and immediate action, it still needsto fit within development goals, plans and frameworks, especially inrelation to rural citizens and economic development plans for thecountry. NAPAs will not attempt to implement broad national devel-opment goals; rather, NAPAs would build upon national goals andintegrate into national plans. They should also promote synergieswith other plans of action, and action in the context of other MEAs.

Most if not all countries have elaborated their development goals, andhave systems in place to implement the associated plans through eco-nomic planning, etc. It is important that the NAPA team be aware ofthese, because NAPAs may be expected to safeguard important sys-tems, including infrastructure that would be critical in achieving eco-nomic goals for the country. For example, a NAPA may wish toflood-proof a single bridge that connects a major cash-crop produc-ing area of a region.

There may be potentially serious barriers to implementing NAPAs,such as a lack of policies to facilitate the implementation of theNAPA. These barriers should be identified and possibly considered asareas for intervention in the immediate term or in the future.Examples of such barriers could include legal and policy-level inade-quacies or inconsistencies, institutional, social, economic and cultur-al barriers, lack of awareness of climate change issues, etc.

2. Framework for adaptationprogramme

10.This section will also provide anoverview of climate variabilityand observed and projected cli-mate change and associatedactual and potential adverseeffects of climate change. Thisoverview will be based on exist-ing and ongoing studies andresearch, and/or empirical andhistorical information as well astraditional knowledge.

11.This section will describe theNAPA framework and its rela-tionship to the country’s develop-ment goals, as described in sub-paragraph 8(b)(i) above, to makethe framework consistent withsocio-economic and develop-ment needs. In addition, it wouldalso describe the goals, objec-tives and strategies of the NAPA,taking into account other plansand multilateral environmentalagreements.

12.Where possible, a description ofthe potential barriers to imple-mentation should also be includ-ed.



This will be the synthesis of the core of the NAPA preparationprocess, and should clearly articulate suggested courses of actionbased on specific vulnerabilities. This long list of activities should bebased on the assessments carried out by the NAPA team, includingvery substantive involvement by stakeholders.

In some cases, countries may have adequate information from paststudies to suggest urgent actions to address previously identified pri-orities. In such a case, the multi-stakeholder dialogue would empha-size the discussion of actions and selection of priority activities.

A country should be free to choose from these criteria as best suitstheir case. NAPA activities must address convincing threats of climateand climate change, and information should be provided that showspotential damages and how this damage would be avoided orreduced. NAPA activities should demonstrate fiscal responsibility(cost-effectiveness), they must be related to level of risk, and shouldcomplement important country goals, such as overcoming poverty toenhance adaptive capacity, and other environmental agreements.

The prioritization process is a two-tiered approach. Under paragraph15 below, four general criteria will be used to select priority adapta-tion activities from a long list of potential activities. The criteriaunder paragraph 16 below will be prioritized and will subsequentlybe used to rank the selected NAPA activities.

The criteria under paragraph 15 could be seen as of a first order;those under paragraph 16 as further detailing. It is possible to take allof these criteria into account by employing multi-criteria analysis, asset out in Appendix D, where an example of a possible way to struc-ture the criteria is given. Countries are encouraged to limit the num-ber of criteria to a manageable number.

3. Identification of key adap-tation needs

13.Based on this overview andframework, past and currentpractices for adaptation to cli-mate change and climate vari-ability will be identified as relatedto existing information regardingthe country’s vulnerability to theadverse effects of climatechange, climate variability andextreme weather events, as wellas long-term climate change. Thissection will explain how and towhat extent activities mayaddress specific vulnerabilities.

14.Given the actual and potentialadverse effects of climate changedescribed in section F.2 above,this section will identify relevantadaptation options includingcapacity building, policy reform,integration into sectoral policiesand project-level activities.

4. Criteria for selecting priority activities

15.A set of locally-driven criteria willbe used to select priority adapta-tion activities. These criteriashould include, inter alia:

(a) Level or degree of adverseeffects of climate change;

(b) Poverty reduction to enhanceadaptive capacity;

(c) Synergy with other multilat-eral environmental agree-ments;

(d) Cost-effectiveness.



Countries are encouraged to treat “loss of life” and “loss of liveli-hood” as two distinct criteria.

This could include wetlands, natural attractions, etc.

Countries should use all or any of the above, as well as other relevantcriteria for their situation.

This is the outcome of the NAPA preparation process—a list of pri-ority activities, which fit in well with the country’s development goalsand poverty reduction strategies, while at the same time enhancingthe adaptive capacity of its vulnerable communities.

The format of a project profile is as follows, and each should be about2–3 pages only:

• Title

• Rationale/justification, in relation to climate change, includingsectors concerned

• Description– Objectives and activities– Inputs– Short-term outputs– Potential long-term outcomes

• Implementation– Institutional arrangement– Risks and barriers– Evaluation and monitoring– Financial resources

16.These criteria for prioritizationwill be applied to, inter alia:

(a) Loss of life and livelihood;

(b) Human health;

(c) Food security and agriculture;

(d) Water availability, quality andaccessibility;

(e) Essential infrastructure;

(f) Cultural heritage;

(g) Biological diversity;

(h) Land-use management andforestry;

(i) Other environmental ameni-ties;

(j) Coastal zones, and associatedloss of land.

5. List of priority activities

17.This section will list priority cli-mate-change adaptation activi-ties that have been selectedbased on the criteria listed in sec-tion F.4 above.

18.For each of the selected priorityactivities a set of profiles will bedeveloped for inclusion in theNAPA document. This could fol-low the format set out in sub-paragraph 8(c)(iv) above.



This final section would document, briefly, the processes and majorsteps in developing the NAPA, paying particular attention to theimportant guiding principles of NAPAs, namely:

• Use of a participatory process involving stakeholders, especiallylocal communities;

• Inclusion of multiple disciplines and inclusion of agenciesresponsible for implementing development plans;

• Country-drivenness;

• Contribution to overall sustainable development goals;

• Government endorsement and commitment to implementingthe outcomes, and some system for accountability;

• Transparency.

6. NAPA preparation process

19.This section will describe theNAPA development process,including the process of consulta-tion, the methods for evaluationand monitoring, the institutionalarrangements, and the mecha-nism of endorsement by thenational government.


11

A. Context

Climate change is predicted to significantly impactthe least developed countries (LDCs) due to theirlower adaptive capacity and greater vulnerability tochange. In response to this situation, at theNovember 2001 meeting of the Conference of theParties to the United Nations FrameworkConvention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), guide-lines for the preparation of National AdaptationProgrammes of Action (NAPAs) were established(Decision 28/CP.7). NAPAs will communicate theimmediate and urgent needs of LDCs as they preparefor the predicted impacts of climate change.

The UNFCCC guidelines for preparing NAPAs statethat this process is to be guided by “[a] complemen-tary approach, building on existing plans and pro-grammes, including national action plans [NAPs]under the United Nations Convention to CombatDesertification [UNCCD], national biodiversitystrategies and action plans [NBSAPs] under theUnited Nations Convention on Biological Diversity[CBD], and national sectoral policies.” The purposeof this background paper is to examine the rationalefor taking a “complementary approach” and to pro-vide some guidance on how synergies betweenNAPAs, NAPs and NBSAPs can be achieved.

Although this paper focuses on synergies between themandate, objectives, plans and activities of the UNFC-CC, UNCCD and CBD, it is important to recognizethat the preparation of NAPAs should be done in amanner consistent with each country’s other interna-tional obligations, wider planning processes and overar-ching development goals. During the preparation ofNAPAs, consideration may be given to obligationsunder other relevant multilateral agreements that acountry has signed, such as the Ramsar Convention onWetlands, the Bonn Convention on Migratory Species,the Convention on International Trade in EndangeredSpecies, the Law of the Sea and the Forest Principles.1National strategies such as Sustainable DevelopmentStrategies, National Environmental Action Plans,

national or local “Agenda 21 Plans,” national conserva-tion strategies, sectoral strategies, disaster preparednessplans and poverty reduction strategies such as PovertyReduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs) should be examinedas well.2

B. Why seek synergies betweenMultilateral EnvironmentalAgreements (MEAs)?

A country’s climate directly influences the ecologicalcharacteristics of its lands and waters, and, in turn,how people earn a living and organize themselves.The global process of climate change will, therefore,influence ecological, economic and social activitiesand development at the regional and local level in allcountries, making it one of the more profound chal-lenges to sustainable development and poverty eradi-cation. This challenge is of particular concern toLDCs, and led to recognition of the need to immedi-ately prepare NAPAs.

In putting forth the concept of NAPAs, LDC repre-sentatives also recognized that their countries havealready initiated efforts to address climate change andother important environmental issues. Some coun-tries have developed National Communicationsunder the UNFCCC, action plans to combat deserti-fication through the UNCCD and strategies to pre-serve biodiversity through the CBD. By taking a“complementary approach” and working cooperative-ly to address climate change, desertification and bio-logical diversity loss, it is hoped that synergy—theachievement of results greater than what would occurif efforts to address a common problem were under-taken independently—can be promoted.

As seen in Figure 1, climate change, desertificationand loss of biological diversity are intimately con-nected to one another—they overlap and affect, andare affected by, each other. This interconnectednessmeans that opportunities exist to build on areas ofmutual interest and to implement adaptation meas-ures in a manner that promotes synergies between

Annotated guidelines for the preparation of national adaptation programmes of action: Appendix A

1 Formally called the “Non-legally Binding Authoritative Statement of Principles for a Global Consensus on the Management,Conservation and Sustainable Development of All Types of Forests.”

2 A complementary background paper on mainstreaming NAPAs into regular national sustainable development planning activities hasbeen prepared by the LDC Expert Group and is included as Appendix B of this document.

Appendix A

NAPAs: Seeking synergies among Multilateral EnvironmentalAgreementsSynergy: “a combined effect… that exceeds the sum of individual effects” – Concise Oxford Dictionary, 7th edition

Annotated guidelines for the preparation of national adaptation programmes of action: Appendix A12

MEAs. As NAPAs are being designed, it is theseopportunities that need to be identified by prepara-tion teams. By seeking synergies between MEAs,NAPAs can effectively help achieve national develop-ment objectives while also supporting the achieve-ment of their country’s climate change, desertificationand biological diversity objectives.

The preparation of NAPAs is the first step towardsdeveloping long-term plans for responding to climatechange. The process is intended to effectively com-municate LDCs’ immediate climate change adapta-tion needs, and is to be undertaken in a short periodof time and utilize existing information. In contrast,the preparation of NAPs under the UNCCD andNBSAPs under the CBD is a slower process involvingmore in-depth examination of particular issues(including new research) and extensive consultationwith stakeholders. Given the time and resource con-straints on the preparation of NAPAs, national teamscan take advantage of the information gained and les-sons learned through the development of NAPs andNBSAPs to, for instance, identify sources of vulnera-bility and key adaptation requirements. This knowl-edge can then be incorporated into climate changeadaptation plans. At the same time, NAPAs may beprepared in a manner that supports and reinforces theplans and activities of the UNCCD and CBD.

The practical benefits of synergies

Better coordination between MEAs can provide anumber of practical advantages, particularly in thearea of capacity development. Although coordinatingand integrating MEAs into national developmentplans is challenging for all countries, the significantpotential benefits of this process means that efforts topromote synergy between MEA obligations needs tobe encouraged. In relation to NAPAs, these benefitsinclude:

■ more efficient use of financial resources by avoid-ing unnecessary duplication of efforts. Forinstance, building upon existing knowledge basesand information sharing systems can lower thecost of developing a NAPA;

■ better utilization of available human resources(and their time) within the government, the sci-entific/academic community and at the communi-ty level, helping to ensure efficient use of limitedcapacity and access to the best skills available;

■ increased opportunity to implement identifiedmeasures and programs that have multiple objec-tives, thereby more efficiently using limitedfinancial resources;

■ better utilization of existing knowledge andexpertise (scientific and indigenous) related to

Climate Change

DesertificationChanges in

Biological Diversity

Drought

Adaptation

EcosystemChange

DrylandBiodiversity

Figure 1: Interconnections between climate change, desertification and changes in biological diversity. Opportunities forachieving synergies in adaptation measures may be found where two or more of these processes overlap. Forinstance, measures supporting adaptation to drought conditions can simultaneously address concerns related toclimate change and desertification.

13

biodiversity and drylands management whenidentifying adaptation priorities;

■ greater ownership of plans developed across sec-tors and jurisdictions, and from the local to thenational level, which can lead to enhanced coop-eration and more effective implementation ofNAPA-related projects, programs and measures;

■ greater opportunity to demonstrate the linkagesbetween multilateral environmental agreements,poverty reduction efforts and sustainable devel-opment goals; and

■ enhanced ability to engage in effective environ-mental management, thereby ensuring that ben-efits such as clean water, watershed protection,nutrient-rich soils, microclimate control andclean air are realized.

C. Common objectives among MEAs:The basis for achieving synergies

As seen in Box 1, the UNFCCC, UNCCD and CBDshare a common focus on promoting sustainability—either through the achievement of sustainable develop-ment in drought affected areas, the sustainable use ofbiological diversity or the assurance of sustainable eco-nomic development through the mitigation of climatechange. As well, each convention aims to increase therobustness and resilience of ecosystems, which in turnpromotes a reduction in the economic and social vul-nerability of a country and its people. This objective isexplicitly stated in the UNCCD, which seeks to ensurethe rehabilitation, conservation and sustainable man-

agement of land and water resources in order toimprove living conditions at the community level.Similarly, the UNFCCC seeks to address climatechange so as to enable sustainable economic develop-ment and continuous food production. By decreasingtheir vulnerability, countries will be better able to with-stand external shocks (ecological and economic) andadapt to climatic changes. This relationship is particu-larly critical in countries that derive a significant pro-portion of their economic well-being from activities,such as agriculture, that are dependent on the health oflocal ecosystems.

The common environmental focus, application toshared landscapes and similar underlying objectives ofthe UNFCCC, UNCCD and CBD enables NAPApreparation teams to seek synergies in two differentareas:

1. Through the ecological linkages and relationshipsbetween different ecosystems and their functions;and

2. In the socio-economic systems that countrieshave established to manage how they use, controland protect their natural resources. These systemsinclude government administration, educationand training, and economic activities. Achievingsynergies in these areas can lead to a number ofoperational benefits.

D. The ecological basis for synergy

Climate change, biological diversity, and desertifica-tion each affect and/or are affected by changes in the


Box 1: Comparison of MEA objectives

Convention to Combat Desertification

“The objective of this Convention is to combat desertification and mitigate the effects of drought in countries experiencingserious drought and/or desertification, particularly in Africa, through effective action at all levels… with a view to contribut-ing to the achievement of sustainable development in affected areas.

Achieving this objective will involve long-term integrated strategies that focus simultaneously, in affected areas, on improvedproductivity of land, and the rehabilitation, conservation and sustainable management of land and water resources, leadingto improved living conditions, in particular at the local level.” (Article 2, UNCCD)

Convention on Biological Diversity

“The objectives of this Convention… are the conservation of biological diversity, the sustainable use of its components andthe fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources…” (Article 1, CBD)

Framework Convention on Climate Change

“The ultimate objective of the Convention and any related legal instruments that the Conference of the Parties may adopt isto achieve… stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerousanthropogenic interference with the climate system. Such a level should be achieved within a time-frame sufficient to allowecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economicdevelopment to proceed in a sustainable manner.” (Article 2, UNFCCC)


function and health of ecosystems. Climate change,for instance, could alter the functioning of an ecosys-tem (e.g., a coral reef or tropical forest), which in turncould lead to the extinction of a vulnerable species.Similarly, by removing plant biodiversity, reducingsoil moisture and making more energy available toincrease air temperatures, desertification can causemicro-climatic changes. These micro-climaticchanges may increase the impact of global climatechange at the local level.

The inter-connectedness of ecosystems means thatactions taken in support of one MEA may affect theability of a country to achieve its objectives underanother MEA. This effect may be negative, neutral orpositive, depending on the actions taken. For example,the use of intensive irrigation to cope with increaseddrought conditions caused by climate change may leadto the drainage of important aquifers and damage ofbiologically diverse river systems and wetlands. On theother hand, measures that conserve biological diversitycan increase the ability of an ecosystem to cope withmore frequent severe weather events brought about byclimate change (see Box 2).

Efforts to address climate change, biological diversityand desertification should be undertaken in a mannersupportive of achieving the wider objective of sus-tainable development. Healthy, functioning ecosys-tems are needed to ensure that the goods and servicesthey provide, such as food, water, air purification andthe control of pests and diseases, remain available tosociety. Enhancing the resilience and protectivecapacity of ecosystems will also help ensure the eco-nomic and social well-being of a country’s people.This statement is particularly true for the rural poorwho earn a living from the land and are highly vul-nerable to ecosystem degradation and change.

E. The socio-economic basis for synergy

Opportunities for achieving collaboration and syner-gies also lie in the social, economic and bureaucraticstructures that countries have established to protect,manage and use natural resources and address theissues of climate change, biological diversity anddesertification. These opportunities may be in areassuch as institutional structures, government adminis-tration, academic research, and economic develop-ment activities. For instance, a country’s MEA focalpoints may reside in different government depart-ments, yet rely on the same academic expertise ordatabases for advice and information, and be respon-sible for meeting similar reporting obligations.Similarly, civil society organizations and local com-munity groups may on different occasions beapproached by individuals from each national focalpoint on issues related to biological diversity, deserti-fication and adaptation to climate change. As well,economic activities such as forestry can, if poorlymanaged, augment the effects of desertification,reduce biological diversity and enhance the process ofglobal warming through the removal of a carbon sink.These situations may be avoided through better coor-dination of the structures that govern how MEAaction plans are developed.

As NAPAs are being prepared, areas in which to sim-plify, better coordinate and streamline planning activ-ities may be identified. These opportunities mayalready have been identified in previous research andreports developed in relation to the UNFCCC’sNational Communications, the CBD and/or theUNCCD. An examination of the socio-economicand institutional linkages between efforts to imple-ment the UNFCCC, CBD and UNCCD provides abasis from which to determine where the opportuni-ties for achieving operational synergies lie, and formsthe basis from which to develop plans to maximizethe potential of these opportunities.

F. Seeking synergies in the process ofdeveloping NAPAs

Maximization of opportunities to achieve synergiesbetween NAPAs, NAPs and NBSAPs requires carefulplanning prior to, during and following the develop-ment of a NAPA. Reaching this goal requires identify-ing potential areas of mutual interest and opportunitiesfor synergy. One of the first steps to be taken during theformation of a NAPA, therefore, should be the identifi-cation of a country’s existing commitments under inter-national and regional environmental agreements,national legislation, and related programs and policies,such as poverty reduction strategies. A listing of the

Box 2: Synergies in action

The coast of Vietnam experiences eight to ten typhoonstorms per year. These typhoons often cause breaches in seadykes that result in serious impacts on local aqua-cultureeconomies. In Thai Binh province, the Vietnam Red Crosshas sponsored a project in which 2,000 hectares of man-grove plantations have been planted in front of the local seadyke system. The mangroves provide protection for the seadyke, sequester carbon dioxide and support the productionof valuable exports such as shrimps and crabs. When theproject area was struck by the worst typhoon in a decade,the sea dyke experienced no significant damage and theeconomic livelihoods of local people were protected.

Source: IFRC (www.ifrc.org/what/dp/vietnam.asp)

15

objectives of these agreements, priority areas of actionand key contributors will assist the NAPA preparationteam in identifying individuals with whom to consultduring the preparation of their NAPA, or to include aspart of the broader NAPA multidisciplinary team.Complementarities between programs of action may beidentified and encouraged, overlap between actionsreduced, and potential inconsistencies in planning ini-tiatives addressed.

When examining NBSAPs and NAPs and reviewing howthey were developed, three key areas may be examined:

■ How stakeholders were consulted, the input providedand the outcomes of these consultation processes. Thepreparation of NAPAs is to be guided by a partici-patory and multidisciplinary approach (Decision28/CP.7). By reviewing how stakeholder participa-tion was undertaken across sectors, levels of govern-ment, and from the community to the national levelduring the development of NAPs and other locally-driven planning exercises, insight may be gained intothe success of these initiatives and how their out-comes may be included (if appropriate) in a NAPA.Networks and stakeholder groups established to sup-port the development and implementation of previ-ous regional and national planning processes mightalso be suitable for use in the preparation of NAPAs.

■ To the extent that an ecosystem approach is appropri-ate, how this approach has been integrated into theplanning processes used by other MEAs. An ecosystemapproach integrates the inevitability of change intoplanning processes (adaptive management) and is auseful framework for integrating conservationefforts into multipurpose ecosystem managementplans. The implementation of an ecosystemapproach may be undertaken at the local andnational level and across sectors. An examination ofhow the ecosystem approach has been integratedinto, for instance, NBSAPs and its planning processmay provide national teams with valuable insightsand guidance on how to develop NAPAs.

■ How priorities for action were determined. Whenpreparing NAPs and NBSAPs, criteria for deter-mining which issues and measures most urgentlyneed to be addressed will have been developed.The process by which these criteria were deter-mined, and the final criteria used, may provideNAPA preparation teams with useful insights asthey establish their own processes for determin-ing priority measures and areas for action. Aswell, the urgent needs identified in NAPs andNBSAPs may help preparation teams identifysources of vulnerability and key adaptationrequirements that could be included in NAPAs.

G. Achieving synergies in implementation activities

It is through the implementation of collaborative activi-ties, such as those presented in Table 1, that the benefitsof synergies between MEAs are most likely to be realized.As NAPA teams prepare their plans, there are some keyareas in which collaborative measures and initiatives maybe identified and synergies achieved. Activities in theseareas could either be identified as NAPA priority activi-ties or the collaborative means for implementing identi-fied NAPA priorities. In the latter case, these initiativesmay in some cases be deemed to be more appropriate aspart of generic national development efforts rather thanactual priorities captured in a NAPA.

It is recommended that NAPA preparation teamsconsider the following key areas:

■ Institutional and Technical Capacity Development –key target audiences for education and trainingthat build adaptive capacity include:

– scientists, who may require training inforecasting, ecological and social assess-ment and monitoring, and specific areas ofscientific research;

– decision-makers and financial planners,who may require training in cross-sectoralpolicy-making, planning and program-ming and conflict resolution;

– civil servants who may need greater under-standing of data and information manage-ment, public education, communications,institutional development and resourcemanagement;

– civil society, who may require knowledgeof advocacy and how to influence publicpolicy; and

– the media, which may need environmentalliteracy training so as to better raise publicawareness of issues related to the UNCCD,UNFCCC and CBD.

Efforts should be made to ensure that capacitydevelopment activities initiated to meet the needsof NAPAs (as well as NBSAPs and NAPs) fitwithin a country’s broader capacity developmentneeds and are not undertaken in isolation ofother processes.

■ Data Gathering and Inventories – considerationmay be given to the collation of existing data andharmonization of data gathering systems. Theinformation gathered through these processes



will assist countries in meeting their reportingobligations under the UNFCCC (e.g., nationalcommunications), UNCCD and CBD. It willalso enhance a country’s ability to define, imple-ment and assess efforts to achieve its sustainabledevelopment objectives.

■ Natural Resource Management Practices – asdemonstrated through the mangrove plantationproject described in Box 2, integrated resourcemanagement practices can help fulfill the objec-tives of two or more MEAs. Careful planning canenable the development of measures able to takeadvantage of potential synergies, while also pro-moting sustainable livelihoods.

■ Reporting and Assessment – opportunities for har-monizing and streamlining common aspects ofreporting obligations under different MEAs andnational processes can be sought.

■ Research Needs – key scientific and socio-econom-ic information requirements that assist in the

design and implementation of different nationalplans can be identified.

■ Public Education – common strategies for raisingawareness of sustainable development concerns(including climate change) and their links to day-to-day human needs may be listed. Partnershipswith media, government agencies, research insti-tutes, community-based organizations, privateenterprises and others could be developed at thenational and/or, if appropriate, regional level.

■ Technology Transfer and Adoption – when identi-fying technology needs, tools and methods thatcomplement and support the implementation ofother MEAs may be given priority.

■ Infrastructure Development – as plans for newinfrastructure are being prepared through regulardevelopment processes, the implications of futureclimate change need to be considered. Forinstance, if a new (or replacement) bridge isbeing built, higher standards may be used to

Table 1: Possible adaptation strategies and the benefits they bring to each MEA

Adapted from: “Review of Activities for the Promotion and Strengthening of Relationships with other Relevant Conventions and Relevant International Organizations, Institutions and Agencies.” ICCD/COP3/9. 1999.

Disaster planning frame-work: early warning sys-tems; emergency measuresto respond to floods,droughts, etc.

Help ensure protection ofvulnerable communities(e.g., creating food andwater reserves, cattle pro-tection schemes).

Identification of fragileecosystems and species priorto a crisis, to maximize pro-tection during and followinga disaster.

Determine priority measuresto minimize loss of life anddamage to livelihoods as aresult of extreme weatherevents.

UNCCD CBD UNFCCC

Integrated watershed man-agement: agroforestry (fire-wood, fodder, annualcrops), run-off harvestingfor trees and range.

No over-exploitation oflocal water hence lowsalinization risk; run-offharvesting, terraces andtrees conserve soil.

Conserves much of thewatershed’s biological diver-sity, utilizes parts of it thuscontributing to overall sus-tainability.

Increases water retentionand hence its availability intimes of drought. Slowswater movement, reducingthe risk of flash floods.Maintains vegetation as car-bon sink and reservoir.

Intensive greenhouse agri-culture and aquaculture(cash crops, fish, industrialmaterials from algae).

High income per unit soiland water used, thuseconomizing on land andwater resources.

Reduced pressure on landleaves habitats for in-situ bio-diversity conservation, thuspromoting its utilization.

Reduced pressure on land(a) allows conservation ofbiodiversity resistant to cli-mate change; (b) maintainscarbon sink and reservoir.

In-situ conservation of bio-logical resources, wildlifeconservation.

Potential for economicexploitation as an alterna-tive livelihood; promotionof ecotourism.

Global benefits from drylandbiodiversity assets.

Conservation of geneticdiversity instrumental inrestoring climate changedamaged ecosystems.

17

increase the probability that it will be able towithstand more intense and frequent extremeweather events and sea level rise.

■ Institutional Structures – an MEA coordinatingcommittee may be established or revitalized toincrease communication and coordinationbetween focal points located in different govern-ment departments. Through this committee,focal points could:

– learn from the approach each takes toimplement the MEA for which it is respon-sible;

– undertake consultations with stakeholdersjointly, so that community leaders and rep-resentatives of non-governmental organiza-tions are approached once rather than onthree (or more) separate occasions;

– explore potential changes to existing legalstructures that would support the achieve-ment of their objectives; or

– work with public servants in other depart-ments at the local, regional and nationallevel to promote mainstreaming of MEAactivities.

Alternatively, all focal points may be broughttogether in a single body responsible for imple-

menting MEA related measures. This “secretariat”could be located, for example, in the central plan-ning authority.

■ National Funding Processes – criteria for fundingadaptation measures may include inter-depart-mental cooperation, the involvement of commu-nity-based organizations and other requirementsthat help ensure the establishment of groundedmulti-sectoral, multi-disciplinary, initiatives.

Throughout the process of preparing a NAPA, effortsshould be made to ensure open, effective and fre-quently used lines of communication between MEAfocal points and associated committees. The systemsof information sharing established while developing aNAPA can become the basis for future collaborationand will assist in the development of a comprehensiveNAPA that builds on existing opportunities forachieving synergies between MEAs.

H. Overcoming the barriers to achieving synergies

Achieving synergies between MEAs is challenging forall countries due to a variety of reasons and circum-stances. In part barriers to achieving synergies at thenational level are a legacy of how global environmen-tal issues are addressed at the international level.Issues such as climate change, desertification and bio-diversity have been addressed in a targeted, narrowly


Box 3: International initiatives seeking synergy between MEAs

In recent years, the Secretariats of the UNFCCC, CBD and UNCCD have made several recommendations, conclusions anddecisions to increase mutual understanding and coordination. In March 2001, the CBD’s Scientific Body requested that itsExecutive Secretary explore the formation of a Joint Liaison Group (JLG) responsible for enhancing coordination between theCBD and the UNFCCC. The establishment of a JLG was endorsed by the Parties to the UNFCCC in July 2001, and agreed toby the UNCCD in August 2001. The JLG held its first meeting in December 2001, with subsequent meetings taking place inJanuary and April 2002. The JLG has established a common web-based calendar of events related to the three conventions,and is exploring the possibility of holding a joint workshop on cross-cutting thematic areas and activities.

In addition, the CBD has established the Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group (AHTEG) to prepare scientific advice on the inter-linkages between biological diversity and climate change, and identify existing approaches and tools that may be used tosimultaneously meet the goals of increasing biological diversity and responding to climate change. The first meeting of theAHTEG took place in January 2002; a follow-up meeting is planned for October 2002. The CBD is also developing a jointwork program with the UNCCD to examine options for conservation and sustainable use of dry and sub-humid lands.

UNCCD’s Secretariat examined how it may promote and strengthen its relationship with related conventions, internationalorganizations and other institutions at its fifth Conference of the Parties held in October 2001. Prior to this, the Secretariatof the UNCCD participated in the April 2001 workshop in which draft guidelines for the preparation of NAPAs were devel-oped.

Exploration of synergies is also taking place through a number of other initiatives at the international level. These include: anIPCC technical paper on the interlinkages between climate change, biodiversity and desertification; OECD DAC study on syn-ergies between MEAs; UNDP’s Sustainable Energy and Environment Division’s work on synergies in the national implemen-tation of the Rio Agreements; UNEP’s work on synergies amongst conventions; and the United Nations University’s Inter-link-ages initiative.


focused manner. The conventions developed inresponse to these issue have not been designed to pro-mote synergies with other agreements, perhapsreflecting the complexity of the issues each addressesin and of themselves. Often individuals responsiblefor negotiating one agreement do not have substantialknowledge of the objectives, content and programs ofaction associated with other agreements, and aretherefore limited in their ability to see the value ofpromoting linkages between them. Communicationbetween secretariats has often been limited, reflectinga tendency to not recognize the shared objectives ofMEAs and to undervalue the importance of coordi-nated implementation of agreements at the interna-tional and local level. Compounding this situation isthe absence of a policy framework for achieving syn-ergies between MEAs.

In recent years, as described in Box 3, the Secretariatsof the UNCCD, CBD and UNFCCC have begun toaddress this situation through initiatives such as theJoint Liaison Group. As well, efforts to develop a pol-icy framework for promoting MEA synergies arebeing undertaken through the United NationsUniversity’s Inter-Linkages program and by organiza-tions such as UNDP, UNEP and the OECD. TheGlobal Environment Facility and UNDP’s CapacityDevelopment Initiative provides an example of holis-tic work undertaken at the international level thatdemonstrates the existence of synergies across con-ventions.

The inefficiencies and parcelling of responsibilitiesand activities experienced at the international levelare often reflected at the national level. A focal pointestablished to implement measures under theUNCCD, for instance, may be located in a differentdepartment and have little interaction with its coun-try’s CBD or UNFCCC focal points. Poor commu-nication between focal points can result in a generallack of awareness of the potential opportunities forachieving synergies and the benefits that these mightbring. This situation can be compounded by con-cerns about continued access to resources and loss ofcontrol over an issue.

It may be possible to overcome these barriers throughmany of the ideas presented in the previous section.For instance:

■ existing institutional structures may be examinedand altered to facilitate greater communicationand cooperation between MEA focal points;

■ capacity development may be undertaken tostrengthen the ability of MEA implementers toresolve conflicts and engage in integrated plan-ning processes; and

■ education and awareness raising regarding theobjectives and activities of the various MEAs maybe undertaken with focal point members to high-light their mutual interests.

While some countries have well-established MEAfocal points and implementation structures, in othersonly a few individuals may be responsible for all activ-ities related to the UNCCD, CBD and UNFCCC.In such a situation, lack of time and resources seri-ously impede the possibilities for effective implemen-tation of these agreements. As well, some countriesmay be Parties to the UNCCD, CBD and UNFCCCbut may not have completed an action plan undereach of these conventions. While these situations posedifficulties, they also create opportunities. LDCs maybe in a better position to achieve synergies betweenMEAs as there are fewer people with whom to coor-dinate activities, and departmental structures andinflexible affiliations may not yet be firmly estab-lished as has occurred in other countries. LDCs thathave not yet developed their NAPs or NBSAPs havean opportunity to build these (along with theirNAPAs) in a manner that promotes synergiesbetween MEAs. Establishing integrated systems andcoordinated activities from the beginning is often eas-ier than trying to rework existing structures.

Regardless of how well developed national MEAimplementation structures are though, overcomingthe barriers to achieving synergies between MEAsrequires demonstrable support from the highest polit-ical levels. Leaders must clearly understand and com-municate the many positive linkages between achiev-ing synergies between MEAs and the achievement ofnational development goals such as poverty reductionand the promotion of sustainable livelihoods.

19

1. The context

In November 2001, the Conference of the Parties to theUnited Nations Framework Convention on ClimateChange (UNFCCC) approved the formation ofNational Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPAs)for the least developed countries. In establishingNAPAs, the Conference of the Parties recognized that“many of the least developed country Parties do nothave the capacity to… convey their urgent and imme-diate needs in respect of their vulnerability and adapta-tion to the adverse effects of climate change” (Decision28/CP.7). The intention of NAPAs is to overcome thissituation and enable the least developed countries(LDCs) to quickly and effectively communicate their“immediate and urgent” adaptation needs.

Decision 28/CP.7 provides guidelines for the preparationof NAPAs, and states that this process is to be guided by“[a] complementary approach, building on existing[development] plans and programmes, including…national sectoral policies.” NAPAs are intended to buildupon and be integrated with existing national develop-ment plans such as poverty reduction strategies (e.g.,Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers), SustainableDevelopment Strategies, national conservation strategies,disaster preparedness/management plans and sectoralplans (e.g., agriculture, forestry, transportation). The pur-pose of this background paper is to develop recommen-dations on how this process of mainstreaming NAPAsinto regular development planning may be undertaken.In this context, “mainstreaming” refers to the integrationof the objectives, policies, strategies or measures outlinedwithin a NAPA such that they become part and parcel ofnational and regional development policies, processesand budgets at all levels and at all stages, and such thatthey complement or advance the broader objectives ofpoverty reduction and sustainable development.

2. Why consider adaptation to climatechange in development planning?

Predicted impacts of climate change

It is widely accepted within the international scientif-ic community that human-induced climate changewill cause an average global increase in the Earth’stemperature of 1.4 to 5.8 degrees Celsius by 2100. Inits Third Assessment Report, the IntergovernmentalPanel on Climate Change1 (IPCC) states that the“effects of climate change are expected to be greatestin developing countries… in terms of loss of life,effects on investment, and effects on the economy.”The IPCC concludes that LDCs will experience:

■ diminished access to water resources as precipita-tion decreases;

■ greater food insecurity due to changing weatherpatterns;

■ irreversible loss of biodiversity;

■ increased incidence of water-borne and vectordiseases as climatic zones shift;

■ sea-level rise leading to coastal erosion and salt-water intrusion;

■ greater incidence of flooding; and

■ exacerbated desertification.

In some areas of the world, climate change is alreadyhaving an impact on the economic, social and eco-logical well-being of communities (see Box 1). In theyears to come, these effects are expected to becomemore pronounced and more widespread, and in somecases will affect the very survival of nations.

Annotated guidelines for the preparation of national adaptation programmes of action: Appendix B

1 The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the UnitedNations Environment Programme. It is a body of several hundred of the world’s top climate change scientists and experts, and is nowconsidered to be the leading scientific authority on climate change.

Appendix B

Mainstreaming NAPAs: Integrating adaptation to climatechange into national development plansAdaptation: “those activities that people, individually or in groups such as households, villages, companies and various formsof government, carry out in order to accommodate, cope with, or reduce the adverse effects of climate change.” (SouthPacific Regional Environment Programme, 1999)

Annotated guidelines for the preparation of national adaptation programmes of action: Appendix B20

Implications of climate change for development

“… we can confidently conclude that climate changewill indeed worsen poverty (or at least slow rates ofimproving wellbeing) in particular localities for a peri-od of time, unless adaptation occurs.”2

The least developed countries are highly vulnerable toshocks (fiscal, social and environmental) due to theirunstable and weak economies, greater dependence onthe use of natural resources, and the limited extent oftheir social services. Within LDCs, the poor are like-ly to be the most vulnerable to shocks. Climatechange has the potential to shock the economic,social and ecological fabric of a country, and thereforeto limit the ability of LDCs to reduce poverty andachieve their development objectives.

One of the earliest manifestations of climate change isexpected to be an increase in climate variability. Asthe Earth warms, events such as the arrival of therains will become less predictable, and severe weatherlike floods, tropical cyclones and droughts willbecome more frequent and intense. Climatic uncer-tainty already threatens the economic and socialdevelopment efforts of LDCs, as demonstrated inrecent years by events such as Hurricane Mitch andthe Mozambican floods (see Box 2). The limitedresources of LDCs means that severe climatic events

tax their ability to immediately limit damage, preventthe outbreak of disease and meet the needs ofrefugees, and to rebuild infrastructure, economiesand communities over the long-term.

Climate change could alter the rate and path of eco-nomic growth such that inequality becomes exacer-bated and pro-poor growth policies are undermined.For instance, changes in rainfall and temperature pat-terns may cause current cropping patterns to becomeunsuitable to emerging climate conditions, livestockto experience greater stress, and pest and disease out-breaks to become more pronounced. These changeswill have a direct impact on the ability of the ruralpoor to maintain their existing livelihoods, and couldlimit the ability of a country to maintain export earn-ings and pay for food imports.

Climate change will also bring about significantimpacts on the health of a country’s citizens, affectingtheir ability to participate in economic developmentopportunities. Movement of climate zones may leadto the introduction of vector-borne diseases into newareas (such as malaria to high altitudes), facilitate thegrowth of existing diseases (such as cholera due togreater numbers of floods) and increase heat mortality(particularly when combined with higher humidityand urban air pollution). The health implications ofclimate change are significant3 and threaten to

Box 1: Glacial melt in the Himalayas

“If the glaciers continue to retreat at the rates being seen in places like the Himalayas, then many rivers and freshwa-ter systems could run dry, threatening drinking water supplies as well as fisheries and wildlife.” – Klaus Toepfer,Executive Director, UNEP

The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the International Centre for Integrated Mountain Developmentrecently released the findings of a study that documents how rising temperatures are accelerating the melting of glaciers andsnowfields in Nepal and Bhutan. Air temperatures in the region are rising at a rate of 0.06 degrees Celsius per year, and arenow one degree higher than they were in the 1970s. As a result, some glaciers in Bhutan are retreating at a rate of 30 to 40metres a year and icy waters are rapidly filling glacial lakes. The study identified at least 20 lakes in Nepal and 24 in Bhutancould burst their banks in five to ten years time.

Nepal’s Tsho Rolpa Lake, for instance, has grown from an area of 0.23 square kilometres in the late 1950s to 1.4 square kilo-metres today. It provides water to the Rolwaling and Tama Koshi valleys in the Dolakha District of Nepal, and now threatensabout 10,000 lives, thousands of livestock, agricultural land, bridges and other infrastructure. If Tsho Rolpa Lake bursts itsbanks, the impact could be similar to the 1985 outburst of Nepal’s Dig Tsho glacial lake, which destroyed 14 bridges andcaused $1.5 million in damage to a nearly completed small hydroelectric power plant.

Source: UNEP. http://www.unep.org/documents/default.asp?documented=245&articleid=3042.

2 U.K. Department for International Development. “Predicted impact of global climate change on poverty and the sustainable achieve-ment of the Millennium Development Goals: Phase 1 Report: Volume 1.” Draft. May 2002. p.vii.

3 The IPCC has concluded that: “the adverse health impacts of climate change will be greatest in vulnerable lower income populations,predominately within tropical/subtropical countries. Adaptive policies would, in general, reduce these impacts.” (IPCC. Summary forPolicymakers: Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. 2001. p.12).

21

increase stress on systems already stretched by catas-trophes such as HIV/AIDS.

As in dealing with all shocks, a key factor in address-ing the impacts of climate change is to reduce thevulnerability and increase the resilience of a countryand its people. Many actions taken by local peopleand national governments today to prepare for andcope with existing vulnerabilities to events such asdroughts and floods could form the basis for initiat-ing climate change adaptation efforts.

The value of immediate adaptation efforts

Climate change is already happening, and its implica-tions will be felt more strongly in the years to come.The extent to which this process hinders the develop-ment of a country depends in part on how countriesrespond now to this situation. Countries may chooseto adapt to climate change in a reactive or an antici-patory manner. Reactive adaptation takes place onlywhen climate change impacts are experienced, at atime when the range of possible options may be nar-rower and responses more expensive, socially disrup-tive and environmentally unsustainable. When theimpacts of climate change are anticipated, actions

taken in response may be planned more carefully,effectively and efficiently—reducing long-term costsand helping to ensure that response measures supportthe achievement of other social and economic devel-opment goals. For example, a bridge built today maybe constructed to standards higher than those in cur-rent use in anticipation that climate change will resultin more severe flooding. This response will reduce thelikelihood that the bridge will be washed away andneed replacement in the future. As opportunities toengage in anticipatory adaptation will decrease as theprocess of climate change accelerates, timely analysisand planning is prudent.

As demonstrated in Box 3, climate change adaptationefforts generally build on existing activities. They areconsistent with efforts to reduce the vulnerability of acountry to existing climate variability, and can com-plement national development goals and povertyreduction efforts. Immediate actions to address adap-tation concerns can, therefore, have co-benefits interms of improving resource management, enhancingcapacity development and reducing vulnerability to avariety of current stresses.


Box 2: Impact of the 2000 and 2001 floods in Mozambique

In the winters of 2000 and 2001, Mozambique experienced severe floods that threatened its successful economic growth.Mozambique and its neighbours experienced heavy rainfall in December 1999 and February 2000 that raised water levels inrivers to unprecedented levels. When Cyclone Eline hit the region in late February, the most severe flooding in 50 years wasexperienced in three of Mozambique’s river basins. In April 2000, Cyclone Hudah also hit Mozambique’s coastal areas ofNampula and Zambesia.

The 2000 floods caused significant damage to the southern and central regions of Mozambique. Two million Mozambicans(about 12% of the population) were affected by the storm, including about 700 who lost their lives and almost 250,000 wholost their homes. Over 20,000 cattle disappeared and about 11% of the country’s cultivated and grazing lands weredestroyed, causing over 113,000 small farm households to lose their livelihoods. Ninety per cent of Mozambique’s function-ing infrastructure and irrigation systems were damaged. Many bridges and secondary and tertiary roads were washed away,and all of the railroads in southern Mozambique were badly damaged.

Heavy seasonal rains again caused widespread flooding in central and northern Mozambique in mid-February 2001. Theresulting floodwaters covered twice the land surface of the 2000 floods, affected more than 540,000 people, and causedover 50 deaths.

The 2000 floods significantly reduced Mozambique’s real GDP growth—to 2.1% in 2000 compared to 7.5% in 1999 and12.1% in 1998. International financial assistance of $471 million combined with the limited impact of the floods on the coun-try’s business sector and on investor confidence enabled Mozambique to recover in 2001 and experience economic growthrates of about 10%.

Although Mozambique’s economy has recovered from the floods of 2000 and 2001, hundreds of thousands of people, par-ticularly in the rural areas, continue to rebuild their livelihoods and communities. This task is being made even more difficultby the drought currently affecting southern Africa.

Sources: Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. www.dfat.gov.au/geo/fs/moza.pdfUnited Nations Development Programme. www.undp.org/upa/frontpagearchive/2001/july/20july01/AFROL.com. http://www.afrol.com/News/moz003_flood_economy.htmKPMG. www.kpmg.co.mz/articles-engl/floods.htmUnited Nations Children’s Fund. http://www.unicef.org/emerg/Mozambique22Jun01.PDF


3. Integrating NAPAs into nationaldevelopment plans

NAPAs are intended to outline a country’s prioritiesregarding its most immediate and urgent adaptationneeds. They are a first but far-sighted step towardaddressing long-term adaptation initiatives and,therefore, need to be done carefully in a plannedmanner. To be effective, NAPAs need to be integratedinto current plans, policies and programs, anddesigned such that they have a high likelihood ofbeing implemented, lay the groundwork for futureadaptation efforts and are consistent with and sup-port the overarching development objectives of acountry. If a NAPA is not relevant to a country’simmediate development priorities, there is a higherprobability that it will remain a peripheral exerciseand that its results will not be given serious considera-tion during national development planning processes.

Mainstreaming environmental concerns like adapta-tion to climate change into regular developmentplanning is challenging for all countries. It requirescross-sectoral cooperation, an interdisciplinaryapproach and considerable political will. This chal-lenge is most likely to be met if efforts are made to:4

■ engage other development sectors, particularlyministries and agencies responsible for nationaldevelopment, from the beginning and through-out the preparation and implementation process.These efforts will increase the probability that theoutcomes of the NAPA preparation process willbe meaningfully endorsed;

■ raise awareness from a scientific and socio-eco-nomic perspective of the implications of climatechange for various sectors and groups within acountry, to engage key stakeholders on this issue;

■ link adaptation efforts to established policy-mak-ing processes. Achieving this goal requires theestablishment or use of institutional mechanismsable to mobilize stakeholders and to address cli-mate change from a cross-sectoral perspectivewithin broader national development policies; and

■ promote cross-sectoral and interdepartmentalcoordination, accountability and transparency inimplementing NAPAs.

4. Supporting mainstreaming duringthe preparation of NAPAs

NAPAs can be used to facilitate mainstreaming of cli-mate change adaptation efforts into national develop-ment planning processes. In particular, the process bywhich a NAPA team chooses to undertake its activi-ties and consultations can be highly supportive offuture mainstreaming of NAPA-related concerns andactivities. The following three ways illustrate how thismay be accomplished:

A. Selection of the NAPA preparationteam

As required by the NAPA preparation guidelines,NAPA preparation teams are to be multi-disciplinary,composed of individuals from a variety of sectors andministries. This requirement helps ensure that the

Box 3: Reducing vulnerability to current climate variability and long-term climate change

A variety of climate change adaptation efforts may be undertaken by LDCs that link immediate concerns to long-term devel-opment goals. These include:

• implementing land use planning initiatives that guide the expansion of human settlements away from high hazardzones;

• establishing and enforcing standards of design and construction of all kinds of infrastructure to ensure that they areable to withstand extreme climate events;

• improving water management and water use efficiency to reduce vulnerability to water shortages;

• encouraging agricultural and land management practices that improve productivity and protect soil and waterresources;

• engaging in forest management and watershed protection to improve yields, provide habitat and reduce flood hazard;and

• strengthening health services to improve the quality of life and the productivity and learning capacity of the popu-lation.

Source: Ian Burton, personal communication.

4 Source: OECD. “DAC Guidelines on Integrating the “Rio Conventions” in Development Cooperation.” 2002.

23

final NAPA document will be more comprehensiveand capture the social, economic and environmentalaspects of sustainable development. In addition tothis requirement, an effort should be made to:

■ ensure that the preparation team has sufficientlyhigh profile to be able to work closely with policy-makers in relevant sectors and in central planningagencies; and

■ ensure that at least one senior-level member inthe team comes from a central planning ministry(as suggested in the annotated NAPA guidelines,it may be strategic to select this member as theNAPA team leader).

By engaging a key player from the planning and/orfinance ministries from the very beginning, greaterunderstanding of the relationship between nationalplanning processes and NAPAs can be achieved. Atthe same time, their inclusion enhances awarenessand “buy in” of the central planning agencies regard-ing the broad implications of climate change fordevelopment.

Engaging individuals of high profile and from keyministries in the process of preparing NAPAs may bechallenging. Key to this process will be making these

individuals not only aware of NAPAs and their pur-pose, but also of the opportunity that they represent.For members of the finance ministry, for instance,NAPAs may be seen as an opportunity to avoid cost-ly expenses in the future (e.g., collapsing infrastruc-ture) while engaging in practical activities that sup-port current development objectives (e.g., provisionof renewable energy sources).

B. Stakeholder consultations

Consultations with key stakeholders provide NAPAteams with an opportunity to meet with individualsfrom a variety of sectors and agencies—to not onlylearn about their objectives and concerns, but to alsoinform them about climate change and its implica-tions for their activities. The relationships establishedduring this process may be critical in ensuring thefuture success of adaptation efforts. NAPA projectsand policies will likely be implemented by a variety ofindividuals across sectors, departments and govern-ment levels. If these individuals do not understandthe rationale for adapting to climate change, or if thecentral agencies do not view adaptation to climatechange as being an important issue, then it is less likelythat NAPAs will be successfully implemented.


Box 4: Stakeholder consultations for the preparation of Environment Action Plans in The Gambia

In 1996 the Government of The Gambia used stakeholder consultations to develop Local Environment Action Plans (LEAPs)and National Action Plans (NAPs) for the multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) on biodiversity, desertification andclimate change. A small working group was charged with the planning and implementation of the consultations, which wereconducted at the district, divisional and national level.

The District Level Consultations were conducted at 16 locations and involved 150 to 200 participants per location.Participants were selected from women’s groups, government extension workers, youth leaders, non-governmental organi-zations, community-based organizations, cultural and drama groups, etc., as well as trades people such as herders, fisher-men, wood-carvers, carpenters, blacksmiths and crop cultivators. These meetings consisted of oral presentations followed byworking group sessions. Members of the communities were requested to describe actions they have taken to cope with anyabnormal climate or weather and to suggest any measures that could be undertaken in response to future climatic changes.

The 16 District Level Consultation reports were presented at the Divisional Level Consultations. These consultations involvednew stakeholders as well as active participants from the District Level Consultations. The new and reviewed information fromthese consultations was used to compile six Divisional Reports. These reports were considered at the National LevelConsultations, and combined with new information into a National Report. The National Climate Committee then supple-mented the stakeholder consultations with additional consultations at the policy- and decision-making level. A five-day Policy-Makers Workshop was organised at which high-level government officers presented sectoral policy and legal documents, anddevelopment programs. This workshop initiated efforts to mainstream climate change issues into development policies andprograms.

Information relevant to each MEA was filtered from the District, Divisional and National Reports and used to form part of theNational Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plans (NBSAP) for the Convention on Biological Diversity and the National ActionPlan (NAP) for the Convention to Combat Desertification. The consultations also provided traditional and grassroots levelknowledge related to climate change. Overall, the process indicated that people at the grassroots level have valuable knowl-edge of the environment they live in and, with time, have developed strategies to cope with negative effects. Connectingenvironmental effects to climate variability and change, though, was not always straightforward.


While governments will set the broader policy frame-work in which immediate and urgent adaptation needsto take place, much of the practical, day-to-dayresponse activities will take place at the local level. Forthis reason, particular attention should be given toincluding the voices of the poor (women and men)during stakeholder consultations (see Box 4). Thesegroups are among the most vulnerable to the impactsof climate change due to their heavier reliance on acountry’s natural resource base. As recognized in theNAPA preparation guidelines, the poor often haveconsiderable knowledge of adaptation strategies used inthe past that may be incorporated into a NAPA.Effectively facilitating the participation of the poorinto NAPA consultations can also support the broaderdevelopment objective of empowering these groups.

C. Review of national plans and processes

The guidelines for the preparation of NAPAs encouragepreparation teams to review the objectives, goals andstrategies of existing national development plans. Theseplans may include Sustainable Development Strategies,National Conservation Strategies and sectoral develop-ment plans. For most LDCs, Poverty ReductionStrategy Papers (PRSPs) or their equivalent will likely bethe most important national plan for a country’s devel-opment. (In fact, it could be argued that it is against thePRSP priorities that the impacts of adverse climate fac-tors should be measured). All of these strategies andplans set the course of a country’s development for yearsto come, and as such need to take into account theeffects of climate change. A careful analysis of these doc-uments will enable NAPA preparation teams to identi-fy projects, programs and measures that support theachievement, or overcome any deficiencies, of currentnational development goals. It can also ensure thatactivities recommended within a NAPA complementand do not duplicate plans already initiated.

During this review, the NAPA preparation team mayelect to first examine the specific projects, programs andmeasures contained in these documents, especially thosethat have been given priority. Activities related to sectorssuch as agriculture, forestry, water, health, transporta-tion, industry and coastal zone management should begiven particular attention due to their close links withadaptation efforts. These measures and projects (espe-cially long-term projects) should be assessed in terms of:whether they account for the impacts of climate change;their relationship to adaptation needs (especially urgentand immediate needs); the presence of initiatives thatreduce the capacity of a country to respond to climatechange; and their potential for increasing vulnerabilityto climate change (e.g., building of new industrial infra-structure on a high risk floodplain). Following this

assessment, the preparation team may then questionwhether new tools are required to ensure that climatechange is incorporated into these documents. Do exist-ing policy-making frameworks adequately account forthe implications of climate change? Finally, the teammay assess whether new policies are needed to supportclimate change adaptation efforts.

While reviewing current national development plansand strategies, special attention should be given toany documentation of lessons learned through theirpreparation and implementation. For instance, howsuccessful has been the implementation of sustainabledevelopment strategies? What were the reasons forthe successes and failures? NAPA preparation teamsmay then work to include elements in their plans thatare likely to lead to success, and avoid past mistakes.

Particular attention should also be given to the rawdata and information gathered through past participa-tory or stakeholder consultations related to environ-ment or sustainable development. Such informationcould benefit NAPA preparation and enhance theefficiency of the NAPA process.

5. Overcoming barriers to mainstreaming NAPAs

Mainstreaming NAPAs into national developmentprocesses will require overcoming a variety of barriers,many of which also challenge efforts to engage in sus-tainable development. As part of a country’s develop-ment efforts, an enabling environment can be created tofacilitate the integration of NAPAs and long-term cli-mate change adaptation activities into national planningprocesses. Areas in which activities may be undertakento facilitate the creation of this enabling environment aredescribed in detail below and include:

■ Education and Awareness Raising – civil servantsand the public’s knowledge of climate change andits impacts is often low. Individuals and centralagencies need to understand the developmentalimpacts of climate change, and how it will influ-ence their own work. In the absence of thisunderstanding, it is less likely that key stakehold-ers will be supportive of, and implement, priori-ty activities identified in NAPAs.

■ Capacity Development – implementing climatechange adaptation strategies may require skillsand knowledge that do not exist at present. In theabsence of these skills, it may not be possible toimplement the recommendations put forth in aNAPA;

■ Institutional Structures – adaptation to climatechange requires a coordinated, integrated

25

approach. Some countries may not have institu-tional structures in place that are capable ofapproaching climate change adaptation from across-sectoral perspective and mobilizing coordi-nated action by different departments, outsideagencies and local people. In the absence of a sup-portive institutional structure, countries will be lessable to achieve a coherent response to urgent andimmediate climate change adaptation needs thatsupport broader national development policies.

■ Policy and Planning Frameworks – well-definedplanning structures and procedures are required toensure mainstreaming of adaptation into nationalplanning processes. The frameworks and processesuse to develop existing and new policies, programsand projects may need to be altered so as to ensureadequate attention to climate change concerns.

Typically, activities in these areas will be undertakenas part of regular national development processes.However, certain aspects of activities in these areasmay be identified by NAPA preparation teams as keypriority recommendations.

A. Education and awareness raising

It may be determined by the NAPA team that one oftheir country’s immediate adaptation needs is to enhancecivil servants’ and other stakeholders’ understanding ofclimate change. Education and awareness about climatechange lays the groundwork for integrating adaptationconsiderations into regular policy development activities.By informing public servants of the importance of cli-mate change and its immediate and long-term implica-tions for their work, there is greater likelihood that theneed to adapt to this process will become part of the con-sciousness of all individuals within the public service.Policy planners and activity implementers will thereforebe more likely to take climate change into considerationas they draft their budgets, establish their plans, anddetermine their development objectives.

Awareness raising efforts should to be targeted to theneeds and interests of the intended audience (e.g.,focusing on the implications for crop developmentand potential solutions such as maintaining genebanks with the Agriculture Department). Centralplanning ministries likely should be the initial recipi-ents of this type of training and awareness building,to help facilitate the inclusion of adaptation efforts innational budgets and planning processes.

Awareness raising exercises should also be undertakenwith key stakeholders outside of the government,such as the private sector, media and civil society. Thiswill help members of these groups become more awareof the expected impacts of climate change, and the rea-

soning behind adaptation strategies adopted by localand national governments. (For instance, shippingcompanies may be approached to discuss the implica-tions of sea-level rise, and hence the rationale for anyplanned changes in the functioning of a harbour).

B. Capacity development

The capacity of government agencies and civil societyorganizations to implement adaptation efforts mayneed to be assessed and strengthened. In the absence ofparticular skills, it may not be possible for countries toimplement the priority activities identified in theirNAPAs, nor to mainstream these programmes of actioninto national planning processes. Specific activities thatcould support implementing and mainstreamingNAPAs may be undertaken in the following areas:

■ enhancing the ability of policy-makers to developand use different types of integrated planningtools, engage in policy development and reformlegal frameworks;

■ improving the capacity of planning agencies toundertake inventories, monitoring and systemicobservation;

■ increasing stakeholders’ ability to undertakeimpact assessment and research, including partic-ipatory assessment;

■ increasing the ability of planners to develop con-ducive policy and institutional frameworks,including development planning and policy-making processes, as well as capacity for cross-sectoral policy-making and programming dia-logue, multi-stakeholder planning processes,negotiations, mediation, conflict resolution, edu-cation and awareness raising;

■ strengthening the capacity of climate change andpolicy research institutions; and

■ enhancing the ability of civil society and media toraise public awareness of climate change issues andinfluence public policy decisions.

LDCs will have to assess which of these capacitydevelopment efforts are appropriate to their nationalcircumstances, and how they could complement andfit within their broader national capacity develop-ment framework.

C. Institutional structures

Climate change is not just an environmental issue. Asnoted earlier, the impacts of this process have ramifi-cations for all sectors of society—health, business,agriculture, land use and forestry, transportation,urban development and even culture (which is often



deeply connected to the land and the change of the sea-sons). Given the pervasive, cross-sectoral nature of cli-mate change and its implications, making one agencyresponsible for dealing with this issue is impractical (seeBox 5). A coordinated response is required to ensure themost efficient use of financial and human resources andthat adaptation measures taken by one group do notnegate or conflict with efforts undertaken by another.Cross-sectoral policy-making also effectively supportspoor people’s livelihood strategies. These strategies areoften highly integrated, involving the use of a variety ofresources and a diverse set of activities that cross sectorsand ministerial responsibilities.

Horizontal structures for inter-ministerial consulta-tion and cooperation are required to ensure thatadaptation responses are interlinked and complemen-tary. A NAPA may set forth ideas regarding the estab-lishment of new institutional linkages and relation-ships, or for the improvement of existing structures soas to enhance communication and coordinationbetween different implementing agencies. Such insti-tutional arrangements could, for example, include:

■ A Cross-Cutting National Committee: This com-mittee would bring together appointed representa-tives from various government departments andministries into a decision-making body responsiblefor strategic planning and ensuring implementa-tion of climate change adaptation measures.5 The

team could report annually on adaptation needs,the state of climate change science and predictionsof the impact of these changes. The technical com-mittee established by Burkina Faso to increasecoordination between its activities related to theUNCCD, UNCBD and UNFCCC provides amodel for this type of institutional arrangement.

■ Enhanced Existing Coordinating Structures: Thisapproach is appropriate when structures or com-mittees developed to coordinate cross-sectoralactivities already exist. These established institu-tions may not be functioning to their full poten-tial and require additional financial or politicalsupport to undertake joint planning and imple-mentation initiatives. Some countries may haveeffective institutions able to coordinate cross-sec-toral activities. These institutions, though, maynot be taking concerns related to climate changeinto consideration as they perform their role.

■ A Policy Research and Planning Unit: This unitwould have a multidisciplinary core staff dedicat-ed to synthesizing research and findings from sec-toral technical institutes. It would provide con-tinuous feedback to decision-makers on how tointegrate sectoral policies and responses in acoherent manner. In many LDCs, sectoral min-istries have technical bodies doing research andmonitoring, but this knowledge may not beshared sufficiently with other ministries nor inte-grated into policy-making. A unit of this naturewould be potentially most effective if it residedcentrally within an LDC bureaucracy, where itcan have sufficient scope and influence to have apositive impact on national policy.

Regardless of the structure selected, to effectivelyfacilitate the mainstreaming of climate change adap-tation in national development plans, the institutionalframework needs:

■ to have sufficiently high influence in the nation-al government to affect policy formation and, ifappropriate, make its decisions hold;

■ to be able to respond to national priorities;

■ to have built-in incentives for coordination andparticipation, and;

■ to be able to serve as a clearinghouse for infor-mation.6

5 Source: UNDP. “Synergy in national implementation: The Rio Agreements.” Presented to Inter-linkages: International Conference onSynergies and Coordination between Multilateral Environmental Agreements. July 1999.

6 Source: UNDP. “Synergy in national implementation: The Rio Agreements.” Presented to Inter-linkages: International Conference onSynergies and Coordination between Multilateral Environmental Agreements. July 1999.

Box 5: The need for coordinated institutional initiatives

Lessons may be learned from the implementation of actionplans associated with other multilateral environmentalagreements. Often, planning initiatives that address globalenvironmental issues have been viewed as “stand alone”activities that have limited relevance to national develop-ment priorities. Convention focal points are often isolatedfrom mainstream policy-making and sectoral planningprocesses, and from each other. Ministries (such asEnvironment) responsible for the implementation of theaction plans of the United Nations Convention to CombatDesertification (UNCCD) and the Convention on BiologicalDiversity (CBD) have not been able to achieve the govern-ment-wide coordination needed to implement key activi-ties. In developing plans for implementation associatedwith the UNFCCC, the lessons from these processes needto be considered.

27

The institutional structure should also consider coor-dination between the local and national level and per-haps decentralization of planning, particularly giventhat many of the responses to climate change will takeplace at the local level. A decentralized approach:helps develop integrated, cross-sectoral adaptationstrategies; facilitates participation by the poor in thedevelopment of strategies; and maximizes resourcemobilization while ensuring that resource allocationdecisions are responsive to the needs of communitiesand households. The effectiveness of a decentralizedapproach, though, is highly dependent on the capac-ity of local level institutions to undertake new respon-sibilities.

D. Policy and planning frameworks

Based on its review of national plans and policies, theNAPA preparation team may choose to recommendthat a country’s policy-making frameworks be alteredto ensure that climate change considerations areincorporated into specific plans and strategies.Climate change is a long-term process that will affectall countries for decades to come. It therefore will bean ever-present issue for national development plan-ners, and ideally should become a regular considera-tion in planning cycles and policy developmentprocesses. Box 6 provides an example of how climatechange adaptation may be mainstreamed into nation-al planning processes.

Key policy planning frameworks into which climatechange considerations may be incorporated include:

■ Land and Resource Use Planning: A system forintegrated land and resource planning and man-agement is critical to translating synergiesbetween adaptation needs and national develop-ment planning goals into practice. Oftenresource use activities take place in an independ-ent, uncoordinated manner, leading to the unsus-tainable development practices that are at theroot of much of a country’s present vulnerabilityto climatic variability (e.g., migration of poorfarmers onto marginal agricultural lands, increas-ing their vulnerability to droughts and, particu-larly when accompanied by deforestation, tofloods). A revised land and resource use planningframework may prioritize making appropriateinvestments in fragile and marginal areas sensitiveto climate change (e.g., strengthening the capac-ity of local communities to sustainably managekey watersheds). Investments in such areas arealso fundamental to poverty reduction efforts, asthey can help reduce natural resource degrada-tion, rural to urban migration and have a positiveimpact on national economic development. An

effort may be made to institute a system ofresource and environmental accounting (a newarea), which considers resource use, its degrada-tion over time and the effects of poor manage-ment practices on a country’s future well-being.

■ Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs) orEquivalents: A key component of today’s povertyreduction agenda are PRSPs. These country-driv-en documents state the development priorities ofa country, and are intended to incorporate thekey principles of sustainable development. Theyrepresent a major opportunity for addressing thelinkages between poverty and climate changeimpacts, and for many countries will be a keymeans through which to mainstream the recom-mendations contained in NAPAs (see Box 7).Concerns related to the need to reduce vulnera-bility to climate change could be included in anypoverty analysis undertaken to inform the devel-opment of a PRSP, and could be made a criterion


Box 6: A model for mainstreaming adaptation into national planning processes

The South Pacific Regional Environment Programme hasproduced a set of guidelines for policy-makers and devel-opment planners that outlines how climate change adap-tation may be incorporated into the development activitiesof Pacific Island countries. The guidelines present a processthat may be integrated into existing planning, public par-ticipation and decision-making processes. Steps within thisprocess include:

1. For each development proposal, determine if modifi-cations are necessary following an analysis of:

a. the effects of climate change on the proposalitself;

b. the effects of the proposal on key ecosystems,resources and environments that are sensitive toclimate change; and

c. the effects of the proposal on the ability of com-munities to cope with climate change impacts.

2. Develop options for how the proposal may be modi-fied in light of this analysis.

3. Evaluate the modification options.

4. Integrate approved modifications into a revised devel-opment proposal.

Source: John Campbell and Neil de Wet. “Adapting to ClimateChange: Incorporating climate change adaptation into develop-ment activities in Pacific Island countries.” South Pacific RegionalEnvironment Programme. 1999.


for monitoring poverty reduction outcomes. Thepriorities identified in existing PRSPs may beassessed with respect to their vulnerability to cli-mate impacts as part of the NAPA team’s reviewof national development plans and processes.

■ National Budgeting: Budget-planning processesshould consider the mobilization and allocation offunds in support of climate change adaptationefforts. In the absence of assured and dedicatedfinancial resources for the implementation of cli-mate change activities, it is less likely that the pri-ority activities identified in NAPAs will be under-taken. National governments should realisticallyestimate the level of “additional” funding likely tocome from external sources for undertaking cli-mate change-related adaptation activities. By set-ting aside, to the extent possible, financialresources from domestic sources for adaptationactivities, governments will demonstrate that theyare serious about adaptation and view these activi-ties as priorities. In doing so, they will increase thelikelihood that additional financial support will bereceived from international donors.

■ Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA): SEA isa tool for ensuring that environmental, social andeconomic considerations are taken into accountduring the development of policies, plans andprograms (as opposed to Environmental andSocial Impact Assessments at the detailed project

level). The main benefit to using SEA is that itsproper use can achieve national sustainable devel-opment objectives. For this reason, an increasingnumber of countries are mandating its use. Byincluding climate change as a factor in an SEA, adecision-maker will be able to determine whetheran initiative contributes positively or negativelyto adaptation, or whether adaptation considera-tions can enhance the expected results of an ini-tiative. Moreover, the SEA would identifyoptions for lessening negative impacts.

6. Final thoughts

Mainstreaming climate change adaptation intonational development policies will be a challengingprocess, yet is critical to reducing a country’s vulnera-bility to existing climate variability and to addressinglong-term climate change impacts. It will requireovercoming disincentives to collaboration, such as“stovepiping” among departments and concerns overcontrol of issues and resources. Strategic, interdisci-plinary and cross-sectoral thinking is required amongthe individuals involved in planning and decision-making, and this may be lacking in part due to thetraditional discipline-based educational systems andexisting structure of bureaucracies. The success ofmainstreaming efforts, though, will be most depend-ent on gaining commitment at the highest level tothis process.

Box 7: Reducing vulnerability to climatic changes through PRSPs

To encourage the incorporation of environmental issues into PRSPs, the World Bank has developed a suggested process thatLDCs may use. This process involves: a participatory analysis of the linkages between poverty and environment; setting desir-able but realistic targets to focus on priority problems; evaluating possible public actions for reaching these targets given theirexpected cost-effectiveness, institutional capacities and lessons from past experience; and establishing a system of monitor-ing the outcomes of interventions and feeding them into the next stage of analysis. In undertaking this assessment, climaticvariability and change could be one of the environmental factors examined. More specifically, adaptation to climate changeand the implementation of NAPAs may be examined in relation to water and coastal zone management, waste management,agriculture, forestry, energy production, etc.

One country that has successfully integrated issues related to the environment and the need to reduce vulnerability to cli-matic variability in its PRSP is Mozambique. Key activities laid out in this country’s PRSP include: capacity-building in environ-mental management at the local level; improving and expanding environmental protection measures; undertaking environ-mental inspections; and promoting planned land occupation. Mozambique, as noted in its PRSP, views measures to manageits vulnerability to natural disasters to be of “the utmost importance.”

Mozambique undertook extensive stakeholder consultations in developing its PRSP. This process included consultations at thesectoral level (e.g., health) involving technicians, donors and civil society. Consultation then took place at the central andprovincial level and included representatives of civil society, the private sector, the media and international partners. In itsrecent review of PRSPs, the World Bank found that the countries that demonstrated good practice in the area of stakehold-er consultations also scored high on mainstreaming environmental issues into their plans.

Sources: World Bank. “Environment.” Poverty Reduction Strategy Sourcebook. Mozambique. “Action Plan for the Reduction of Absolute Poverty (2001-2005).” http://poverty.worldbank.org/files/Mozambique_PRSP.pdf.

29Annotated guidelines for the preparation of national adaptation programmes of action: Appendix B

Box 8: Mainstreaming adaptation in Bangladesh

Bangladesh is highly vulnerable to the effects of climate change due to its low-lying topography and level of underdevelop-ment. In response, the World Bank undertook a study of the potential effects of climate change on Bangladesh and howadaptation options may be factored into its policy-making activities. For each of Bangladesh’s critical sectors, adaptationstrategies were developed that could reduce the country’s vulnerability to current and future threats of climate change andsupport sustainable development efforts. To identify and select policy measures that support adaptation to these impacts, thestudy recommended that the following steps be taken on a sectoral basis:

1. analyze the sensitivity of the sector to climate change;

2. select as priorities sectors that are particularly sensitive to climate change impacts;

3. analyze whether current policies are flexible enough to cost-effectively support adaptation to climate change; and

4. analyze whether alternative policies are more effective in meeting the policy objectives under current climatic conditionsand under climate change.

One of the priority areas identified in the study was Bangladesh’s coastal resources. Risks to these resources include drainagecongestion, salinization of land and water resources, erosion of rivers and coasts, and more intense cyclones and stormsurges. The study identified adaptation strategies that it envisioned would provide sufficient protection against storm surgesand flooding so as to make relatively safe the homes and livelihoods of Bangladeshis.

Source: The World Bank. “Bangladesh: Climate Change and Sustainable Development.” Report No.21101 BD. October 2000.

31Annotated guidelines for the preparation of national adaptation programmes of action: Appendix C

Appendix CFlowchart of main steps in developing a NAPA

Build NAPA Team andMultidisciplinary Team

Synthesize Available Impact Assessments,Coping Strategies, Past Consultations,

Trends and Existing DevelopmentFrameworks

Participatory Rapid Assessment ofCurrent Vulnerability and Potential

Increase in Climate Hazards andAssociated RisksExisting Assessments

Adequate for NAPADevelopment

Conduct Public ConsultationAiming at Identifying Potential

Ideas for Activities

Periodic Review ofRisks and Prioritization

of Activities

Articulate Potential NAPAActivities based on Ideas

from Consultation

Undertake CriteriaPrioritization Process(Ranking the Criteria)

Rank Projects/Activities andDemonstrate Integration intoNational Policy Frameworks

and Programmes

Develop Project Profilesand Submit NAPA

33Annotated guidelines for the preparation of national adaptation programmes of action: Appendix D

1. Introduction

After the vulnerability of the country to climatechange has been analysed and potential measures(options) been formulated, activities have to be select-ed and prioritised for inclusion in the NAPA. For theselection and prioritisation various techniques areavailable. In view of the diversity of CC impacts andthus the measures to avoid or mitigate these impacts,it is unlikely that one single method can handle allcases. Seen from a methodological point of view, thethreats caused by climate change are not essentiallydifferent from what people have been experiencing inthe past. Also the adaptation measures proposed inthe NAPA will not be very different from those beingintroduced so far to fight poverty or to foster eco-nomic development. That is why evaluation methodsused in the selection and prioritisation exercise willnot differ much either. What is setting adaptationapart from the usual development project would seemto be the increase in frequency and intensity ofextreme events and the uncertainty that goes with it,and the fact that adaptation projects normally try toachieve multiple objectives. That puts more emphasison the treatment of uncertainty and risk.

In the following different techniques are brieflydescribed, indicating in which cases what method ismost suitable. The three main techniques are:

■ Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA)

■ Cost Effectiveness Analysis (CEA), and

■ Multi-criteria Analysis (MCA)

Of the three techniques CBA can handle optimisation,prioritisation and even provides an absolute yardstick,allowing a decision on whether or not to implementthe measure, independent of its ranking. The limita-tion is that both costs and benefits must be expressedin monetary values and that the chief objective is eco-nomic efficiency. The yardstick (internal rate of returnor net present value) allows the comparison of adapta-tion measures across sectors and can be used to opti-mise a measure. In contrast, MCA only allows theranking of alternative options, but can—on the otherhand—evaluate measures or interventions for whichmore criteria are deemed relevant and when quantifi-cation and valuation in money terms of costs and/orbenefits is not possible. Subjective judgement plays animportant role in this technique, making outcomesmore arbitrary than that of CBA. CEA is a method

somewhat in between CBA and MCA. Its main use iscosting of different options that achieve the sameobjective. As is the case with MCA, CEA only pro-duces a ranking in terms of cost. CEA can also handlecases with multiple objectives or criteria, but only if itis possible to weigh these objectives against each other.CEA then becomes a kind of MCA.

Given the fact that CBA is the more objectivemethod and goes beyond mere ranking of activities,this technique is superior to MCA and it should beapplied whenever possible. If criteria, which cannot(easily) be accommodated in CBA (such as institu-tional, sociological or cultural barriers), are importantor when benefits cannot be quantified and valued(such as preserving bio-diversity), one has to resort toMCA. In MCA the outcomes of CBA can be takenon board, making the overall analysis a hybrid one. Inthe following the various methods will be brieflydescribed. Before a measure can be included in plan-ning, some description of resource cost and of effectswill be needed. A minimum requirement is an esti-mate of financial and other cost involved. With thesedata available, carrying out a CEA is a small step andtherefore a good way to start the analysis.

Figure 1 below schematises the preferred order ofusing methodologies. Reference is made also to [9],the Compendium of Decision Tools, which lists moremethods than dealt with here, including sector-spe-cific tools. Data availability will appear to be a majordeterminant of the method to be used. In cases whenquantification/valuation is impossible, only qualita-tive methods are available, such as the Delphimethod. In practice, political decisions will probablydetermine selection and prioritisation.

The outcome of the priority analysis is twofold: 1) apriority list of measures (such as the introduction of apolicy or an incentive scheme, the implementation oflegislation, the starting of an information campaign,but also project-type interventions, such as the con-struction or heightening of dykes, irrigation works orreforestation) and 2) an identification of further dataor research required to firm up the priority assessment.

Measures influence each other on the cost side as wellas with regard to results. For instance, a measure ofgetting rid of stagnant water to allow the farmer tostart working may also reduce the incidence of water-borne diseases. Integrating measures in different sec-tors and areas of the country into an overall strategy

Appendix DSelection and prioritisation of options

Annotated guidelines for the preparation of national adaptation programmes of action: Appendix D34

may lead to important cost savings (compared to thesimple sum of costs of individual measures). Thatphenomenon must be taken into account, which maynecessitate redefining options and revising the plan.An iterative process may be called for.

The methods are well documented and for details ofthe application reference is made to the relevant text-books (see references at the end of this Appendix).Some important methodological issues and pitfalls,common to CEA and CBA, and partly of importancealso for MCA, are highlighted first, before describingthe main characteristics.

2. Some methodological issues

Alternatives. It is often not immediately clear if thereare alternative measures to cope with a climate threat.

For CEA, of which the essence is achieving a givenobjective with alternative means, it sometimes helpsto redefine, or rather broaden, the objective. Forinstance, if the problem is increased water logging (asis expected for Bangladesh) with the effect that agri-cultural production will go down, the first objectivewhich comes to mind is to maintain agricultural pro-duction at a certain level (total, or per capita, at pres-ent level, or the level achieved without adverse weath-er conditions). Appropriate measures to achieve thegoal may be improved drainage, installing pumps,introducing other rice varieties or combinations ofthese measures. Suppose that these measures turn outto be very expensive (leading to a cost price renderingrice production uneconomic), a broader objectivecould be introduced: maintain the food security (instead of production) of the effected population at a

One objective?Benefits in $

Impacts measurable?

Do cost-benefitanalysis (CBA)

MCA withexpert panel

Do cost-effectivenessanalysis

Do multi-criteriaanalysis

Yes to all

Yes

Yes

?

No

One objective?Impacts measurable?

Benefits not in $

More objectives/criteria?Impacts measurable?

Benefits not in $

Impacts difficultto quantify?

Figure 1: What method to use?Note: “Benefits in $” means: benefits can be quantified and expressed in monetary units.

35

specified level. Then more alternatives come in sight,because food can also be bought. Introducingincome-generating activities other than increasingagricultural production could be seen as an alterna-tive measure. An extreme alternative is to do nothingand provide for food aid. That would not be anacceptable long-run solution, but it is worthwhile toestimate the cost as it does provide a boundary forcost estimating. As may be appreciated from theexample the optimum measure will often be a combi-nation of measures. It is also important to realise thatdifferent solutions may be appropriate at differentplaces and times. Defining alternative options isessential in all methods described here. In all cases analternative is “doing nothing,” usually referred to asthe “base case.” A common mistake in comparingalternatives is that a situation before and after theintroduction of a measure is taken instead of with andwithout the measure.

Discounting. Discounted cash flow analysis (DCA)allows comparison of interventions with differentstreams of cost and benefits over time by determiningthe present value. At the same time the proceduremakes allowance for the fact that future costs andbenefits are valued lower than those of today. Theheight of the discount rate depends on scarcity of cap-ital and the time value of money. A relevant concepthere is that of “opportunity costs of capital.” A quickway to estimate the discount rate is the prevailinginterest rate for capital in the sector (public works sec-tor in most cases) and correct it for inflation. Becauseof time lags, special risks and—in general—mal-func-tioning of the capital market, that estimate, however,may not be reliable. A discount rate in developingcountries of 10% is often used. There is a debate onthe discount to use for investments with a very longtime horizon (spanning more generations) and/ordealing with irreversible effects. Some argue for alower rate in those cases in order to foster acceptanceof such projects, often environmental projects (seealso reference 2). This is a slippery road to take and atvariance with the concept of opportunity costs. Analternative is to express these special concerns in theprices. For instance in the case of irreversible effects(depletion of a resource, for instance) prices (costs)will in the future be extremely high or even infinite(the same goes for the benefits of avoiding that situa-tion), making an action to avoid such a situation eco-nomically feasible at (almost) any discount rate. Forexample, if a shortage of drinking water is “solved” byusing groundwater in such a way that water tables godown or by using fossil water reserves (a clearlyunsustainable practice, as is being done in Yemen),the way to deal with this in the analysis is to not take

the cost price of winning water but a much higherprice, which would include the cost of recharginggroundwater or even of desalinating sea water.Discounting is applied in CEA and CBA.

Inflation. In theory the best way to deal with inflationis to project the inflation rate for the different expen-diture and benefit categories. However, this is very dif-ficult to do for a longer period and a practical way outis to work in constant costs. This gives the correctresults when the inflation rate is the same for the dif-ferent cost (and benefit) items. If a clearly differentprice development for main inputs/outputs in theanalysis is to be expected, corrections have to be made.

Prices. Costs and benefits in the analysis should repre-sent the true scarcity of resources used orproduced/saved. Prices of production factors (labour,capital, know-how) and of goods/services are often dis-torted. Main sources of distortion are indirecttaxes/subsidies and other deliberate government poli-cies and mal-functioning of markets. When correctingfor these distortions the accuracy aimed at naturallyshould be in line with the rest of the analysis (such asthe cost estimating of measures and of climate changeimpacts). Corrections are usually necessary for:

■ taxation/subsidisation

■ wages

■ discount rate (interest, the price of capital)

■ foreign currency (exchange rate)

A guiding concept here is that of “opportunity costs.”When applied to labour in the project, the reasoning isthat the true cost of labour is the value added forgone(f.i. in terms of rice produced). If there is (large) unem-ployment in a country the “opportunity costs of labour”(also called “shadow cost of labour”) can be set at closeto zero. Applying the opportunity costs reasoning tomaterial inputs leads to the use of “border prices”orlong-run world market prices. Doing this is also a wayto detect hidden subsidies. For instance, the use of gasas a fuel in Bangladesh should be valued at the price itwould fetch when exported. This is the correct methodof estimating the cost, and not building up the costprice from exploration through the different stages ofstoring, transporting and distributing up to the ulti-mate customer. For most cost items the acceptablemethod will be to just remove indirect taxes (VAT andimport duties) and known subsidies. In case of quanti-tative import restriction the best way is to work out aprice based on the long-run world market price.

The “shadow” exchange rate is the rate that wouldprevail in the absence of undue protection (more thanof trading partners) and when the rate is left to fluc-

Annotated guidelines for the preparation of national adaptation programmes of action: Appendix D


tuate freely. The estimation is specialist work and theeasiest way is to consult the planning agency in thecountry or a recent authoritative report. As said, thesame applies to the discount rate.

Uncertainty and risk

A common method in project appraisal is sensitivityanalysis. Main inputs in the analysis (such as certaincost and/or benefits) are varied to see how sensitivethe outcome is to these changes. A practical approachis to determine “switching values,” i.e., those values ofmajor inputs, either alone or in combination withothers, which render an activity uneconomic. It isthen up to the analyst or experts on the subject tojudge whether such changes could indeed occur inthe lifetime of the activity. A similar procedure can beused in (computerised) MCA analysis.

Risk analysis uses Monte Carlo simulation on keyinputs in the analysis. The analyst has to determinethe probability distribution (normal, skewed, etc.) ofthe occurrence (say of an increase in cost, or numberor intensity of extreme events). The computer model,using a random number generator, makes a largenumber of runs to determine the outcome. If a prob-ability (or combinations) is input into the analysis,the output, naturally, is also a probability distributionof the outcome (for instance, of the rate of return orthe benefit-cost ratio). There are commercial com-puter packages that perform the work (see forinstance 3) which integrates risk analysis in spread-sheet programmes. Also in MCA models a routinedoing the risk analysis can be built in (ref. 4).

Another possibility to deal with uncertainty is sce-nario development. This method corresponds withclimate change scenarios developed by IPCC. For asystematic analysis the likelihood of a situation occur-ring and its probability distribution could be used asinput in risk analysis.

3. Cost effectiveness analysis

To be able to include a measure in the priority list aminimum requirement would seem to be that there issome idea about the costs (investment and recurringcosts). Whilst benefits are not always quantifiableand/or cannot always be expressed in monetary val-ues, the costing of measures is normally possible. Thenon-monetary use of scarce resources, such as utilis-ing existing capacity in government, should also betaken into account. If and to the extent that this leadsto lower output elsewhere in the economy, this is atrue cost (opportunity cost principle). This reasoningof “opportunity costs” may point the way to estimat-ing the cost of this use of resources.

The best way is to start the cost estimation usingfinancial costs (market costs), taking inflation expect-ed in the future into account. The outcome can read-ily be used as an input in the budget estimate for theadaptation strategy. For a proper comparison of alter-natives, financial costs should be converted in eco-nomic costs. “Shadow” prices should be used whereneeded, as indicated above.

If the benefits cannot be measured in a reliable manner(for instance, as is the case with maintaining biodiver-sity), CEA is the appropriate method to compare alter-native measures in order to find out how a well-definedobjective can be reached in the most cost-effective way.It is of importance that the objective is defined careful-ly, and that attainment can be measured. If CEA wouldbe applied to the example of flooding in Bangladesh, itshould be ascertained that the same quantity of watercould be drained in the same time in each alternative.It could then transpire that scooping out water of suchquantities in such a short time by manual labour is notfeasible. The cost-effective option is the one with thelowest present value, determined by discounting thecash flows of costs.

If there are multiple objectives, CEA can only beapplied if one objective can, quantitatively, beexpressed in the other by assigning importance(weight) to the objectives to arrive at a single yard-stick. In health projects various measures have beendeveloped (such as “disability adjusted life years,”DALYs; see reference 1 for worked-out examples) tobring effects on morbidity and mortality under onedenominator. In Western countries these measures arecommonly used in decision-making. Since valuespeople give to a healthy year of life and to a year oflife may differ from country to country, it is not theanalyst who should determine these weights.Stakeholder meetings seem appropriate to answerthese difficult questions. A CEA, dealing with differ-ent objectives brought under one denominator iscalled “weighted cost-effectiveness.”

4. Cost benefit analysis

CBA can rank activities, determine the optimal use ofscarce resources (in efficiency terms) and, because CBAweighs costs against benefits, it determines whetherbenefits outweigh costs, allowing a decision onwhether implementation is in the interest of thenational economy. This clear “yes” or “no” answer, thefact that measures across sectors can be compared andthat CBA can be used to optimise measures makes thistechnique superior to CEA and MCA (next section).

CBA involves quantifying both costs and benefitswith regard to their amounts and timing, and giving

37

them a monetary value. If discounting results in apositive net present value (NPV) the intervention iseconomically efficient. Alternatively, if the rate ofreturn (the IRR) that produces a zero NPV is higherthan the discount rate, the project is accepted. As inthe case of CEA it is important that impacts of meas-ures can be quantified and valued, and that costs andbenefits represent real losses of or additions to scarceresources (see section 2 above). If alternative measuresto reach the same goal exist, CBA is normally precededby CEA to find the best alternative.

With regard to assessing costs and benefits it is essen-tial to define a “base case” (the situation without themeasure being carried out) and the “project case”(with the measure), determining costs and benefits bysubtracting the two situations. Consequently defin-ing and projecting a “with” and “without” situationavoids the rather common mistake of comparing“before” and “after.” It must be stressed that the “basecase” is not the same as the present situation. The“socio-economic conditions and prospects” providean input for the projection of the “base case.”

A drawback of CBA is that it requires that benefits aremeasurable and can be expressed in monetary termsand that the emphasis is on economic efficiencyalone. If there is no market for the goods or servicesprovided by the activity, prices often can be estimat-ed in indirect ways (contingency evaluation, willing-ness-to-pay analysis, etc.; see references 5 and 1). It isnot impossible to introduce equity considerations,but the amount of additional work is considerableand also arbitrary elements are introduced (whoshould say what the desirable income distributionis?). It should also be realised that project selection isnot the most direct or efficient method to change anexisting income distribution. Therefore social CBA(SCBA) is rarely applied. Nevertheless, in cases wheresocial considerations are important SCBA shall haveto follow economic CBA (ECBA). That could well bethe case in adaptation studies as the poor are usuallythe most vulnerable. The techniques to internalisesocial considerations are available (see reference 7 andmany other older textbooks on CBA). An alternativeto internalising equity considerations into the analy-sis is to make these an additional but separate objec-tive, and treat this outside CBA, in a qualitative wayor using MCA.

An important issue in the analysis is the preservationof the environment. Adaptation measures should beenvironmentally sustainable. The way this require-ment is expressed in COP decision 28/CP.7 suggeststhat treating sustainable development as a constraintin the selection of measures does justice to its impor-tance. Doing that requires an operational definitionof sustainable development. An interesting approachis described in reference 8. Both equity and ecologicalsustainability are introduced as separate criteria nextto economic efficiency and evaluated with the help ofMCA. With regard to environment, CBA has in gen-eral been reasonably successful in incorporating envi-ronmental considerations by separately estimating“external costs and benefits.” Also in the valuation ofenvironmental benefits there has been much progress(see reference 5).

As said, CBA lends itself to optimise the impacts of ameasure. When the growth of benefits decreases withincreased intensity of a measure, there comes a situa-tion when marginal costs (MC) exceed marginalreturns (MR). At the optimum the well known con-dition that MC=MR applies, where the NPV is at itsmaximum.1 In practice it seems best to work withlevels of intervention and resulting benefits (incre-mental costs and benefits), rather than with MC andMR, which requires specifying functions. It is alsopossible to determine the optimum starting year of anintervention.

When benefits are not measurable and/or when impor-tant decision criteria cannot be incorporated in BCAone (of many) forms of MCA must be resorted to.

5. Multi-criteria analysis

MCA has become increasingly popular, not least inrelation to environmental issues, including CC(Arrow et al. 1996, Bell et al. 2001). A proliferationof methods and software has been observed but with-out, so far, clear winners or losers. However, someauthors have attempted to compare methods andidentify advantages and disadvantages of differentmethods.2 This has provided useful insights.

Provisional conclusions are:

■ method uncertainty: different methods producedifferent results and it appears preferable to apply


1 At first sight it appears as if Samuel Frankhauser (ref. 8) uses a slightly different approach to optimisation. He minimises the sum ofadaptation costs and residual damages. “Residual damages,” when avoided by a measure, become “benefits” in CBA language and sothe methods are the same.

2 Bell et al. distinguish three groups of MCDM methods: weighting methods, deterministic ranking methods and uncertainty rankingmethods (Bell, M., B. Hobbs, E. Elliott, H. Ellis and Z. Robinson, 2001. An Evaluation of Multi-Criteria Methods in IntegratedAssessment of Climate Policy, in: Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, vol. 10, 229-256, 2001).


several MCDM methods (Bell et al., abstract,p.229);

■ ease of manipulation coupled with subjectivityand lack of transparency has contributed to lackof confidence, distrust even, in results of MCDMmethods. Simpler methods, preferably withoutthe use of computer software, are recommended;and

■ MCA/MCDM is very useful for structuringproblems and decisions, not necessarily for solv-ing problems (“holistic assessments” are preferredfor ultimate decisions).

The ingredients of MCA are objectives, alternativemeasures/options/interventions, criteria (or attrib-utes), scores that measure or value the performance ofan option against the criteria, and weights (applied tocriteria). Defining objectives and formulating differ-ent options is not different from CBA or CEA. Thedifference lies in the selection of criteria and theirweights. As concluded above these are subjective ele-ments, allowing manipulation of results. For thedetermination of weights procedures exist whichmore or less guarantee that the set of weights is con-sistent. “DEFINITE” (see reference 4) contains a sep-arate routine (pair-wise comparison) to arrive at aconsistent set of criteria. It further allows using dif-ferent ways of MCA, from simple to quite sophisti-cated, and includes a routine for (simple) CBA.

A major exercise is determining the scores; i.e., assess-ing the impact of alternative measures/options on thedifferent criteria. Often the relationship betweeninput and impact will not be linear. CEA, asexplained above, will be helpful to choose between(technical/engineering) alternatives and CBA to opti-mise a measure. Assessing causal relationshipsbetween measures and effects seems a matter ofresearch, rather than the subject of a stakeholders’meeting. Scores can be entered in various ways: mon-etary and non-monetary data, qualitative data (forinstance ++, + or —, for respectively positive, verypositive and very negative), various rating scales, anddirect assignment of a percentage contribution to anobjective or criterion. The scores have to be nor-malised or standardised to make them comparable. Ausual way is to convert them into a preference scalefrom 0 (lowest) to 100 (best scoring option) or 0–1(DEFINITE). In computer models, the model per-forms this operation.

The selection of a set of criteria is subject to a num-ber of pitfalls. 1) Probably the most serious danger isoverlap (double counting) or interdependency. In theBangladesh example above, avoiding or getting rid of

floods will have a positive impact on health. Theimpact may be expressed in a decrease of morbidityand mortality, two clearly interrelated criteria, andthat fact should be taken into account when deter-mining the weights in order to avoid double count-ing. Complete independence of criteria will in prac-tice be unattainable. 2) Another danger is that onlythose criteria are selected to which effects can easilybe attributed. Health and bio-diversity are criteriathat may fall victim to the difficulties of estimatingand attributing effects. That a contribution to a crite-rion cannot well be assessed must be taken for grant-ed. Employing expert judgement seems preferable toleaving out the criterion. 3) Too many criteria may betaken into account, leading to a “splitting bias.”According to Van Pelt (ref. 8) MCA is most reliable ifthe number of alternative options lies between 3 and8, the number of criteria does not exceed 7, theimpact can be quantified and if different MCA tech-niques give comparable outcomes.

It may be helpful to structure the criteria in a “valuetree.” Main criteria will usually be costs and benefits,each subdivided into constituent criteria of lowerhierarchy. Costs could be divided up in monetary andin-kind costs, benefits into economy, safety, andhealth, with a further subdivision of economy. Thereare trade offs between criteria, notably between costsand benefits. The MCA model “HIVIEW” (see refer-ence 11) generates and visualises this tree of criteria,which is very helpful for analysing the structure of thecriteria set.

The Guidelines list a great number of criteria. It isstated further that the selected set should locally driv-en and “inter alia” is added both in section 15 and 16.The present interpretation of the LEG is that the listcan be seen as a checklist of possibly relevant criteria(depending on the country and, especially, on themeasures/interventions which are being evaluated).Further, when the criteria are put in matrix form with15 a-d at the horizontal axis and 16 a-j at the vertical,it appears that in many cases the “vertical criteria” aresub criteria of the horizontal ones. This is most clearfor “poverty” with health, food security and waterconstituting parts. Similarly, the degree of an adverseeffect (15 a) can be measured in loss of life (16 a),health, loss of land, loss of biodiversity, etc. Regardingthe criteria in this way helps in determining wherecriteria overlap or are correlated. The MCA Modelsignals where criteria are correlated. Grouping the cri-teria or expressing one into the other (making it one)seems the solution in these cases. It is stressed againthat too many criteria makes it impossible to interpretthe outcome of MCA.

39

6. A hypothetical example using MCAfor selection/prioritisation

This illustration of MCA uses the same example asabove. The steps normally taken in a MCA analysisare as follows:

1. Problem definition: Because of rising sea level,higher intensity of precipitation and increasedrun-off in upstream areas, rain and smelt waterreaches Bangladesh in a shorter period thanbefore and also drains less easily. Floods in somecoastal areas, as Bangladesh has been experienc-ing for a long time, are getting worse.3

2. The objective of the intervention is to get rid ofsuperfluous water in order to safeguard agricul-tural production, to avoid the spread of water-borne diseases, and to avoid damages to build-ings, nature, infrastructure, etc. (called environ-ment in the example).

3. The criteria used to measure effects are a) agri-cultural production, b) health, c) expected dam-age of the environment and d) the cost of theintervention.

4. As alternative interventions the following is con-sidered: a) installing pumps at strategic sites, b)improving the existing drainage infrastructureand c) organising manual labour at a big scale(not unusual in Bangladesh). An alternativeoption always is to do nothing (bear the losses).

5. Estimating effects in a reliable manner naturallyis of paramount importance. This is the areawhere risk analysis is especially valuable. It is hereassumed that there is insufficient data at thisstage to do CBA and CEA—very suitable ofcourse to evaluate effects on 3.a) and 3.c). For thestudy area there are, however, rough estimates ofthe extent and duration of floods that could beavoided, from the DALYs (see reference 1) thatcould so be gained, from the damage done to theenvironment (in money terms) and of the costsof the different interventions (also in moneyterms).

6. The last step is to give weights to the differentcriteria.

All steps lend itself for stakeholder participation (in afacilitated workshop, for instance), but steps 3, 4 and

6 especially so. Under 4 traditional coping mecha-nisms would be brought in and under 6 the prefer-ences of people affected by the floods (and the meas-ures to avoid them).

Table 1 gives the basic data and table 2) the results interms of ranking after the effects (expressed in variousunits) have been “standardised” by scaling them (0–1scale) and weights have been assigned to the criteria.

The data was input in a spreadsheet (table 1) and thecalculations (standardisation and summation of con-tribution) are made in table 2. When the calculationsare properly formulated in the spreadsheet, perform-ing sensitivity is possible.4 It would be logical toinvestigate the sensitivity of the effects (scores in table


3 In many parts of the country salt intrusion seems to be a bigger problem.

4 Care has to be taken that the scaling of scores is always done on the highest/lowest score in a column and that this order can changein the sensitivity analysis.

Table 1: Scores on criteria (absolute)

cost effect health environ-min $ (min (min ment

HA days) DALYs) cost(min $)

pump -700 1,000 10 -70

infrastructure -800 800 8 -10

labour -900 300 3 -10

bear losses 0 0 0 -50

Table 2: Scores standardised (0–1 scale),weighted summation and ranking

envir- weigh- rank-cost effect health onment ted- ing

summ-ation

pump 0.22 1 1 0 0.56 2

infra- 0.11 0.8 0.8 1 0.68 1structure

labour 0.00 0.3 0.3 1 0.40 4

bear 1.00 0 0 0.33 0.33 3losses

weight 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 1.00


1) and of the weighting (table 2) on the outcome(ranking). If pumping would be less expensive (forinstance only 400) and infrastructure more expensive(950) the two alternatives would get the same rank-ing. If cost would be given a weight of 0.45 and envi-ronment of 0.05 (so in proportion of the estimatedcosts), then pumping becomes the better alternative.Also risk analysis could be done on the scores (see ref-erence 3), but much more useful would seem toimprove the estimates of effects. As said, MCA can bedone using computer models. Both HIVIEW (ref.11) and DEFINITE (ref. 4) support weighted sum-mation, as done above. Doing sensitivity using aMCA model becomes easy.

Both models are easy to apply. HIVIEW does sensi-tivity, allows relative and absolute scaling, and acceptsinputs of scores in various forms (numbers, but also“yes” and “no”). Special is that it can present thestructure of weighting graphically. DEFINITE is afull-fledged decision support programme. It includesfour different MCA methods, (simple) CBA andgraphical evaluation methods. It allows all formats forinputs, including +, ++, -, —. Unique is that DEFI-NITE leads the analyst through rounds of interactiveassessments of options, weights, scores etc. and thatthere is a routine to check internal consistency of theweight set using pair-wise comparison. Reporting isin text and numbers, but graphs can also be pro-duced, as in figure 2 below.

Figure 2: Reporting results by DEFINITE

To make use of the many possibilities of the modelsome training seems advisable. The danger of theprogramme (as with all MCA) is that the emphasiscomes on the method, rather than on the (hard) workto develop estimates of costs and benefits of options.

References

1. Economic Analysis of Investment Operations,Pedro Belli et al., World Bank, 2001.

2. Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation andVulnerability, IPCC(http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/tar/wg2/069.htm)

3. @RISK (http://www.palisade.com/html/risk)

4. “DEFINITE,” Institute for EnvironmentalStudies, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, TheNetherlands.

5. Values for the Environment, A guide toEconomic Appraisal, J.T. Winpenny, OverseasDevelopment Institute, 1991, London.

6. Handbook on Methods for Climate ChangeImpact Assessment and Adaptation Strategies,Jan F. Feenstra et al., UNEP/IVM, 1998.

7. Guidelines for Project Appraisal, ArieKuyvenhoven and L.B.M. Mennes, ErasmusUniversity, 1985.

8. Sustainability-oriented Project Appraisal forDeveloping Countries, Michiel J.F. van Pelt,Rotterdam, April 1992 (PhD Thesis).

9. The Costs of Adapting to Climate Change,Samuel Frankhauser, GEF Working Paper 16,1998.

10. DTLR, 2001. Multi-Criteria Analysis: AManual, published on the web:(http://www.dtlr.gov.uk/about/multicriteria)

11. HIVIEW for Windows: http://www.enterprise-lse.co.uk (600 UK pounds).

Infrastructure

0

1

LabourPump Bear losses

Resu

lt

0.68

0.56

0.400.33

MCA 1: Weighted summation {interval; Direct (cost: 0.5)}

Build NAPA Team andMultidisciplinary Team

Synthesize Available Impact Assessments,Coping Strategies, Past Consultations,

Trends and Existing DevelopmentFrameworks

Participatory Rapid Assessment ofCurrent Vulnerability and Potential

Increase in Climate Hazards andAssociated RisksExisting Assessments

Adequate for NAPADevelopment

Conduct Public ConsultationAiming at Identifying Potential

Ideas for Activities

Periodic Review ofRisks and Prioritization

of Activities

Articulate Potential NAPAActivities based on Ideas

from Consultation

Undertake CriteriaPrioritization Process(Ranking the Criteria)

Rank Projects/Activities andDemonstrate Integration intoNational Policy Frameworks

and Programmes

Develop Project Profilesand Submit NAPA

Flowchart of main steps in developing a NAPA

annotated guidelines for the preparation of national

Documents