1 / 18

Tools for Integrating Climate Change ADAPTATION and Disaster Reduction into Development

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 20 th 2011. Positionality. Context.

jayden
Download Presentation

Tools for Integrating Climate Change ADAPTATION and Disaster Reduction into Development

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 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

  2. Positionality

  3. Context • Risks to poverty reduction • Responses • New programmes • New policy and organisational change • Development on risk management tools Mainstreaming adaptation into development Developing adaptation projects and options Versus See: Hammill and Tanner 2011; Mitchell and Tanner 2006; Wilby and Vaughan 2010

  4. 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 1. Process guidance 2. Data & info provision 3. Knowledge sharing

  5. Method • Sample of 10 tools in bilateral agencies and NGOs • Interviews with 50 tool developers and users

  6. Linking tools with decision-making steps Raising awareness Project Identification Project appraisal Project design Project implementation Monitoring & Evaluation Project cycle steps Identifying current and future vulnerabilities and climate risks Identifying adaptation measures Evaluating and selecting adaptation options Evaluating “success” of adaptation Adaptation decision- making steps Communication Screening Assessment Analysis Evaluation Integration M&E PROCESS TOOLS Climate info Vulnerability / poverty / development information DATA & INFORMATION PROVISON TOOLS CRM / climate adaptation tools Marketing  Tool sharing  Feedback, refinement KNOWLEDGE SHARING TOOLS / PLATFORMS

  7. Tool conceptual approaches

  8. What role for partners

  9. Assessing tools 4 Organisational change Awareness-raising a key reported benefit Tools to provide agency to take action Association with others to work on the issue Demonstrated action on climate change Awareness Agency Association Action / reflection After Ballard 2007

  10. 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

  11. 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

  12. Organisational change • Most agencies characterised by efficient management Source: Adapted from Ballard 2007

  13. 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

  14. Thank you

  15. Experience of tool use Ad hoc use Trained and willing Written into project Written into job Tool use is policy

  16. Use of climate information • Growing emphasis on developing informed consumers of climate information (what, where, who) • Disconnect between Type 1 and Type 2 tool users

  17. 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 More assessment? What is the problem? What are our options? What shall we do? Sources: Mitchell and Tanner 2006; Klein et al 2007; Wilby and Vaughan 2010

  18. 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

More Related