Prioritisation of climate change adaptation programmes and projectsAreeya Obidiegwu and Ray Purcell

2nd Agricultural Climate Change Strategy

• Currently 4 strategies, 11 strategies, 53 programmes (27of which for adaptation)

• Unknown number of projects under the 53 programmes

Why is there are need to prioritise? • to help identify key strategic areas of activity • and to help allocate scarce budgetary

resources

Current MOAC Approaches to Prioritisation

For budget decision making, MOAC priorities determined by a high level Budget Working Group which sets key policy directions (this year land consolidation and Learning Centres)

At Departmental level, Departments consider the following criteria for selecting projects for the budget

Current budget decision criteria

• The fit with Government and ministerial policies• Policy directions from the Office of the Permanent

Secretary• The perceived degree of urgency of a project• Government redistribution policy relating to fair

distribution of projects across provincesBut the prioritisation processes are intuitive rather

than systematic (e.g. not based on scoring) and therefore not always transparent

Current climate change prioritisation practices

• Not a well developed methodological area• Qualitative benefits approach has been piloted but

found to be skill and discussion intensive and therefore time consuming

• Involves assessing projects against “with” and “without” climate change and can be conceptually quite difficult and unwieldly for dealing with large numbers of projects

• Some simple MCA attempts but not well documented

A First Cut Classification UNDP Climate Relevance Index

High relevance

Rationale Clear primary objective of delivering specific outcomes that improve climate resilience or contribute to mitigation

Weighting more than 75%*

Examples Energy mitigation (e.g. renewables, energy efficiency)

Disaster risk reduction and disaster management capacity

The costs of changing the design of a programme to improve climate resilience (e.g. extra costs of climate proofing infrastructure,

Anything that responds to recent drought, cyclone or flooding, because it will have added benefits for future extreme events

Building institutional capacity to plan and manage climate change Raising awareness about climate change

Anything meeting the criteria of climate change funds (e.g. GEF,PPCR)

Medium relevance

Rationale Either (i) secondary objectives related to building climate resilience or contributing to mitigation, or (ii) mixed programmes with a range of activities that are not easily separated but include at least some that promote climate resilience or mitigation

Weighting between 50% to 74%

Examples Water storage, water efficiency and irrigation that is motivated primarily by improved livelihoods because this will also provide protection against drought

Bio-diversity and conservation, unless explicitly aimed at increasing resilience of ecosystems to climate change (or mitigation)

Livelihood and social protection programmes, motivated by poverty reduction, but building household reserves and assets and reducing vulnerability.

Low relevance

Rationale Activities that display attributes where indirect adaptation and mitigation benefits may arise

Weighting between 25% - 49%

Examples Livelihoods, motivated by poverty reduction, but building household reserves and assets and reducing vulnerability in areas of low climate vulnerability

General planning capacity, either at national or local level, unless it is explicitly linked to climate change, in which case it would be high

Marginal relevance

Rationale Activities that have only very indirect and theoretical links to climate resilience

Weighting less than 25%

Examples Short term programmes (including humanitarian relief)

The replacement element of any reconstruction investment (splitting off the additional climate element as high relevance)

ADB ApproachScoring methodology for assessing climate change

impact, vulnerabilities and technology needs in six sectors:

• agriculture, • coastal resources,• human health, • transportation, • water resources, and• disaster risk management (DRM).

ADB Scoring Criteria• effectiveness • relative costs• co-benefits• co-costs• barriers to implementation• feasibility of implementation• scale of implementation • applicable locations and conditions • potential financing and markets

Criteria Suggestions for Scoring the CC Strategy• climate relevance in terms of the Climate Relevance Index• policy consistency against NESDP, National Climate Change Master

Plan, Govt Action Plans, ADP etc• effectiveness, how well the programme reduces climate

vulnerability or increases resilience; • socio-economic and poverty impact, the type of benefit, numbers,

location and typology of beneficiaries • co-benefits, other development benefits the programme/project

may provide additional to climate change benefits, such as micro-irrigation enhancing land condition

• co-costs, maladaptation - the number and magnitude of the negative consequences, such as irrigation adversely affecting down stream water supplies or damage to ecosystems

• feasibility of implementation, capacity to procure and execute• finance availability relative to domestic or external funding

requirements

Scoring example

• See Handout on Scoring Framework Example