Appraising Adaptation Actions

Appraising Adaptation Actions

LEG regional workshop on National Adaptation Plans for Anglophone Africa

Session: Appraisal, costing and ranking adaptation options

Stephanie Allan, Elisabeth Resch, Marcela Tarazona

OverviewBackground: the ACT programme

The purpose of CC Appraisal

Measuring CC relevance (CC%)

Basic principles of CC Impact Assessment (CCIA)

Different methodologies for CCIA

Integrating CCIA into the planning and budgeting process

Exercise

© 2016 OXFORD POLICY MANAGEMENT LTD 2

Introduction to ACT•£23 Million UK-AID funded initiative managed by Oxford Policy Management, 2014-2019.

•Provides technical support to national and subnational governments in 4 South Asian Countries to mainstream climate change resilience into sectoral policies, programmes, plans and budgets.

•Main outcome areas are increased capacity, systems and policy enhancements, knowledge generation, and budgets shaped and finance accessed.

•Work stream in climate finance – two presentations of today.

•OPM is a leading international development consulting, that enables strategic decision-makers to design and implement sustainable solutions in low- and middle-income countries.

The Purpose of Climate Change AppraisalAs the squeeze on the public finances bites, public funders have to make difficult decisions between competing investment proposals.

CC affects the performance of a wide variety of public expenditure programmes but is often overlooked/misunderstood by those managing the finances

CC appraisal provides a systematic means of identifying and refining the adaptation/mitigation elements of the programme to support greater consistency and transparency in government decision-making.


The Purpose of Climate Change AppraisalCC appraisal can:

help managers to make the case for financing an adaption action, either in the budget or through climate funds.

be used to prioritise between competing adaptation actions

be used for monitoring purposes, to estimate the total expenditure on CC (e.g. through climate budget scoring).


This Session is to help ensure you, as adaptation focal

persons, can undertake CC appraisal and clearly

communicate it to your colleagues and decision-

makers.

Estimating CC relevanceAt the heart of climate change appraisal is the need to estimate CC relevance (CC%)

This stems from the problem that climate change adaptation measures are usually part and parcel of broader programmes that promote sustainable development

In an effort to estimate the extent to which a programme addresses CC, Governments are employing various measures of ‘CC relevance’ (or CC%).


Two schools of through around CC relevanceObjectives-based

Assessment of the extent to which CC is part of the explicit or implicit objectives of the programme

Derived from review of project documents/ judgement by managers

Typical values: 75% + where CC is a primary objective; 25-75% where it is one of a mix of objectives; 25% or less it is a secondary/implicit objective.

+ Intuitive, quick, low cost

− Subjective, vulnerable to “green-washing”


Benefits-based

Assessment of the proportion of total

benefits from the programme that are

associated with adaptation & mitigation

Derived from review of project impacts &

how CC affects them (CCIA)

Typical values: 1-10% where ad/mit account

for a limited portion of benefits, 33% where

they are a substantial portion.

+ Rigorous, credible, less subjective

− Requires training, can be time consuming in

its most elaborate form

Climate Change Impact Appraisal (CCIA)CCIA is an impact analysis tool. It complements other impact analysis tools like CBA, environmental impact analysis, poverty and social impact analysis

CCIA assesses the full costs of a programme and the full array of benefits

It arrives at a score for CC relevance (CC%) which indicates what portion of the expected benefits are due to adaptation to CC impacts


Total Benefits =

• economic (EC%) +

• social (SO%) +

• environmental (EV%) +

• adaptation (AD%) +

• mitigation (MI%)

CC% = AD% + MI%

A high CC% does not, in itself, justify funding; however, it does indicate that the

programme should be given higher priority because of CC.

CCIA: example


Typical values of CC% calculated under CCIA


Sustainable Development Climate Change CC%

EC% SO% EV% MI% AD% Total

Highest CC Relevance

CC Planning, Management, Capacity, Studies 0 0 0 100 100

Hydrometeorology, Early Warning 40-50 10-20 0 0 33 33

Irrigation and Drainage 50-70 5-20 0-5 0 10-33 10-33

Flood Protection/Proofing 40-50 10-20 0 0 33 33

Disaster Risk Reduction and Management 25-50 25-50 0-10 0 33 33

Middle CC Relevance

Agriculture, Rural Devpt, Food Security 40-50 10-20 0-10 0-5 5-20 5-25

Forest Management 20-50 5-20 30-50 5-20 5-20 10-40

Renewable Energy 70-90 0-10 0-10 5-20 0-5 5-25

Energy Efficiency 70-90 0-10 0-10 5-20 0-5 5-25

Lower CC Relevance

Livelihoods for General Households 50-70 20-30 0 0 5-10 5-10

General Infrastructure (roads, urban …) 90-99 0-10 0 0-1 1-5 1-5

Sanitation and Waste 20-30 20-30 50-75 0-5 5-15 5-20

Uncertain

Fisheries, Aquaculture 40-50 10-20 0-10 More research needed

Biodiversity, Wildlife, Eco-tourism 0-25 0-10 75-100 Variable/site specific

Methodologies for Calculating CCIACCIA is an impact analysis tool. It complements other impact analysis tools like CBA, environmental impact analysis, poverty and social impact analysis

In most cases, a rapid CCIA is sufficient, assuming some evidence is readily available and can be supplemented with expert opinion

◦ This has the benefits of being quick to apply (making the most of brief windows of opportunity, such as during in the budget preparation process), and amenable to widespread rollout across government

For larger programmes, a more in-depth quantitative CCIA may be called for

◦ This is a CBA-type analysis. It is more robust, but requires substantial amounts of data and expertise in economic modelling/CBA


Option 1: Rapid CCIARapid CCIA can be conducted across a range of actions in no more than a few hours.

It is particularly useful when the assessor has a lot of actions to review (e.g. to classify all the actions in a NAP/NAPA, or all the actions in a budget)

Analysts will typically compile the easily available evidence. There will usually be a variety of sources of evidence (and there are likely to be some gaps)

This may include quantitative evidence, from case studies, existing surveys and other research.

If there is little quantitative evidence, then benefits may also be estimated more subjectively as a form of multi-criteria analysis (MCA), where participants are required to award scores to identified costs and benefits.


Option 2: Valuation-based CCIAValuation-based CCIA requires:

• A clear presentation of the assumptions:

• relating to key physical parameters (eg crop yields obtained, hectares of forest protected, flood damage caused by rainfall, etc) and behavioural parameters (eg farmers’ choices or enterprise behaviour).

• A ‘model’ of the way in which inputs lead to outputs:

• In the form of table of the key parameters and the relationships between them (eg crop budgets, enterprise accounts or descriptions of household behaviour).

• It will reflect how CC affects the parameters that determine programme performance.

• For the largest and most complex CCIA, it may be necessary to use more formal models, such as Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs)

• Scenarios, to accommodate unpredictable events (used sparingly)


Exercise – Rapid CCIA using qualitative scoring


Imagine you are a budget officer working in the ministry of finance.

Your minister has requested you to undertake a rapid CC appraisal of all expenditure programmes in the budget, so she can report on the country’s CC response when she makes her budget speech tomorrow in parliament.

You have one day to complete all the analysis. You bring together the respective budget managers into a small group and begin to undertake a rapid CCIA based on a rapid 6-step qualitative scoring methodology

In this exercise you will apply this methodology to one programme. Time yourselves to see if you can complete the analysis in 20 minutes.

Before this, we will work through an example together



• List all benefits of the action (including CC benefits)

• Tangible as well as intangible benefitsStep 1

• Assign relative importance of each benefit

• High = 3; Medium = 2; Low = 1 [Score (b)]Step 2

• For each benefit, ask: “To what extent is this benefit sensitive to CC?”

• Sensitivity means the extent to which some or whole aspects of the benefit are attributed to CC

Step 3

Exercise – Example (forestry programme)


Description of BenefitsClassification

H/M/L

Score (a)

(3/2/1)description of sensitivity to CC

Classification

ful ly dependent / H /

M /L /no effect

Score (b)

100% / 30% / 20%

/ 10% / 0%

Reduced benefits

(as a result of CC)

a * (1-b)

Increased incomes from timber and

non-timber productsHigh 3

Forest incomes are normally less

vulnerable to flood/drought than

farm incomes so households that

have some access to forest incomes

are more resil ient

Mid 20% 2.4

Increased incomes reduce rural-

urban migration and urban

unemployment

Mid 2

Small impact: migration does tend

to increase during drought/ flood

years, but this type of migration is

mostly temporary

Low 10% 1.8

Increased and more reliable incomes

retain family unity and stable roles

within the family

Low 1

The reliabil i ty of income becomes

more important as cl imate becomes

more extreme

Mid 20% 0.8

Improved forest protection supports

rainfall retention in soil and reduces

downstream flooding

Mid 2

More intense rainfall increases the

risks of flooding, so make retention

more valuable

High 30% 1.4

Improved forest protection reduces

soil erosionMid 2


risk of soil erosionHigh 30% 1.4

Improved forest protection maintains

biodiversity and, hence, health and

social value of forest

Mid 2Climate change increases the risk of

biodiversity lossMid 20% 1.6

Total (d): 12 Total (e) : 9.4

21.7%

Benefit of Action for People/Ecosystems

CC% (d-e)/d :

Implications of Climate Change for Benefit






• High = 3; Medium = 2; Low = 1

[Score (a)]Step 2

• For each benefit, ask: “To what extent is this benefit sensitive to CC?”


Step 3




H/M/L

Score (a)


Classification


M /L /no effect

Score (b)

100% / 30% / 20%

/ 10% / 0%

Reduced benefits

(as a result of CC)

a * (1-b)







are more resil ient

Mid 20% 2.4



unemployment

Mid 2




mostly temporary

Low 10% 1.8



within the family

Low 1



more extreme

Mid 20% 0.8



downstream flooding

Mid 2



more valuable

High 30% 1.4


soil erosionMid 2









21.7%


CC% (d-e)/d :







• High = 3; Medium = 2; Low = 1 [Score (b)]Step 2• For each benefit, ask: “To what extent is this

benefit sensitive to CC?”


Step 3




H/M/L

Score (a)


Classification


M /L /no effect

Score (b)

100% / 30% / 20%

/ 10% / 0%

Reduced benefits

(as a result of CC)

a * (1-b)







are more resil ient

Mid 20% 2.4



unemployment

Mid 2




mostly temporary

Low 10% 1.8



within the family

Low 1



more extreme

Mid 20% 0.8



downstream flooding

Mid 2



more valuable

High 30% 1.4


soil erosionMid 2









21.7%


CC% (d-e)/d :




• Assign degree of sensitivity to CC

• No sensitivity = 0%, High = 30% ; Medium = 20%, Low = 10%

• Full sensitivity= 100%

Step 4

• Calculate reduced benefits as a result of CC

• [a*(1-b)]Step 5

• Calculate CC%

• Cc% = [(d-e)/d]*100Step 6




H/M/L

Score (a)


Classification


M /L /no effect

Score (b)

100% / 30% / 20%

/ 10% / 0%

Reduced benefits

(as a result of CC)

a * (1-b)







are more resil ient

Mid 20% 2.4



unemployment

Mid 2




mostly temporary

Low 10% 1.8



within the family

Low 1



more extreme

Mid 20% 0.8



downstream flooding

Mid 2



more valuable

High 30% 1.4


soil erosionMid 2









21.7%


CC% (d-e)/d :







Step 4


• [a*(1-b)]Step 5

• Calculate CC%

• Cc% = [(d-e)/d]*100Step 6




H/M/L

Score (a)


Classification


M /L /no effect

Score (b)

100% / 30% / 20%

/ 10% / 0%

Reduced benefits

(as a result of CC)

a * (1-b)







are more resil ient

Mid 20% 2.4



unemployment

Mid 2




mostly temporary

Low 10% 1.8



within the family

Low 1



more extreme

Mid 20% 0.8



downstream flooding

Mid 2



more valuable

High 30% 1.4


soil erosionMid 2









21.7%


CC% (d-e)/d :







Step 4


• [a*(1-b)]Step 5

• Calculate CC%

• Cc% = [(d-e)/d]*100Step 6


21 March 2017 © 2017 OXFORD POLICY MANAGEMENT LTD 26


H/M/L

Score (a)


Classification


M /L /no effect

Score (b)

100% / 30% / 20%

/ 10% / 0%

Reduced benefits

(as a result of CC)

a * (1-b)







are more resil ient

Mid 20% 2.4



unemployment

Mid 2




mostly temporary

Low 10% 1.8



within the family

Low 1



more extreme

Mid 20% 0.8



downstream flooding

Mid 2



more valuable

High 30% 1.4


soil erosionMid 2









21.7%


CC% (d-e)/d :


Group Exercise (20 mins)

21 March 2017 © 2017 OXFORD POLICY MANAGEMENT LTD 27

Thank you!

Date post:	06-Apr-2017
Category:	Government & Nonprofit
Upload:	nap-events
View:	14 times
Download:	0 times

Appraising Adaptation Actions

Government & Nonprofit