Congress summary

Some thoughtsDavid Jackson

(United Nations Capital Development Fund)

DJ: UNCDF 2010

The big issues

• More than one debate going on at the same time

• Cutting across “traditional” boundaries and discourses

DJ: UNCDF 2010

Defining adaptation

• Organic, routine and natural vs. crisis, extra-ordinary and special

• Project vs. programme• Learning to adapt vs. ‘enforced’ adaption• Who is involved? Urban management industry - Development

industry - Crisis industry - Climate Change industry

Non organicOrganic

DJ: UNCDF 2010

Sovereignty

• Sovereign versus non sovereign financing• Ecosystem versus nation state

Nation stateCity

DJ: UNCDF 2010

The case of Bengal

• Dhaka, Kolkata and Howrah– One history, one ecosystem one challenge

DJ: UNCDF 2010

North vs. South

• Wealthy nations with poor cities• Wealthy cities in poor nations• Problems within the city or between cities?• Adaptation versus mitigation?

SouthNorth

DJ: UNCDF 2010

Vulnerability

• Climate vulnerability vs. climate stability• Asset and livelihood vulnerability vs. asset and

livelihood resilience

Less vulnerableMore vulnerable

DJ: UNCDF 2010

Local government and quality of life

• A lot of adaptation and mitigation improves quality of life – a general local government mandate

• No regret, no harm is a big factor• Politicians can use this point (Climate as a vote

winner)• Don’t be afraid to tell: Communities appreciate

honesty – no need to wait for the numbers

DJ: UNCDF 2010

Using adaptation

• “Incorporating adaptation to land use planning brings opportunities for Ho Chi Minh City”

• Adaptation provides an opportunity to address wider issues e.g. informal settlements in Durban

• Not too much support for using adaptation to relocate assets that still need to be “sweated”

DJ: UNCDF 2010

The devil is in the detail

• The quality of legal and regulatory environment that constrains life is a fundamental and very important issue

• For example, can you communicate, regulate and enforce run-off control?

• Goes right down to the household• This remains one of the key dividing lines

DJ: UNCDF 2010

Local financing (1)

• Project (Maputo) vs. Programme (Durban) • Capital vs. recurrent• Own revenue (of all kinds) vs. grants

External sourcesOwn revenue

DJ: UNCDF 2010

Local financing (2)

UNFCCC• Commits all parties to formulate, implement, publish and update

adaptation measures – within which NAPAs are an option for the LDCs to provide a rigorous assessment of adaptation needs.

NAPAs• Have been designed to access the funds above and are often

framed in terms of large projects and national sector ministries (as of May 2009 40 submitted with total 437 projects worth $1.6bn) eg Early Warning , DRR, water management

Local Governments• Struggle with holistic adaptation needs and tend to be neglected

in the debate.• Recognise the local and “mundane” nature of adaptation

DJ: UNCDF 2010

Local financing (3)

UNFCCC Commits all parties to formulate, implement, publish and update adaptation measures – within which NAPAs are an option for the LDCs to provide a rigorous assessment of adaptation needs.

NAPAs• Are updated and ‘localised’ to address systematic and incremental

adaptation by local governments adaptation

Local Governments• Are able to use funds obtained through NAPA and other processes to fill

the adaptation funding gap, becoming instruments of adaptaton and co financing with their normal revenue sources

DJ: UNCDF 2010

14

Local financing (4)

Capital Non - Capital

Recurrent (normally incremental

changes in resource envelope)

Some air conditioners Teachers’ Salaries

Project (fluctuation in

resource envelope, specific approval

process, activities of finite duration)

A new school building

A consultancy to install a new

software system

Will Climate Proofing come from Recurrent

or Project?

DJ: UNCDF 2010

Understanding the funding gap