Transcript National Adaptation Programme of Action and National

NAPAs
and
National Communications
Cairo, Egypt
20 - 22 September 2007
Mr. Bubu Pateh Jallow
CHAIR OF THE LEG
OUTLINE OF PRESENTATION
1. Context of NAPA Process under
the Convention
2. Status of Preparation
3. Status of Implementation
4. Barriers and Constraints
5. Lessons learned
6. Conclusions and
Recommendation
2
CONTEXT OF THE NAPA PROCESS
By its Decision 5 CP.7, Section II, the
COP decided:
 to establish a work programme for the
implementation of Article 4.9 of the
Convention, which would include
activities, among many others
“Supporting the preparation of
national adaptation programmes of
action (NAPAs)” Para 11(c) ;
 and in Para 15 the Decision relates
the NAPAs to NATCOMs as “the
information contained in NAPAs may
constitute the first step in the
preparation of initial national
communications”;
3
CONTEXT OF THE NAPA PROCESS
By Decision 7CP.7, COP decided to establish
the LDC Fund to support the work programme
for the least developed countries
By Decision 27CP.7, COP adopted the initial
guidance to GEF for the operation of the LDC
Fund to support the work programme for the
least developed countries and requested GEF to
provide funding from the LDC Fund to meet
the agreed full cost of preparing the NAPAs,
given that the preparation of NAPAs will help
to build capacity for the preparation of
national communications.
By Decision 28CP.7, paragraph 1 COP adopted
the guidelines for the preparation of NAPAs;
By Decision 29 CP.7, paragraph 1. COP
established the least developed countries
expert group (LEG) with its terms of reference
4
STATUS OF NAPA
PREPARATION
 As of 31 July 2007, the following 21
LDCs have completed and officially
submitted their NAPAs: Bangladesh,
Bhutan, Burundi, Cambodia,
Comoros, Democratic Republic of
Congo, Djibouti, Eritrea, Haiti,
Kiribati, Lesotho, Madagascar,
Malawi, Mauritania, Niger, Rwanda,
Samoa, Sénégal, São Tomé e Príncipe,
Sudan and Tuvalu.
 The officially submitted NAPAs can be
accessed on the UNFCCC website
http://unfccc.int/2679.php
5
STATUS OF NAPA
IMPLEMENTATION

Out of the 21 submitted NAPAs, six NAPA
implementation projects have been officially
submitted by 21 May 2007 to the GEF for
funding under the LDCF, including from
Bangladesh, Bhutan, Malawi, Mauritania,
Niger and Samoa

These projects have been “PIF-approved,”
which means that the early- stage
submissions have been identified as
consistent with the LDCF eligibility criteria
and that they have been entered into the
LDCF pipeline

Since May an additional three NAPA
implementation projects from Cambodia,
Eritrea and Sudan have been officially
submitted by UNDP to be included in the
November 2007 LDCF Work Programme6
Barriers and Constraints
 Change of Accounting System at the UNDP
Country Offices coinciding with the start of
NAPA process
 Opening of Special Government Accounts for
the depositing and managing NAPA Funds
 Inadequate critical mass outside of
Government and private Consultants not
available when needed
 NAPA endorsement process considered a bit
longer than expected in some countries
 Inadequate national capacity to translate
NAPA Project Profiles to full fundable
Projects
 More data and information needed for the
preparation of Project Identification Forms
(PIFs) which is found inadequately presented
in the current completed NAPAs
7
LESSONS LEARNED UNDER THE NAPA
PROCESS
 The total cost for priority adaptation

projects identified in the submitted
NAPAs so far amounts to USD 341,289
million
Current deposit in the LDC Fund is
about US $ 150,000 leaving a funding gap
of US $ 191,289 million.
 Financial contributions from Annex II
Parties were vital for the success register
under the NAPA Process and the Parties
and the LEG are highly appreciative of
this support and recognizes that any
future mandate of the LEG should have
the endorsement of and continued
support from Parties to carry out the
activities entrusted to the group.
8
LESSONS LEARNED UNDER THE NAPA
PROCESS




Through the establishment of NAPA Teams
and Working Groups, the NAPA process has
improved coordination and dialogue at the
national and regional levels. The Ministries of
Environment, Finance, Planning and
Development, and Civil Society have been
driving the process.
The National Communication process should
benefit from this broadened and bottom-up
institutional framework.
The NAPA Stakeholder Consultation process
particularly at the grassroots levels has
generated a lot more data and information for
climate change studies. The data and
information includes traditional knowledge
and coping strategies.
This additional level of information will
particularly be useful for the process of
preparation of Second National
Communications by Parties.
9
LESSONS LEARNED UNDER THE NAPA
PROCESS
Mainstreaming is a process and has been initiated under the
NAPA Process through the establishment of appropriate
institutional framework.
 All NAPA Teams are multi-sectoral and multidisciplinary with membership drawn from
research institutions, agriculture, environment,
forestry, fisheries, academia, media and civil
society and private sector (Comoros) with some
international consultants (Gambia and
Uganda).
 NAPA Teams are guided by a Project Steering
Committee, which is more policy oriented and
oversees the progress of the NAPA development
process;
 The NAPA Project Steering Committee of The
Gambia is chaired by a Permanent Secretary
and includes National Focal Points of the
Desertification and Biodiversity Conventions
and the GEF Focal Point, National Assembly
and Civil Society.
 Comoros established a NAPA Island
Committees to coordinate the NAPA process at
the island level.
10
LESSONS LEARNED UNDER THE NAPA
PROCESS
• Mainstreaming through the PRSP, other
National Plans and Programmes and the
MDGs
In the selection of the priority NAPA
projects in Bhutan, one of the criteria
was to assess whether the projects
complement national goals such as
overcoming poverty, enhancing the
adaptive capacity or other multilateral
environmental agreements.
In Bangladesh the "Policy Matrix 18,
integration of climate change
adaptation in all policies, programmes
and projects is one of the key targets
and recognises that NAPA is closely
related to the other environmental
policies or programmes in particular the
National Action Plan on biodiversity
and the National Environmental
Management Action Plan (NEMAD).
11
LESSONS LEARNED UNDER THE NAPA
PROCESS
Reduction of the vulnerabilities of the rural
communities to the adverse impacts of extreme
weather events, enabling the rural communities to
adapt to climate change, attainance of food
security, resettlement of population, provision of
fresh water, rational use of coastal structures,
effective land-uses, utilisation of marine resources,
reduction of poverty and environmental
degradation and achievement of sustainable rural
livelihood are all elements of poverty reduction
strategy that are common to the NAPA and the
PRSP in Malawi and Samoa.
Key activities laid out in Mozambique’s PRSP
include measures to manage its vulnerability to
and strengthening its capacity to respond to
natural disasters. This resulted to disaster risk
management and reduction being the highest
priority in the Mozambique NAPA.
12
LESSONS LEARNED UNDER THE NAPA
PROCESS
 The NAPA process is entering a

transition from NAPA preparation to
NAPA implementation. Six countries
have already received approval for
funding implementation from the LDC
Fund under the GEF.
The implementation of these projects and
others to come will provided practical
knowledge and experience on climate
change adaptation in addition to
whatever study outcomes will be coming
out of the technical institutions and
Universities. This “Learning by doing” is
a concrete and fast way of gaining
knowledge and the NAPA
Implementation process will provide this
to the global climate change process and
in particular the experiences and
knowledge gained will be good input to13
the National Communications process.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The National Communications Process
should adopt and maintain the
institutional framework sutup under the
NAPA process;
NAPA process is at a juncture –
implementation phase is starting for about
half of the LDCs that have completed their
NAPAs, while the other half of LDC
Parties are still at various stages of
preparation - some of whom (East Timor,
Afghanistan, Equatorial Guinea) are at
incipient stages
There is continuing need for the LEG to
provide technical guidance and advice on
the preparation of NAPAs, to advise on
capacity-building, to facilitate the
exchange of information, and to advise on
efforts to mainstream adaptation into
development planning
14
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Closer collaboration is needed to
support LDC Parties to prepare NAPA
proposals for funding, and to support
NAPA teams that are in various stages
of NAPA preparation;
Need to continue monitoring
bottlenecks and constraints in the
preparation of NAPAs through targeted
questionnaires;
Variety of effective partnerships have
been built which involve a number of
support organizations at the
international level as well as in-country
institutions at the level of the individual
NAPA
15
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Contributed to raising awareness of
adaptation among stakeholders,
integrating climate change concerns
across agencies represented in NAPA
teams, and raising the importance of
adaptation to the highest decisionmaking level through the NAPA
endorsement process
NAPA preparation process has itself
generated benefits beyond serving as a
vulnerability and adaptation
assessment. The challenge will be to
maintain the momentum and
awareness generated into the
implementation phase
16
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The COP should extend the
mandate of the LEG at COP 13
for the continuation of the
provision of advisory services
to meet the special
circumstances and needs of
the LEAST DEVELOPED
COUNTRIES (LDCs) and
implementation of the
remaining elements of the LDC
Work Programme adopted by
COP 7 in 2001
17
THANK
YOU
18