1

Annex X Part D NAPA process country case study – Mali Table of Contents

1 Main findings 3

2 Introduction 4

2.1 Methodology 4

3 Background 4

3.1 The country 4 3.2 The climate change context 5 3.3 Timeline of LDCF involvement in Mali 7 3.4 Other activities relevant to climate change adaptation planning 8

4 How has the LDCF performed? 10

4.1 Process 10 4.2 Product 11 4.3 Catalytic effects 12

5 Factors affecting LDCF performance 13

6 Future contributions of the LDCF in Mali 15

6.1 Sustainability 15 6.2 Complementarity, coordination and coherence 16

7 Key issue: Climate change adaptation planning and delivery in the context of decentralization of governance and the role of civil society16

8 Conclusions 18

9 Annexes 20

Annex 1 – A summary of the information presented for verification, the topics discussed and the participants at the report back workshop, Bamako, Mali, March 2009. Annex 2 – Programme of work for the Mali case study Annex 3 – Key stakeholders interviewed Annex 4 – Decentralization of governance in Mali Annex 5 – GEF Small Grant Programme projects in Mali with relevance to climate adaptation Annex 6 – Summary of temporal and financial information on the Bangladesh NAPA preparation and post NAPA processes Annex 7 – NAPA priority projects

2

Annex 8 – Acronyms Annex 9 – Reports reviewed

3

1 Main findings The Mali NAPA combined expert opinion and sub-regional assessments of climate change impacts and adaptive responses. The NAPA was completed by the end of 2006. However, initiation of the top priority adaptation action derived from the NAPA and financed by the LDCF is not expected until 2010. The NAPA was the first experience in Mali of climate change adaptation planning. All stakeholders consulted considered the approach suitable for the Malian context. The sectors prioritized for adaptation actions in the different sub-regions were different. However, within the sectors priorities were similar across sub-regions. This fact was seen as corroborative evidence of the validity of the prioritization process. The traction achieved by the NAPA in development planning has not been great. It is seen as an ad hoc attempt to identify current urgent adaptation needs, rather than one to develop a strategy for addressing climate adaptation in the longer term. The NAPA links climate change effects to sectoral planning. But to be useful in Mali context the climate change adaptation planning process needs be decentralised in order to link with local planning processes under the commune system. Priority project financing provided by the LDCF is considered small in comparison to what development partners are providing to the Government of Mali for environmental policy development and sector wide approaches related to natural resources management. Stakeholders’ experience of the mechanism for accessing priority action project funding from the LDCF is that it is too slow to be considered responsive to urgent & immediate adaptation needs. However, stakeholders consider that once initiated, the priority action project selected from the NAPA for LDCF funding is considered to have good potential to leverage further support from other sources. The potential for catalytic effects of the NAPA has been large given the institutional framework that the Government of Mali has set in place with development partner assistance as a response to global environmental agreements. The NAPA is seen by various stakeholders as a starting point for viewing sectoral development issues through a climate change adaptation lens. They see this as a significant contribution of the NAPA process, but are concerned about how a momentum can be regained to carry this forward. The performance of the LDCF supported NAPA process was impaired by the need to produce a summarized report that diverted attention, and potentially resources, from the development and promotion of adaptation needs assessments that could have provided the basis for integrating adaptation into sectoral planning. Stakeholders’ suggestions for the way the LDCF might contribute in the future to climate change adaptation planning in Mali included:

4

• Providing financial resources and technical support to pilot climate change

adaptation actions for testing, demonstrating and assessment purposes. • Support climate change adaptation capacity development for Governance of

Mali agencies, relevant civil society and private sector organisations, so that Mali is better able to compete for and draw down global climate change funds when they become available.

2 Introduction Mali was chosen according to the criteria set out in the Evaluation Inception report: Mali was selected as a francophone Africa representative; the NAPA was completed relatively late in the LDCF duration – July 2007; the UNDP was the implementing agency; and, Mali being situated in the Sahel faces both uncertain climate change effects and the challenges of desertification.

2.1 Methodology The generic methodology set out in the introduction to Annex IX was employed in this case study. The case study was conducted from the 10th to 24th February 2009. The case study team included:

• Yacouba Déme – Director, Near East Foundation, • Simon Anderson – Core Evaluation Team leader

The programme of work for the case study is shown in Annex 2. The stakeholders interviewed are shown in Annex 3. Information and evidence tables were developed. Evidence was collated per stakeholder type for each evaluation area and criterion. Evidence was compared and contrasted across stakeholder groups. Areas of concurrence and disagreement were identified.

3 Background

3.1 The country Mali is a semi-arid and low income country located in north-western Africa with a warm and dry climate. It is highly susceptible to drought and desertification. Mali is located between 17 00 N and 4 00 W. It is bordered by Mauritania, Algeria, Niger and Burkina Faso and is approximately 1.2 million sq. km in area. The country consists of the Sahel transition region between Sahara desert in northern

5

part of the country and savannah in the south. It is mostly flat, with some rolling hills made of sand. 65 per cent of land area is desert or semi-desert. 14 per cent of land is usable for agriculture. The Mali’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and people are heavily dependent on agriculture for subsistence. Mali has a tremendous variety in natural environments, with a declination of climate types across its territory, ranging from the Saharian climate to the north (less than 200 mm of rainfall), to a relatively more humid tropical climate to the south (>1200 mm) – see maps below. Mali belongs to the group of Least Developed Countries (LDCs). Average income is approx USD 600 per capita (total GDP of USD 7.8 billion in 2008). The economy is heavily dependent on agriculture. However, there are considerable natural resources including limestone, gold, salt and phosphate with gold as the primary export (3rd largest in the world). The population is of approx. 12.7 million people, most of whom live close to the Niger river and in rural areas (approx. 70 per cent). The population is increasing 3 per cent annually.

3.2 The climate change context Average temperatures range from 10 to 45 ºC. The rainy season extends from late June to early December and can lead to flooding around Niger River. Impacts of increased temperatures and decreased precipitation are being registered. There is evidence that the precipitation zones across Mali have shifted south by about 200 km – see the first figure below kindly provided by colleagues at McKinsey & Co. Climate projections for Mali vary across climate models. However, indications of what might be expected include the climate hazards shown in the second figure below.

6

7

3.3 Timeline of LDCF involvement in Mali The LDCF supported the development of the Mali NAPA by providing a USD 200k grant through UNDP as the implementing agency. The NAPA was finalized towards the end of 2006 and published by UNFCCC. LDCF funds were also employed to prepare and submit the Project Identification Format. The Project Proposal Grant was approved for Mali in January 2009. At the time of writing this report the UNDP was contracting the consultants team to prepare the project proposal for submission to the LDCF. The NAPA and post-NAPA timeline is shown in the figure below.

8

The NAPA was completed on time and followed the guidelines as set out by the Least Developed Countries Expert Group (LEG) and endorsed by parties to the UNFCCC. The table below sets out the post-NAPA priority preparation timeline. Post-NAPA priority project preparation timeline (information provided by UNDP office Bamako) Activity Date NAPA completed and published December 2006 Project Identification Format submitted March 2008 Project Preparation Grant application August 2008 Project Preparation Grant approved January 2009 Project Preparation initiated March 2009 Initiation of project implementation expected by January 2010

3.4 Other activities relevant to climate change adaptation planning Decentralisation Since 1991, the third republic of Mali has developed and implemented a decentralised system of governance. In 1993 the Office of Decentralisation and Devolution (MDD) was created to help the government reform decentralisation and prepare for its implementation. In 1996, the MDD facilitated the setting out of the administrative boundaries of 701 municipalities in consultation with the population, of which 684 were rural and 19 urban. Municipal councils were put in place across the country, following municipal elections held on 2 May and 6 June 1999. Annex 4 describes how the present decentralized governance system came about and how it operates.

9

Development planning is driven by decentralized processes. Development initiatives at the local scale draw down and/ or precipitate and legitimize interventions from national agencies. This is important as regards to climate change adaptation which is recognized as being a combination of local actions within a more or less facilitative national framework. The provision of technical services to local government through advisory centres is potentially particularly significant for climate change adaptation processes. Desertification In response to the UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) the Mali Government initiated in 2006 an organisational framework for the development of environmental policy. The framework includes an inter-ministerial committee, a consultative committee, a permanent technical secretariat, a coordination unit for sustainable land management, and a technical team. This framework is supported by a set of technical and financial partners including the GTZ, UNDP, World Bank and Danida. The structure of the organisational framework is presented in the figure below.

The environmental policy development framework has the objectives of:

• enabling cross government dialogue and decision making related to sustainable land management;

10

• the alignment of financial and technical partner support with Government of Mali developed and led environmental policy;

• harmonisation of development partners in terms of support. Although as yet the environmental policy development framework deals with sustainable land management issues, the structure and function of the framework would be appropriate for dealing with climate change adaptation issues that are related to environmental policy development and implementation.

4 How has the LDCF performed? The performance of the LDCF is assessed here using the results of the consultative stakeholder interview process. Corroborative information is presented also. In the case of Mali the LDCF has been used to support the NAPA and post-NAPA processes. These were evaluated utilising evidence gathered on each area – process, product and catalytic effects – using the criteria of relevance, efficiency and effectiveness. The issues reported here draw directly from the evidence provided by stakeholders that was verified at the feedback workshop.

4.1 Process Relevance A combination of expert opinion and regional consultations were used to define priority activities. Most stakeholders considered these methods provided a rounded view of adaptation needs did not allow local priorities to be over-shadowed or worse ignored. NAPA team stakeholders pointed out that the sectors identified as being highest priority for each region were similar but the order in which they were ranked as having greatest need for adaptation actions varied between regions. The NAPA was the first experience in Mali of explicit climate change adaptation planning. Most stakeholders considered the methods used to be a reasonable approach for the Malian context. However, due to a lack of follow-up most stakeholders also considered the NAPA as an ad hoc attempt to identify current urgent adaptation needs, rather than one to develop a strategy for addressing climate adaptation in the longer term. Efficiency The NAPA guidelines were followed diligently and the report was completed on time. As with most other NAPAs, a combination of expert opinion and local consultation was used to develop and apply a form of multi-criteria analysis. Neither cost effectiveness assessment nor cost benefit analysis were used. Most, if not all, stakeholders considered the post NAPA LDCF supported processes to be sluggish and overly complex in terms of the PIF preparation and approval process.

11

Effectiveness The NAPA links climate change effects to sectoral planning. But to be useful in Malian context, the climate change adaptation planning process needs be decentralised in order to link with local planning processes under the commune system. Both government and non-government stakeholders pointed to a lack of awareness of climate change issues as limiting the ways the climate adaptation challenges have so far been addressed by and across Government agencies. In addition, to a dearth of human resource capacity stakeholders identified a paucity of climate projection information as a limiting factor to technical service provider agencies that impairs their capability to address climate change adaptation issues in planning. Monsoonal West Africa is a particularly difficult climate system to model. Although stakeholders recognised the NAPA as a starting point for climate change adaptation planning, they also expressed concerns that the integration of adaptation planning into other major policy areas (such as poverty reduction) has not happened as yet.

4.2 Product Relevance A wide array of sectoral and regional studies were developed as part of the NAPA process. These were then aggregated as the evidence from which to define national scale priorities. Further squeezing of evidence occurred to allow the preparation of a summarized NAPA report format. This meant that detailed sub-regional assessments were not included in the final report nor published, thereby reducing the value of the product. It was noted by the NAPA team stakeholders that the sectors prioritized for adaptation actions in the different sub-regions were different. However, the within- sector priorities were similar across sub-regions. This fact was seen as corroborative evidence of the validity of the prioritization process. The NAPA guidelines state that urgent and immediate adaptation needs are those that a further delay in addressing could increase vulnerability or lead to increased costs at a later stage. Cost data was not available and/ or not generated in the NAPA process. It is considered therefore that urgent and immediate adaptation needs were not clearly defined during the NAPA process, or in the NAPA report itself. Similarly, stakeholders stated that “additional” adaptation costs, as compared to the cost of development, were not addressed in the NAPA. Efficiency Stakeholders from different groups agreed that the technical inputs and procedural requirements of the LDCF in terms both of preparing the NAPA and then the applications for the priority action implementation projects are out of balance with

12

the resources available from LDCF for climate change adaptation planning and implementation. As an example, the Government of Mali is currently negotiating a sector wide approach programme for the water sector. The financial resources available from donors agencies for this initiative are several orders of magnitude more than those available from the LDCF yet the planning and transaction costs of securing the funding are considered by the Government of Mali and development partner stakeholders to no more onerous than those of the LDCF. Effectiveness The NAPA report has become the official climate change adaptation document and is used by the Government of Mali for orientation on climate change effects and adaptation response measures. To this extent the NAPA has filled a gap in the high level planning arena. However, the NAPA has not been conceived as a planning tool by Government or other stakeholders and it has not been reported as being utilised in the development of sectoral plans at either national or decentralised scales. Stakeholders from different Government of Mali agencies and elsewhere in Mali do not consider that the importance of the urgent & immediate adaptation needs identified in the NAPA have been reflected in the response to applications for priority project development by the LDCF. These stakeholders perceive incongruence between the way the NAPA process effectively identified adaptation priorities and the pace with which the LDCF procedures have been carried through to enable a funding response. Many of the stakeholders interviewed are well aware of planning requirements and processes. They correctly recognise climate change to be a long-term process of both sudden and delayed onset effects. There is widespread realisation therefore that the NAPA needs to be regularly updated to be of value in longer term planning so as to provide a baseline against which to address needs and to assess the effectiveness of adaptation actions.

4.3 Catalytic effects Relevance From the evidence revealed through interviews and secondary sources it was clear that the NAPA opened up thinking within the Government of Mali to climate change adaptation issues in those agencies involved in the process. However, evidence from Government of Mali line agencies relevant to adaptation e.g. agriculture, not involved in the NAPA suggested that much work is still needed to mainstream climate change awareness. The endpoint envelope in terms of priority project financing provided by the LDCF is considered small in comparison to what development partners are providing to Government of Mali for environmental policy development and sector wide approaches related to natural resources management. In addition, from experience the mechanism for accessing priority action project funding from the LDCF is seen as too slow to be considered responsive to urgent & immediate needs. Having said

13

that, stakeholders consider that once initiated, the priority action project selected from the NAPA list for LDCF funding is considered to have good potential to leverage further support from other sources. Efficiency The opinion of stakeholders outside of the NAPA team was that the capacity of the individuals contracted as consultants for the NAPA were built through the experience of doing the work, but that this included few people from relevant Government institutions. However, a significant proportion of the NAPA team consultants work in public sector agencies and are available for Government of Mali projects and initiatives. Effectiveness An interesting perception of the NAPA held by various stakeholders was of it as a starting point for viewing sectoral development issues through a climate change adaptation lens. Stakeholders saw this as a significant contribution of the NAPA process but concern was expressed as to ways of carrying this forward. The potential for catalytic effects of the NAPA is large given the institutional framework that the Government of Mali has set in place with development partner assistance as a response to global environmental agreements (i.e. the Inter-Ministerial Committee, the Consultative Committee, the Permanent Technical Secretariat (STP) etc.). The STP is creating a national committee for climate change and it is possible that this body will be able to link to Government of Mali ministries that have line agencies through which adaptation actions can be put into operation. Civil society stakeholders identified as important the instigation of climate change adaptation oriented M&E approaches for development interventions and investments that thereby are used to measure achievements in terms of climate change adaptation co-benefits of diverse interventions.

5 Factors affecting LDCF performance In this section factors that affected the performance of the LDCF – as manifested through the NAPA and post NAPA processes – are discussed. These factors are largely related to the design and structure of the Fund, the way the Fund functioned, and the way implementation was managed between the GEF Agency and the Government of Mali. The purpose is to identify ways of improving performance in any subsequent phase of the LDCF not to critique retrospectively. The Mali NAPA process was completed on time and to budget. The NAPA report is a summary of a far more detailed prioritisation of findings from sectoral and sub-regional perspectives. The summary plus the sectoral and sub-regional reports are outputs of real value and represent a good return on the funds invested.

14

However, the LDCF supported process led to a selective narrowing of the findings in order to produce a NAPA report that met expectations set out in UNFCCC NAPA guidelines of “simplified and direct channel(s) of communication for information relating to the urgent and immediate adaptation needs of the LDC(s)”. The time line in section 3. c above indicates how the planning interests of the Government of Mali and development partners to some extent diverged from those of the NAPA process. The objectivity of a prioritization process of adaptation actions in the absence of relative costs and benefits information is questionable, particularly where experts base opinions on limited experience. Integrating the needs for climate change adaptation into sectoral development requires detailed location specific assessments of effects, costs, responses and benefits, rather than summarized lists of priorities selected across sectors and sub-regions. It is contended that the performance of NAPA process was impaired by the need to produce a summarized report that diverted attention, and potentially resources, from the development and promotion of adaptation needs assessments that could have provided the basis for integrating adaptation into sectoral planning. The overriding prerogative of the NAPA process of prioritisation and focusing in on too few activities that are then taken forward for implementation threatens to undervalue the exercise – especially if ways are not found to address priorities that fail for whatever reason to make it into the very top rank. It is now more than two years since the Mali NAPA was published and neither Government of Mali nor the GEF Agency officials expect there to be any implementation of NAPA priority activities using LDCF finances until 2010. This in effect represents a hiatus in climate change adaptation actions. The post NAPA phase of translating NAPA priorities through PIF, PPG and project proposal into an implementation project is often opaque to those not involved in the procedures. This phase in Mali is already longer than it took to prepare the NAPA. Whilst the LDCF is expected to fund adaptation priorities there is little incentive for the Government of Mali or development partners to attend to these needs. In addition, the singular ‘projectised’ nature of the post NAPA phase has the effect of reducing the opportunities for coordination with wider development initiatives. How can the performance of the LDCF be improved? Leading stakeholders from the Government of Mali climate change related organisations clearly expressed their view that access to the LDCF funds should be made more expeditious. GEF Agency stakeholders consider that this could be achieved either by enabling direct access for LDC governments, or by a decentralisation of decision making by having regional scale fund allocation mechanisms, or by allowing equal allocations per country from the available funds. In addition, stakeholders considered it pertinent for the LDCF to allow applications to the LDCF in French – a recognised UN language. This would allow francophone countries to have greater parity of access to the LDCF with Anglophone countries.

15

Development planning in Mali, in common with other countries learning from the aid effectiveness assessments, is taking on more programmatic approaches. Under such circumstances funding from the LDCF should be targeted at integration into such programmatic approaches to climate change adaptation at the national scale. Stakeholders recognised this and went further to suggest as a complement to this the LDCF should support targeted mechanisms for funding to facilitate climate change adaptation by vulnerable groups and the poor in vulnerable locations should be designed for operation within countries, or specific vulnerable cross border areas. What roles should the LDCF have in supporting climate change adaptation planning and implementation in Mali over the next three to five years? The following suggestions arose through discussions with different stakeholders in interviews and in the report back workshop at the conclusion of the country visit. • The LDCF should provide financial resources and technical support to pilot

climate change adaptation actions for testing, demonstrating and assessment purposes.

• The LDCF should support climate change adaptation capacity development for

Government of Mali agencies, relevant civil society and private sector organisations, so that Mali is better able to compete for and draw down global climate change funds when they become available.

6 Future contributions of the LDCF in Mali

6.1 Sustainability The technical sustainability – the legacy of the NAPA findings – of the LDCF supported activities in Mali, as elsewhere, is predicated to a large extent on the institutional sustainability – the capability of organizations to comprehend and action climate change adaptation. The GEF Agency and Government of Mali partners employed consultants from research organisations and the private sector to carry out the NAPA. Better integration of Government of Mali technical expertise in the NAPA team and follow-up project applications would have contributed more to institutional capacity development in the public sector. At the senior level of the Government of Mali and in relations with development partners the NAPA report is recognised as the official climate change adaptation document. The report is used as the basis for orientation on climate change effects and response measures. However, the evaluation visit did not find evidence of bi-lateral donors partners explicitly supporting NAPA priority actions.

16

6.2 Complementarity, coordination and coherence Concern about the effects of climate change and the ways these will escalate over time coupled to knowledge about the NAPA process and findings has contributed to awareness in civil society and the public sector of the need to renew the NAPA and to use it as a baseline for assessing the effectiveness of future climate change adaptation interventions. This alone speaks volumes about the potential sustainability of NAPA related actions and about the potential for sustaining the impact of LDCF supported activities. The Government of Mali and development partners are negotiating Sector Wide Approaches (agriculture and water), plus direct budgetary support agreements. These provide great opportunities to include elements of climate change adaptation in public sector planning and implementation at central and local scales. As discussed in the previous section, opportunities for developing coherence between LDCF supported actions and sectoral development have not been taken as yet.

7 Key issue: Climate change adaptation planning and delivery in the context of decentralization of governance and the role of civil society

Integrating climate change adaptation into local development needs the engagement of local governments, community groups, civil society and businesses. To be able to convene these players local government authorities require the status of legitimate decision-makers. Linking adaptation planning to wider decentralization of governance systems is a way to initiate this. In addition, local awareness-raising and targeted messaging on climate change is required. Information needs generated that speaks to and informs people about local circumstances and climate change effects. People need to know why they might have to take adaptive actions. Appropriate information is needed to inform local-level adaptation decisions. This information and the subsequent planning must look at both sudden and longer term onset of climate change effects. The OECD-DAC identify four entry points to integrate climate change adaptation into local development planning processes1:

• consideration of climate change implications in development planning processes of local governments;

• adjustment of local regulatory and service provision frameworks, to include provision of information based on likely local impacts of climate change;

• adjustment of local government accountability mechanisms;

1 See OECD– DAC, Environmental Policy Committee “Policy Guidance on Integrating Climate Change Adaptation into Development Co-operation” Pre-publication version, April, 2009.

17

• and, engagement of private-sector and civil society organisations and processes, which can support adaptation at the local level by internalising and institutionalising climate risk management into their own decision-making processes and operations.

This policy guidance forms a framework showing how climate change adaptation assessment and planning that operates at the sub-regional scale – as the NAPA process in Mali did – linked to processes of decentralized governance could facilitate a basis for the development of an effective interface between planned and autonomous at the local scale. The Government of Mali is implementing a decentralisation process whereby local government processes of resource allocation and planning at the commune scale are becoming increasingly important. At the same time the Government has indicated its concern and engagement with environmental policy development and implementation, particularly in regard to sustainable land management. This concern has met with development partner support. Indeed, such is the positive assessment by development partners of the improvement in national governance in Mali that sector wide approaches and direct budgetary support for public sector investments are being negotiated and planned. These circumstances appear to be very conducive for climate change adaptation planning and implementation at local scales. However, the progress achieved on the implementation of the NAPA priorities is slow relative to the other environmental development initiatives and the opportunities to mainstream ways to address climate change challenges by the public sector are not being taken. This situation is indicative of the inertia inherent in the design of the LDCF. A programme based upon cumbersome and segmented procedural elements will always find it difficult to respond opportunistically to changing circumstances. The OECD-DAC guidance for integrating climate change adaptation into local development also emphasizes the role of civil society – see the last bullet above. The logic and sense of convening civil society and local organisations that are effective actors in local development into processes of climate change adaptation is clear – particularly where local government rely on such elements for the delivery services. This reveals a potential synergy between decentralisation of governance and the role of civil society in climate change adaptation. In the case of Mali, the priority activities identified in the NAPA achieved the approval of all stakeholders types interviewed during the case study. However, some civil society stakeholders consider that though their representatives were consulted at the outset of the NAPA process, they were not involved in the subsequent prioritisation process. In addition, civil society stakeholders expressed concerns that their contribution to the delivery of climate adaptation – particularly for the most vulnerable – has not gained adequate recognition on behalf of the Government.

18

The GEF Agency in Mali (UNDP) for the purposes of the LDCF supported activities is directly linked into the Ministry of Environment. The same ministry hosts staff that coordinate the GEF Small Grants Programme which provides financial resources for environment projects proposed by among others civil society groups. Some of the projects have activities relevant to climate adaptation – see the list in Annex 5. Therefore, mechanisms exist in Mali for civil society involvement in climate change relevant actions. However, the comparative advantage of civil society groups in LDCF supported processes has not been brought in to the degree stakeholders would consider appropriate.

8 Conclusions Current shifts in rainfall patterns and temperature rise indicate that climate change effects in Mali could be significant over the next decades. The Government of Mali has put in place an institutional framework to enable the development of environmental policy. The framework includes an inter-ministerial committee, a consultative committee, a permanent technical secretariat, a coordination unit for sustainable land management, and a technical team. Concurrently, Mali is in the process of decentralization of its governance system which is designed to result in greater empowerment of local governance for local development planning. The Mali NAPA combined expert opinion and sub-regional assessments of climate change impacts and adaptive responses. The NAPA was completed by the end of 2006. However, initiation of the top priority adaptation action derived from the NAPA and financed by the LDCF is not expected until 2010. The NAPA was the first experience in Mali of explicit climate change adaptation planning. Stakeholders consider the approach suitable for the Malian context. The sectors prioritized for adaptation actions in the different sub-regions were different. However, the within sector priorities were similar across sub-regions. This fact was seen as corroborative evidence of the validity of the prioritization process. The traction achieved by the NAPA in development planning has not been great. Rather it is seen as an ad hoc attempt to identify current urgent adaptation needs, rather than one to develop a strategy for addressing climate adaptation in the longer term. The NAPA links climate change effects to sectoral planning. But to be useful in Mali context the climate change adaptation planning process also needs be decentralised in order to link with local planning processes under the commune system. Priority project financing provided by the LDCF is considered small in comparison to what development partners are providing to the Government of Mali for environmental policy development and sector wide approaches related to natural resources management. Stakeholders’ experience of the mechanism for accessing priority action project funding from the LDCF is that it is too slow to be considered

19

responsive to urgent & immediate adaptation needs. However, stakeholders consider that once initiated, the priority action project selected from the NAPA for LDCF funding is considered to have good potential to leverage further support from other sources. The potential for catalytic effects of the NAPA has been large given the institutional framework that the Government of Mali has set in place with development partner assistance as a response to global environmental agreements. The NAPA is seen by various stakeholders as a starting point for viewing sectoral development issues through a climate change adaptation lens. They see this as a significant contribution of the NAPA process, but are concerned about how a momentum can be regained to carry this forward. Integrating the needs for climate change adaptation into sectoral development requires detailed location specific assessments of effects, costs, responses and benefits, rather than summarized lists of priorities selected across sectors and sub-regions. It is contended that the performance of the LDCF supported NAPA process was impaired by the need to produce a summarized report that diverted attention, and potentially resources, from the development and promotion of adaptation needs assessments that could have provided the basis for integrating adaptation into sectoral planning. Stakeholders’ suggestions for the way the LDCF might contribute in the future to climate change adaptation planning in Mali include providing financial resources and technical support to pilot climate change adaptation actions for testing, demonstrating and assessment purposes; and , supporting climate change adaptation capacity development for Government of Mali agencies, relevant civil society and private sector organisations, so that Mali is better able to compete for and draw down global climate change funds when they become available.

20

9 Annexes

Annex 1 A summary of the information presented for verification, the topics discussed and the participants at the report back workshop Evaluation Criteria/ Area

Key question Findings

Relevance/ Process

Was the NAPA process suited to local and national development priorities?

Combination of expert opinion and regional consultations NAPA first experience of such planning –reasonable and suitable method NAPA was an ad hoc process for identifying urgent needs

Relevance/ Product

Relevance & feasibility NAPA priorities to address CCA

Aggregating evidence and squeezing into summary meant loss of detail and reduced the value of the product Regions had different priority sectors but within sector priorities similar across regions Urgent & immediate adaptation needs not clearly defined “Additional” adaptation costs compared to development not addressed

Relevance/ Catalytic effects

Relevance to and inclusion in national development strategies?

NAPA process opened up thinking in GoM to CCA issues The endpoint envelope small, in addition the access is too slow /not responsive LDCF procedures for follow-up projects supported project could leverage further support for CCA from other sources

Efficiency/ Process

Efficiency of the NAPA process?

NAPA guidelines followed and report completed on time LDCF considered sluggish and overly complex

Efficiency/ Product

Cost-efficiency of producing the NAPA?

Inputs and procedural requirements of the LDCF for getting access to funds for follow-up projects are out of balance with the resources available from LDCF for CCA planning

Efficiency/ Catalytic effects

Improved institutional capability in addressing CCA?

Individuals’ capacity built of those involved in the NAPA, but not of the institutions

Effectiveness/ Process

Extent to which bankable adaptation activities and priorities identified?

NAPA a starting point – now needs to be integrated into other major policy areas such as poverty reduction NAPA links CC to sectoral planning but also needs to be decentralised to link

with local planning processes under commune system Awareness of CC is limiting the ways the challenges are addressed across Govt

Effectiveness/ Product

How effectively has the NAPA report contributed to bringing about urgent & immediate CCA interventions?

The NAPA is the official CCA document and is used for orientation on CC effects & measures NAPA not conceived as a planning tool Importance of Urgent & Immediate adaptation needs have not been reflected in the response of the LDCF

Effectiveness/ Catalytic effects

Inclusion & coordination of CCA through the NAPA with national and sector development policies, strategies & plans?

NAPA a starting point in viewing sectoral issues through a CCA lens Potential for catalytic effects is large given government response to global environmental agreements (Inter-ministerial committee, consultative committee, STP etc.) STP is creating a national committee for climate change

Sustainability/ Process

GoB ownership of NAPA process and outcomes and commitment to follow-up by GoB and development partners?

Use of consultants and research organisations rather than GoM technical expertise to prepare NAPA and follow-up applications reduces sustainable effects within institutional framework Awareness of need to renew the NAPA and to use as a baseline for CCA interventions

Sustainability/ Product

Lasting value of NAPA outputs?

The NAPA is the official CCA document and is being used as the basis for orientation on CC effects & measures

Sustainability/ Catalytic effects

The current and future synergies of LDC Fund with general development funding, i.e. ODA, private sector investments and Government development budgets?

GoM and development partners are negotiating Sector Wide Approaches (agriculture and water) plus direct budgetary support agreements – these provide opportunities to include CCA planning and implementation

Looking forward

How can the performance of the LDCF be improved?

“Expeditious and/ or direct access” – decentralise the decision making process by (i) having regional level fund allocation or (ii) equal allocations per country Allow applications in French Target CCA funding to programmatic

approaches at the national scale Target CCA funding to vulnerable groups and vulnerable locations at sub-regional scale

Looking forward

What roles should the LDCF have in supporting CCA planning and implementation in Mali over the next three to five years?

Provide financial resources and technical support to pilot CCA programmes for testing, demonstrating and assessment purposes Support CCA capacity development within the GoM so that Mali able to compete for global CCA funds when available Provide counter-part funding and/ or interest payments on loans for CCA from Regional Development Bank and World Bank

Annex 2 Programme of work for the Mali case study Activities Outputs Documentary review Activities and results from different stages of the

NAPA and post-NAPA process to establish a corroborated version of events, processes and outcomes.

Visits to climate vulnerable communities

Testimonials from people faced with need to adapt; Firsthand appreciation of climate change effects; Ground-truthing of the complexity of CCA planning at local level.

Key stakeholder interviews selected on the basis of being representatives of the key stakeholder groups

Timeline of events; Perspectives from different individuals and groups on issues related to the evaluation areas and criteria; Inter-organisational map.

Multi-stakeholder report back workshop

Validation of evidence collected; Testing and sharpening of interpretation by case study team; Discussion of possible futures for LDCF.

Annex 3 Key stakeholders interviewed

Name Position Organisation Mama KONATE

UNFCCC Focal Point Directeur National de la Météo

Direction Nationale de la Météo

Birama Diarra Chef division recherche et développement

Direction Nationale de la Météo

Daouda Z Diarra Direction Nationale de la Météo

Mamadou Gakou Directeur du STP/CIGQE STP/CIGQE Boubacar Sidiki DEMBELE STP/adjoint

Point focal MDP/CDM STP/CIGQE

Mme Keïta Aïda Mbo Tête de fil mise en œuvre PANA

PNUD

Alamir Sina TOURE Représentant FEM/UNEP Point focal Biodiversité

STP/CIGQE

Mme Fatim DIALLO Présidente adjointe FENAFER Abdoulaye BAYOGO Coordinateur Equipe

PANA Chef de projet seconde communication nationale du Mali au titre d’UNFCCC

CNRST/ISFRA

Lanceny Diallo SDI Celestin Dembele INTERCOOPERATION Souleymane Ouattara CPS (Cellule de

Planification et Statistique) Ministère de l’Agriculture

Ibrahim TOGOLA Président Mali-Folkecenter Mme Oumou TOURE Présidente de la CAFO CAFO Dembele Ouleymatou Sow

Présidente FENACOF

Oumar Salim Mohamed KABA

Point focal PMF/FEM-Mali

Ousmane SAMASSEKOU KATENE KADJI Mamby Fofana ASDI Oumar Sango Coordinateur AMADE/PELCODE Mory Moussa KONATE Directeur Exécutif SECO/ONG Aly Bocoum Coordinateur Programme

d’Appui à la Gestion des Ressources Naturelles

NEF

Yamadou Diallo Coordinateur Programme d’Appui à la Décentralisation et aux Organisations Paysannes

NEF

Abdourahamane Diop Coordinateur Programme d’Appui à l’Agriculture

NEF

Daouda Cissé Responsable de la Cellule NEF

Hydraulique

Siaka Togola ONG AMAPROS Siaka Samaké ONG DONKO Mory Kaba Diakité ONG ADESCOM Yongmi Schibel ONG SECO/ONG Odiouma Coulibaly ONG SECO/ONG Bakary Konaré ONG SECO/ONG Abdrahamane DEME Fédération de collectifs

féminins FENACOF Nyedakuta

Annex 4 Decentralization of governance in Mali At a national conference in 1991, work began on a new constitution that among other things recognised the basic principles of decentralisation. In 1993 the Office of Decentralisation and Devolution (MDD) was created to help the government reform decentralisation and prepare for its implementation. In 1996, as part of a nationwide initiative, the MDD facilitated the setting out of the administrative boundaries of 701 municipalities in consultation with the population, of which 684 were rural and 19 urban. Municipal councils were put in place across the country following municipal elections held on 2 May and 6 June 1999. The system of administrative organisation in Mali consists of three levels of local government: regional, district and municipal. There is no hierarchical relationship between these three entities. Municipalities are composed of several villages and/or groupings or neighbourhoods, and are managed by a council whose size varies according to the population of the municipality. This council elects the mayor, who occupies the municipal office for five years along with his or her deputies. Each municipality selects representatives to sit on the indirectly elected district council, which is responsible for managing the district. Regional assemblies are elected from the district councils. Municipalities are supervised by prefects, whose duties include ensuring that municipal proceedings conform to government legislation and endorsing municipal development plans, which require prefectural approval to release state funding for their proposed investments. The administration and other state technical services support and advise municipal councils according to their competences and opportunities. Because their capacity to deliver support and advice is limited by low levels of education in rural areas, the State and its development partners have designed a national programme to support local governments. In 2000 the State established the first CCCs (Municipal Advisory Centres) to underpin the technical support system for local governments. It receives substantial backing from donors for this initiative: the French Development Agency funds CCC managers in the region of Sikasso, and has selected a consultancy firm for each district on the basis of tenders submitted. As the official support and advisory structures for municipalities, CCCs are specifically mandated to implement the terms and conditions set by the Malian government through the DNCT (National Office for Local Governments) and the CCN. They are responsible for providing support and advice on areas within their jurisdiction, increasing understanding of the municipalities’ roles and responsibilities, and overseeing the running of local advisory committees. CCCs operate according to fairly strict terms and conditions, devoting a large part of their time to building the capacities of the mayor, his deputies, and municipal staff, helping prepare investment proposals for submission to the ANICT, and tenders for public works. They also collaborate with NGOs, the consultancy firms and the deconcentrated state technical services, which are having to adapt their intervention approach to the new context of devolution.

Annex 5 GEF Small Grant Programme projects in Mali with relevance to climate adaptation [information kindly provided by Oumar Salim Mohamed Kaba, National Coordinator, GEF SGP, Mali] Restauration des écosystèmes dégradés de Tinkélé, MALI (MLI/06/18) Grant Amount: $ 36,465.56 Grantee: SURVIE AU SAHEL Le projet d’appui à la restauration de la diversité biologique de la zone de Tinkélé est un projet de réhabilitation des écosystèmes dégradés et de lutte contre la pauvreté axée sur la récupération des terres et des eaux de surface, la production ... Dates: 2/2007 - 12/2008 Projet de valorisation du Kinkéliba et de restauration des terres dans les communes rurales de Baya et de Tangadougou, MALI (MLI/06/19) Grant Amount: $ 31,674.70 Grantee: Association pour le Développement Urbain et Rura Le présent projet de valorisation du Kinkéliba et de restauration des terres dans les communes rurales de Baya et de Tangadougou est une initiative du programme de micro – financement du fonds pour l’environnement mondial « PMF/FEM ». Il est issu des ... Dates: 2/2007 - 12/2008 Projet de développement de l’apiculture et de la pisciculture modernes, pour la Protection de la flore et de la faune, du flanc ouest de la chaîne du Tambaoura, et du long des cours d’eaux, dans la zone aurifère de Kéniéba, MALI (MLI/06/23) Grant Amount: $ 40,824.86 Grantee: Mine-Environnement-Santé et Action de Développement à Kéniéba Ce projet vise à Gérer la forte pression actuelle sur l’environnement, et à Prévenir les menaces sur l’équilibre écologique dans le cercle de Kéniéba, qui abrite deux mines industrielles en exploitation (la mine de Loulo et celle de Tabacoto). ... Dates: 2/2007 - 12/2008

Annex 6. NAPA priority projects

Annex 7. Summary of temporal and financial information on the Bangladesh NAPA preparation and post NAPA processes Mali prepared the NAPA with UNDP as GEF Agency. The NAPA preparation grant of USD 200,000 was approved in December 2003. The completion date of the NAPA was December 2007 implying a duration of 1,461 days or four years, which is the third fasted of the five case country countries and came in 22 of the 39 LCDs who have finalised their NAPA.

After the NAPA approval Mali started preparing the PIF and submitted their PIF to the LCDF Secretariat for approval on 10th of September 2008. The first PIF was not approved and a Review Sheet was prepared by the LCDF Secretariat and returned to UNDP with a description of the issues blocking the proposal from being cleared. Mali was subsequently requested to resubmit the PIF.

Mali resubmitted the PIF requesting approval of the PIF and it was received by the LCDF Secretariat on the 3rd of November 2008. The project "Enhancing adaptive capacity and resilience to climate change in the agriculture sector in Mali" was above USD 2 million and needed to be web posted for approval for four weeks for possible objections. The project was cleared for work program inclusion by the CEO on 12th of January 2009 and was web posted for four weeks for Council Review. The Mali project was Council approved on the 9th of February 2009.

Mali submitted a request for obtaining a project preparation grant (PPG) of USD 100,000 on the 10th of September 2008 together with the first PIF. However the PGG can only be approved when the PIF has been approved and the CEO approved the PPG grant on the 13th of January 20092.

Funds for the estimated Project Grant and the Agency Fees were automatically reserved or set aside for the project after Council approval in February 2009. The PGG is approved separately.

The table below provides summary statistics on the Mali NAPA priority project.

Enhancing adaptive capacity and resilience to climate change in the agriculture sector in Mali

PPG (Approved)

Project Grant (Expected approved)

Agency Fee (Expected approved)

LDCF Total Costs

(Expected approved)

Co-financing Total

(Expected approved)

Total Project Cost (Expected

approved)

100,000 3,000,000 310,000 3,410,000 6,865,000 10,275,000

2 The LCDF will newer approve a project preparation grant unless it was found eligible for PIF financing.

Mali has thus requested financing from LDCF of USD 3.4 million and the co-financing comprised USD 6.9 million giving a total project cost of USD 10.3 million. The LDCF, including the PPG, Agency fees and the Project Grant, financing comprised approximately 33% of the Total Project Cost.

The Agency Fee was equal to 10% of the PGG and the Project Grant or 9.1% of the Total LDCF Costs. The Agency fee in terms of the direct Project Grant constituted 10.3%.

For every USD financed by the LCDF the co-financing is 2.01 USD. This implies that the LCDF finances around half the Total Project Cost.

For Mali USD 200,000 has been disbursed for the NAPA preparation only.

Annex 8. Acronyms GDP – Gross Domestic Product LDCs – Least Developed Countries LEG – Least Developed Countries Expert Group MDD – Office of Decentralisation and Devolution UNCCD – UN Convention to Combat Desertification STP – Permanent Technical Secretariat Annex 9. Reports reviewed

CNRST, 2000 : Communication initiale du Mali sur les Changements Climatiques

CSLP, 2006 : Cadre Stratégique pour la Croissance et la Réduction de la Pauvreté. CSLP

2ième génération 2007- 2011.

Economics of Adaptation Case Study Country: Mali. McKinsey & Company draft report March, 2009.

Etat des lieux changements climatiques au Mali. Rapport d’étude. Inter-cooperation Sahel Delegation. (2007)

Projet Climat /CNRST, 2003 : Elaboration d’un scénario climatique pour le Mali

Projet Climat /CNRST, 2003 : Vulnérabilité et adaptation du maïs et du coton

aux changements climatiques au Mali.

Projet Climat /CNRST, 2003 : Vulnérabilité et adaptation des ressources en eau

aux effets des changements climatiques dans les bassins du Sankarani et du

Baoulé.

Projet PANA /CNRST, 2007 : Programme d’Action National d’Adaptation aux

Changements Climatiques au Mali

PNAE/CID Table Ronde Sectorielle sur le Financement 27, 28, 29de l’Environnement

Mai 1999

SDI – Service de Développement Intégré (2007). Concertations communautaires – identification et choix des actions d’adaptation aux effets nefastes des changements climatiques. Rapport de realisation regions de segou (site a Cinzana), koulikoro (site a Binko), sikasso (site a Gouanan).

The World Bank Report on the African Regional Workshop on February 1997

The World Bank :Programme de la coopération Mali- Banque Mondiale 1995

The World Bank : La coopération Mali – Banque Mondiale 1996

The World Bank Partenariat Mali – Banque Mondiale ; période 1997, 1998 1999

République du Mali, 2005 : Rapport de mise en oeuvre du CSLP. Années 2003 et 2004