Transcript CLIMATE RISK AND ASSESSMENT TOOLS

TOOLS FOR INTEGRATING CLIMATE CHANGE
ADAPTATION AND DISASTER REDUCTION
INTO DEVELOPMENT
Thomas Tanner (Institute of Development Studies, UK)
Anne Hammill (International Institute for Sustainable Development, Geneva)
EADI/DSA Conference September 20th 2011
Positionality
Context
 Risks to poverty reduction
 Responses
 New programmes
 New policy and organisational change
 Development on risk management tools
See: Hammill and Tanner 2011; Mitchell and Tanner 2006; Wilby and Vaughan 2010
Rationale
 Tool overload!
 Our focus on

User perspectives
 Implications for harmonisation
 Process guidance tools
See stock-takes at:
Tanner and Guenther 2007;
Klein et al 2007; Gigli and
Agrawala 2007; Olhoff and
Schaer 2010; Ecofys/IDS 2011
Method
 Sample of 10 tools in bilateral agencies and NGOs
 Interviews with 50 tool developers and users
NGO
TOOLS
DONOR
TOOLS
Agency
Tool name
Asian Development Bank
GTZ
USAID
DANIDA
Draft Risk Screening Tool
Climate Proofing for Development
Guidance Manual
Climate Change Screening Studies
DFID
Strategic Programme Review
Tearfund
CARE
IISD, IUCN, SEI, IC
Christian Aid
Tearfund
Climate vulnerability and capacity analysis
CRiSTAL
Adaptation Toolkit
Linking tools with decision-making steps
Project
Identification
Raising
awareness
Communication
Project
appraisal
Identifying current and
future vulnerabilities and
climate risks
Screening
Assessment
Project
design
Project
implementation
Monitoring
& Evaluation
Identifying
adaptation
measures
Evaluating and
selecting
adaptation
options
Evaluating
“success” of
adaptation
Analysis
Evaluation
Project
cycle
steps
Adaptation
decisionmaking
steps
Integration
M&E
PROCESS TOOLS
Climate info
Vulnerability / poverty / development information
DATA & INFORMATION PROVISON TOOLS
Marketing
 Tool sharing 
Feedback, refinement
KNOWLEDGE SHARING TOOLS / PLATFORMS
CRM /
climate
adaptation
tools
Tool conceptual approaches
What role for partners
Assessing tools 4 Organisational change
Awareness-raising a key reported benefit
Tools to provide agency to take action
Awareness
Agency
Association
Action /
reflection
Association with others to work on the issue
After Ballard 2007
Demonstrated action on climate change
Limitations
 Awareness and association is partial
 Partner engagement is varied
 Embedding tools in donor management systems only
 Capacity gaps in government
 Action failures
 Failure to address multiple stressors (integration)
 Dealing with strategic risks
 Assessing budget support
 How to learn from implementation / M&E
Harmonisation opportunities
 Strong rationale for multiple tool development
 Common climate /vulnerability information sites or summaries?
 Common skeleton for elements of process?
 Screening criteria
 Checklists for risk assessment, risk management analysis, options
evaluation
 Cost benefit / effectiveness analysis
 Approaches to strategic climate risk management
 Partner-oriented
 Portfolio-wide
 Sector / budget support
 Common M&E framework
Organisational change
 Most agencies characterised by efficient management
Source: Adapted from Ballard 2007
Response
Description
Core business
focused
Organisations with a short term focus
Stakeholder
responsive
Managers will respond but not proactive. May be a ‘tick box’ exercise.
Efficient
management
Managers recognise that the issue needs to be managed systematically,
rather than occasionally. CC is usually delegated to someone lower down
the organisation; senior managers may think they’ve cracked it.
Strategic
experimentation
Bridge from operations to strategy. Projects used to make breakthroughs
in practice and understanding, but strategic decisions remain unaffected.
Strategic
resilience
Organisation becomes more able to put in place programmes to ensure its
resilience in what is likely to be a very different and fast-changing future.
The champion
organisation
Organisations choose to go further and seek to lead wider social change
to slow and reverse climate change itself.
Critique
 Of climate risk management
 Tools as a fix
 Technical / managerial solution
 Climate science less helpful than robust decision making (Wilby 2011)
 Of incremental change
 Adaptation as tweaks and incremental change
 Response as stability not transformation
 Of organisational change strategy in tools-led approach
 Offers potential to showcase without embedding change
 Limited use within organisation – pigeon-holed
Thank you
Experience of tool use
Types of users identified: Training, incentives, resources available.
Voluntary
No formal training, aware of tool through own professional
networks, Internet, reference documents. Use tool on adhoc, as-needed basis.
Trained and
ready
Received training, ready and willing to apply tool as
needed. May do it without prompting or support. May seek
out funding opportunities.
Applying as part
of project
Usually trained, required to use tool as part of project – i.e.
tool elaboration and application are discrete project
activities with associated budget lines.
Applying as part
of job
description
Usually trained, staff or consultants, hired to apply tool in
designing and managing development strategies. Hired to
use the tool(s).
Mandatory
Trained, tools applied as part of mandatory agency policy.
Use of climate information
Outsource the climate
analysis
• Hire consultants,
experts
Use pre-fabricated
climate information
products
Rely more heavily on
local observations
and experiences
• Draw from readymade climate
change summaries
(projections,
impacts), and
adaptation options
that accompany tool
• Seek out some
information (e.g.
NAPA), extract
general conclusions
• Research and
emphasise
community
observations and
experiences
• Growing emphasis on developing informed consumers of climate
information (what, where, who)
• Disconnect between Type 1 and Type 2 tool users
Terminology
 No single definition of ‘Climate risk management’
 “Tools”: documents, computer programmes, websites that
help undertake part of risk screening / assessment process
 Screening & assessment as part of climate risk management
Sources: Mitchell and Tanner 2006; Klein et al 2007; Wilby and Vaughan 2010
Tool development
• Motivations
• Development threatened by climate change
• Disconnect between advocacy and internal actions
• NGOs: Demand from field staff & local partners, social justice
• Donors: Top-down policy commitments, fiduciary risk management
• Development process
• Driven by headquarters (with input from field offices / partners)
• Collaborative and iterative
• Organisational change as part of development
• Drawing from…
• NGOs: PRA tools
• Donors: Risk management procedures for EIA/SIA