Transcript Integrating NatCom (CC) into FSM Strategic Development Plan

Integrating NatCom/CC into
FSM Strategic Development Plan
(SDP/IDP)
CGE Workshop on Exchange of Experiences & Good
Practices among NAI NatComs & on Cross-cutting Issues
Cairo, Egypt, 20-22 September 2007
Joseph M. Konno
FSM CC Country Team
Content
•
•
•
•
•
•
Content & Overview
Process of Integration
Sectors “Climate Proofed” in SDP/IDP
Critical Success Factors
Barriers and Constraints
Key Lessons learned
• 607 Islands
• 4 States
• Total area
over 3
million sq.
km.
• Total Land
Area= 4,840
sq. km.
• Atolls to 791
meters
above sea
level
• Population
(2000)
=107,000
Federated States of
Micronesia
Overview of Integration
• Initial NatCom (October 1999)
– National Climate Policy that entails a response Strategy that
address impacts & sources of climate change:
• “Value-Added” benefit of flexible approaches: addressing both
adaptation and mitigation, e.g. solar desalination
• Addressing current extreme events (e.g. ENSO) that contributes to
building today’s resilience and insights into long-term V&A to CC
• Integration of traditional knowledge and practices into SDP for
responding to CC, e.g. traditional resource management
• ADB Climate Change Adaptation in Pacific (CLIMAP)
– Integrating CC at three levels (project, community, SDP)
• 2nd NatCom (Recruitment for SNC Coordinator)
– Will build upon existing policies
– 5th Year Review of SDP/IDP (2008)
Process of Integrating CC into FSM’s Infrastructure,
Communities, and SDP/IDP
(ADB CLIMAP)
Reflecting Climate Risks in
Infrastructure Design and Local
Level Decision Making
Demonstrated by
“Climate Proofing”
the Kosrae Road
“Climate Proofing”
Reflecting Climate Risks in
National Development Planning
Demonstrated
by
is shortand
for
“Climate Proofing” FSM’s
National Strategic Development Plans
reducing,
to
acceptable levels, the
Reflecting Climate Risks in
Landuse Planning, Regulations
and
Permitting
risks
due
to climate
Demonstrated by
“Climate Proofing”
variability and
Sapwohn Village, Sokehs
change, including
extreme events
Integration of CC into National Strategic
Development Plan/Infrastructure Development Plan
INFRASTRUCTURE SECTOR
• “… Infrastructure designed, located, built
and maintained to avoid unacceptable risks
to infrastructure associated with natural
hazards, including weather and climate
extremes, variability and change.”
• “… Conduct risk assessments at state level
and develop national- and state-level
guidelines to ensure risks to infrastructure
development projects are identified and
addressed in a cost effective manner at the
design stage.”
National
Strategic
Development
Plan
Sectors Continue…….
• Environment Sector
– Mainstream environmental considerations,
including climate change, in economic
development
– “….Strategies and plans that address
unacceptable risks to the natural environment
and built assets, including those arising from
natural hazards such as weather and climate
extremes, variability and change.”
Integrating Climate Change into
Building Code & EIA Regulations
• Allow for surface flooding as a result of hourly rainfall
intensities of at least 400 mm (such an event has a
projected return period of 25 years in 2050);
• Allow for possibility of wind gusts exceeding 130 mph
(this event has a projected return period of 25 years in
2050; current practice is to use 120 mph as the design
wind speed).
• Climate Change Impacts & Adaptations have been
incorporated in to existing EIA Regulations, Land Use
Plans and Health Regulations and other permitting
process
Environmental Sector……..
• “Develop and implement integrated environmental and
resource management objectives that enhance
resilience of coastal and other ecosystems to natural
hazards such as those associated with extreme weather
events, climate change, high tides and sea-level rise.”
• Determine impact of climate change on the tuna industry
as a result of such effects as changed migration patterns
of Pacific tuna stocks, and implement strategies to
minimize impacts on this important industry.”
• “……. All the Federated States of Micronesia
communities will develop and implement risk reduction
strategies to address natural hazards such as those
related to current weather and climate extremes and
variability, while at the same time preparing for
anticipated impacts of climate change.”
Health Sector
• “……. Climate variability and change, including sea-level
rise, are important determinants of health and of growing
concern in the Federated States of Micronesia ….”
• “…..Potential health impacts which have been identified
include: vector-borne diseases (such as dengue fever
and malaria), water-borne diseases (such as viral and
bacterial diarrhoea), diseases related to toxic algae
(such as ciguatera fish poisoning which is important in
the Federated States of Micronesia where the protein
source is predominantly fish), food-borne diseases, food
security and nutrition, heat stress, air pollution, and
extreme weather and climate events….”
Status of SDP
• Adopted during FSM 3rd Economic
Summit held March 28-April 2, 2004
• Passed and signed in to law by FSM
National Congress
• It is now the guiding document for the
Country for the next 20 years.
• 5th Year Review in 2008
Critical Success Factors
• Timing
– Integration of CC into SDP must match the preparation or
review time of such documents
• Real Examples
– It is easier for policymakers to understand issues when
given with real-time examples (e.g. Kosrae Road Project)
• Quantifying Costs and Benefits
– Policymakers get convinced easily when presented with
cost-benefits figures (e.g. Road Project)
• Consultations at all levels
– Having everybody (individual/community/policy) involved
from the beginning makes everybody understands and
therefore supports integration into national/state/community
plans
Barriers & Constraints
• Institutionalization of CC:
– Climate Change has not taken root at the National and
State Levels (too many hats)
• Data
– Lack of, and accessibility to critical data is a challenge
• Geographical Distance & Accessibility
– FSM is four countries in one….spread over a huge
distance, a challenge in travel, communications and
coordination and costs
• Limited Experts and Costs for Outside Experts
– Need to expand risk assessment to other areas is difficult
Key Lessons Learned
• Easy to Integrate but difficult to implement
– Incorporating CC in National Plans is much easier than
implementing. and downscaling down to state and local
levels
• Downscaling and Project Formulation
– National Policies (CC) need to be reflected in local plans and
into actual on the ground projects
• Technical people need to understand
– Technical individuals (engineers, planners, ) lack the
information and training to properly implement specific
requirements of policies
• Finance for additional costs need to match local timing
– Identified additional costs are not available at the required
local time for projects implementation timing.