The Paris Agreement on climate change of December 2015, which took weeks of tense negotiations among 196 countries, was deemed by some people to be the world´s greatest diplomatic accomplishment. It will enter into force on the 30th day after the date on which at least 55 Parties to the Convention – accounting for at least an estimated 55% of total global greenhouse gas emissions – have exercised their instruments of ratification. So the time to roll up sleeves and start working has come. How does it look from the perspective of a country like Nepal which is highly vulnerable to climate change? This Asian country is threaten by draughts, floods, landslides and soil erosion, while the livelihoods of more than 80% Nepali people depend on climate sensitive sectors such as agriculture, forest and livestock. In this interview, Ram Chandra Khanal, CDKN´s country coordinator and an experienced evaluator of climate change adaptation measures, talks about the challenges for this diverse, mountainous country.

The Paris Agreement created an ambitious mandate for the global community. Does it change the national conversation in Nepal about action on climate change? If so, how?

There still exist two perspectives in Nepal. One group is happy with the achievement as it was due for a long time and they think it is really difficult task to bring all the parties to agreement on a single document or framework without some level of trade off. Others think that the agreement is still vague. For example, how exactly are the most affected people going to benefit in practical terms from this deal? And when?

I have, however, felt a positive vibration from many here, including (Nepali) government stakeholders. The Ministry of Environment has organised meetings to share the findings from the CoP (the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change or UNFCCC – the official name of the Paris climate summit). They also organised a workshop to explore ideas about how Nepal can benefit from the agreement. Although it is difficult to attribute the impact (of these initiatives), the Ministry of Environment has created a unit on climate finance within the ministry recently, and also submitted its Action Plan for its INDC (Intended Nationally Determined Contribution) to the UNFCCC in the first week of February. These immediate responses showed the government’s positive response and a firm commitment on the agreement.

About Nepal´s INDC, what will it take to get from ‘intended’ to ‘implemented’? What are the big opportunities and challenges?

Nepal had not submitted its INDC as planned earlier (it was submitted only on 4^th February 2016). That’s because the government had reservations: should it come up with some ambitious plan or to try to be more realistic based on the commitment expressed in the Nepal’s development plan and other sectoral programmes, strategies and policies? Besides, the ministry wanted to obtain the consent from a higher government authority before they submitted the INDC to the UNFCCC. This took some time. For the last couple of months before the submission, this dilemma was an important issue internally. We at CDKN closely followed the process and also provided our input.

Regarding the question about when commitments stop being “intended” and become “implemented”, the proposals are mostly based on targets set by the government in various sectors. For example, the government has already set targets for renewable energy generation from hydro-electricity and solar power. They are mostly technically “implementable”. But, it is difficult to say now whether they will become a reality soon. There are many policy, institution and financial constraints, among others. My experience of reviewing national plans and development targets for the past decade reminds me their delivery and effectiveness are not usually met 100%. Most of the time, much less is achieved. So, from this point of view, the commitment could remain just “intended”, but we have to aware of the fact that targets are not decided just to be mentioned in the INDC.

In any case, whatever targets are decided within the INDC, they are associated with a “no regret strategy”. That is, there is a general consensus that there must be no negative impacts on development from most of the activities planned in the INDC, by pursuing a low carbon strategy in the development process. Nepal has drafted low carbon economic development strategies, which hopefully will be finalised soon. However, at the same time, this country is facing a huge energy crisis. So there is the possibility that the government may emphasise these dilemmas in facing its INDC.

Solar street lights, Nepal, credit ADB.

The Paris Agreement calls for limiting average global temperature rise well below 2^oC, as close to 1.5^oC as possible. Nepal´s emissions are very low, but they are growing – what hope is there to see economic growth and development with lowered emissions in the specific case of Nepal? Concretely, how do you go about reducing greenhouse gas emissions, addressing economic development and climate change, as well as increasing food productivity sustainably?

Yes, there are a lot of issues and challenges around this. Nepal´s government has incorporated the concept of climate compatible development as one of the strategies, but there is a huge gap in research-based knowledge on what are the barriers and opportunities for that. Nepal’s current emissions are just about 0.027% of the global emissions, and there is therefore the obvious question about why Nepal would worry about reducing its greenhouse gas emissions.

This also has to do with climate justice, and how it might affect development priorities and needs. So, Nepal’s climate change priorities are not set around mitigation per se, but the intention is to explore the areas where there are adaptation co-benefits in mitigation. Examples include the conservation of forests, which provide environmental services to people and sequester carbon, replacing fossil fuel-based energy generation by renewable energy; and better transport management in cities, in order to reduce air pollution as well. So, Nepal’s development plans incorporate these climate change strategic issues and climate compatible development processes, without compromising much of its development and economic growth.

In spite of this, there will be certainly trade-offs. I have personally witnessed some such challenges in the agriculture sector. The government has emphasised “climate smart”approaches in its agriculture development strategy. But there are clear trade-offs in this sector, and keeping the agriculture sector climate smart needs additional knowledge and funds.The agriculture sector is highly sensitive to climate change, and more than two thirds of people in Nepal are dependent on agriculture for their livelihoods.

Nepal is also focusing on how new technologies can be transferred with low or no cost from other countries, and how climate finance can be guaranteed in order to move from a traditional economic approach to a more climate compatible alternative. This nevertheless needs a lot of institutional and financial investment.

If you check most INDCs from developing countries their emission reduction targets are subject to technology development, international climate finance and capacity building. What would happen if the means of implementation does not flow at national level? 

This is really important issue. We have seen in many cases that even having the technology, funds and capacity, things do not move in the right direction. But some conditions are to be fulfilled to accomplish this target as well. The first one is related to availability of appropriate technologies, finance and capacity (necessary conditions), at the same time developing and effective management of implementation mechanisms at country level (sufficient condition). Due to the low level of adaptive capacity of the developing countries like Nepal, there is an obvious expectation to get support, technology and climate financing to face climate change. But it is equally important to understand the critical role of a country´s government to implement plans so that broader climate targets can be met. So, to me, these two things need to go hand in hand.

In the context of weak implementation, there is a high chance of failure in climate action in terms of reducing the greenhouse gas emission targets, further aggravating the livelihoods of the most vulnerable people. In addition, weak implementation would add the risk of maladaptation, such as investment on irrigation canal without considering the longer term impact of climate change on water flows and landslides. Another example would be investment in public cold storage for agriculture produce in area where there is long term climate change risk and misuse of resources in unintended areas that might negatively affect the climate targets.

Why do you think some countries are more successful in mobilising climate finance, especially from external sources, than others? Brazil receives US$711.3 million, followed by Mexico (US$666.1 million) and Morocco (US$628.3 million), according to the Climate Fund Update. These are middle-income countries with a lot of resources. Meanwhile, some vulnerable countries receive almost nothing collectively. Does their ability to negotiate have anything to do with it?

Certainly, the ability to negotiate has some impact on how successful a country is in accessing financial resources. In addition to negotiation skills, the other equally important consideration is its institutional capacity to access funds, such as having “capable” institutions with robust administrative and financial systems. It also related to human resources, which is required to understand the cumbersome process and write bankable proposals. But I also think this is also related to power relations at regional and international level.

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) have many climate-related components, as well as a dedicated climate goal. What are some of the ways that the SDGs will influence the planning and practice of development in Nepal in the coming years?

I am sure the SDGs including climate change action are to be considered as important guidelines for development planning and management in Nepal.

Nepal has already done a lot of ground work in devising institutional frameworks: it has a climate change policy, a National Adaptation Programme of Action (NAPA), a Local Adaptation Plan of Action (LAPA), and many more. The government has also emphasised climate compatible development as one of the important development strategies for investing. Recent sectoral plans, such as the Agriculture Development Strategy and the National Biodiversity Strategy, address climate change concerns.

Now, international initiatives such as the SDGs and the UNFCCC process call for strengthening resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related disasters in developing and least developing countries; integrating climate change measures into national policies, strategies and planning, and improving education, awareness raising and human and institutional capacity.

The international community has expressed its commitment to provide financial resources to vulnerable countries and some climate financing mechanisms have been instituted. There are other equally important initiatives being developed. These institutions can enable least developed countries like Nepal to access financial and other resources to address climate change impacts.

Image, right: high mountain agriculture in Nepal, courtesy Asian Development Bank – ADB.

The post OPINION: After Paris – Perspective from Ram Chandra Khanal, Nepal appeared first on Climate and Development Knowledge Network.

The concept of resilience is increasingly becoming a central focus in climate change and development interventions. Various organisations from the development world are now working towards translating resilience concepts into practice. One of the challenges the development practitioners are facing is how best to define an appropriate evaluation framework, including criteria and indicators. The learning on resilience based management and measurement could also be useful for CDKN interventions as the programme also emphasised improving resilience for promoting climate compatible development.

The Third Evaluation Conclave 2015, a global gathering of evaluators in Kathmandu recently hosted a panel discussion on ‘measuring resilience’ with the support from the Rockefeller Foundation, ITAD and Sambodhi. I presented a paper on ‘developing a resilience based evaluation framework’ based on my study on community forestry in Nepal with the support from multi-stakeholder forestry, government-funded programme in Nepal. The study was carried out in four districts representing three ecological zones and two forest management regimes.

Based on the responsive constructive evaluation approach, the study outlined five principles (a standard that a principle is judged by), fifteen criteria and thirty indicators (an indicator is any variable used to infer attributes of the resource and its utilisation) that are important for maintaining and ensuring resilience at community forests in the studied area. The study also found that the indicators related to enabling environment, social inclusion, economic viability, ecosystems integrity and ability to learn and improvement by local groups are important but communities based their degree of preference based on context and geography –differences in thought emerge between hilly areas and southern plains.

The study has identified a set of indicators that go beyond the conventional development indicators related to sustainable forest development. The criteria and indicators development process moved from linear Newtonian causality to complex non-linear dynamics of the natural resources management processes and has captured both the human and environmental aspects which is commonly known as the socio-ecological resilience approach. It has adequately emphasised ‘ability’ or ‘capacity’ of stakeholders in managing resilience and they are absorptive, adaptive and transformative capacities.

But the journey is not easy and straightforward. There is no clear understanding and convergence on defining resilience; the cost and benefits of moving towards resilience based development management are not clear and generating evidence as at a very nascent stage. In addition, how resilience interacts with other development concepts such as sustainable development is not well understood.

Operationalising the concept is potentially a huge challenge; there has to be agreement on working boundaries, timeframes and working modality. One issue the study did hid highlight was that of identifying resilience indicators and using them at the local level in close collaboration with local level natural resources management groups is appropriate to enhance the resilience of their socio-ecological systems.

The post OPINION: Measuring Resilience: some lesson shared during Evaluation Conclave 2015 appeared first on Climate and Development Knowledge Network.

The Government of Nepal published on the 28^th April an economic impact assessment of climate change in the country, which gives a comprehensive profile of current and future risks as well as future investment needed for each area (agriculture, hydro-electricity and water induced disasters).

The headlines from the study include:

–       The estimated direct costs of current impacts across these three areas are equivalent to 1.5–2% of current GDP per year (approximately US$270–360 million/year in 2013 prices), rising to 5% or more in extreme years, with flood-related risks the major driver of these costs.

–       In the future, with increasing temperatures and erratic rainfall patterns projects, the costs are estimated to rise further, equivalent to an additional 2–3% of current GDP/year by mid-century.

–       In response to these risks, an iterative adaptation pathway is needed, which starts with current climate variability and then considers future climate change and uncertainty.

–       In relation to the medium-term risks, a major increase is needed in the three areas assessed, estimated at US$2.4 billion by 2030 (present value). 

Read the Summary Report and Briefing Note to learn more.

To reach these conclusions CDKN supported nearly 18 months of data collection, modelling and analysis. The methodology used by the expert international – local consortium team of IDS-Nepal, Practical Action Consulting (PAC) Nepal, and GCAP was carefully designed to provide accurate and relevant results, while integrating the uncertainty which exists in climate change projections. The full details are soon to be published in the full technical report, with further annexes to contain the data.

Now that the study has been published, we can reflect on what we have learnt about the process of carrying out an economic impact assessment. It has certainly been a steep learning curve! The following are some of the key messages we would give to another team about to embark on such a study:

Data, data, data…. All such studies begin by recognising that data availability will be a challenge, but we still always underestimate exactly how much impact it will have. We were in a relatively good position in Nepal, this being a government-led initiative and as such having easy access to any data which exists. It was also critical that we were able to use IITM’s climate projection data, derived from the PRECIS regional climate model which  included daily maximum and minimum temperature, and daily precipitation, at a spatial resolution of 50 km for the whole period (1961‐2099) for 240 locations in Nepal. This is the same data which was used in Nepal’s Second National Communication. The challenge came when the team was doing the detailed sector modelling and analysis, particularly for agriculture, and found gaps in reliable and consistent data across multiple years. Data gathering, storing and sharing is a major challenge in Nepal, and beyond, but the Government has recognised this, and investments are happening (for example, the Department of Hydrology and Meteorology’s growing capacity for online real-time climate data). In any case, future such projects should invest properly at the beginning of the process in reviewing data availability and putting in place mitigation measures.

The framework needs to be flexible, but will always be complicated. Economic impact assessments have in the past tended to stick with a classic scenario-based assessment, taking climate model outputs, and running models to assess the potential longer term impacts of climate change in the future. In line with guidance from the UNFCCC, the team in Nepal developed a methodological framework that takes into account that climate change and adaptation to it are a dynamic processes, starting from current variability and moving to long-term trends. Taking into account wider governance, policy and institutional capacity issues is vital for mapping out adaptation options. As the assessment in Nepal got underway, the framework had to evolve and adapt to data issues (see above) and changing priorities. Flexibility in this regards was therefore essential. Every effort was made to keep the methodology simple, but in reality such assessments will always remain a highly skilled process that only very technical experts can carry out. As a result of our project there is now a cadre of Nepali scientists able to carry out such assessments in the future, but further investment is needed to deepen their skills, and for the next generation, to ensure that models and frameworks can be adapted locally.

Uncertainty in everything. Climate change is inherently uncertain, especially when you are looking 50 years down the line. To be true to the science you have to caveat every finding and result with the recognition of the uncertainty involved. As the IPCC knows this runs the risk of diluting the ‘message’. As we came to write up and launch our findings there was a healthy struggle between those in the team closest to the science and those wishing to communicate a powerful statement about Nepal’s vulnerability to climate change. By integrating uncertainty into the methodology of the assessment the output was an ‘adaptation pathway’ which highlighted iterative risk management (continually updating policies and action based on the latest science), portfolios of actions (rather than a single focus) and low or no-regret actions whenever possible.

Embed everything locally. The greatest strength of this project was that it was Nepali led and owned. The lead partner in the technical consortium was a Nepali research organisation (IDS-Nepal) and a government steering committee guided and oversaw the process. Active working groups of all the local experts in the sectors ensured all relevant information and data was used, and that the results were accurate. An international partner (GCAP) was certainly crucial in the process, but the emphasis was on building the skills of the local team and mentoring. Wider training programmes focused on building capacity of the government and stakeholders for this type of economic assessment which was important in ensuring the findings were accepted and understood.  The investment and time required to embed the process locally was the key to making the study relevant and useful to Nepal.

Review, review and more review… Delays in a study of this type are inevitable and there is always a rush to finalise the report. But, the review of draft outputs is vital. We used a relatively large pool of local and international experts who were not involved in the study (in addition to the groups that were, see above) to review the outputs at various points. This led to some important editing and even new modelling and analysis. While the further delays were frustrating it also meant we can be confident that the results are accurate and valid and other will be confident in using them.

Decide on the ‘what next’ at the start. Perhaps the most important learning we gained was that such assessments should not be stand-alone documents, but designed as a decision-making tool. The demand from the Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment in Nepal for this project was to give them the evidence to make a strong case internationally that Nepal is extremely vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, and needs climate finance to adapt the economy. Domestically, the study also makes it clear to all stakeholders, including key line ministries, that climate change is a development issue and should be mainstreamed as such. However, for ministries to translate the economic findings and adaptation options into policy-decisions they need further technical support.

The Government of Uganda is just embarking on an economic assessment with CDKN support. We have already presented our learning from the project in Nepal to them, but welcome the opportunity to talk with others interested in or undertaking similar work so we can collectively strengthen our approach to understanding the economics of climate change

Authors: Elizabeth Gogoi, Ram Chandra Khanal, and Arif Pervaiz. For more information, contact elizabeth.gogoi@cdkn.org

The post FEATURE: ‘Behind the scenes’ of Nepal’s Economic Impact Assessment appeared first on Climate and Development Knowledge Network.

Evaluation is a critical part of development interventions – for accountability, for learning, to see what worked and what didn’t, for influence and so on.  Evaluation is particularly critical in the context of South Asia, home to complex social structures, high rates of poverty, gender discrimination, dynamic forces of globalization sweeping traditional societies and numerous development projects for the large populations of this region.  Innovative evaluation approaches and practices are particularly important in such complex contexts.

The aim of the conclave was to bring together thinkers, commissioners and practitioners of evaluation in an interactive forum to discuss, deliberate and share advancements in the theory and practice of evaluation in the South Asia region and abroad.

Organized by the Community of Evaluators (CoE) in collaboration with the Community of Evaluators Nepal (CoE-Nepal), this was the second such conclave to be held in South Asia – the first was in October 2010 in Delhi.  The CoE is a group of evaluators from South Asia (India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Nepal and Pakistan), working together to strengthen the field of evaluation.  This second conclave from 26 February to 1 March was attended by over 300 experts and evaluators from different parts of the world including representatives of the World Bank, Asian Development Bank, IDRC and universities.  Robert Chambers, the ‘guru’ of participatory evaluation, and Michael Quinn Patton gave keynote speeches in the workshop.

Climate change adaptation strategies contain a wide variety of interventions with different scale considerations, processes and types of activities, targeting different sectors and levels.  Some focus on building adaptive capacity, others on direct interventions such as development of physical infrastructure; many will include a mix of these elements.  Evaluation of climate change related interventions thus poses particular challenges.  It can be difficult to distinguish the effects of climate change adaptation strategies from those of other sectoral activities, and thus to attribute outcomes or impact to a single intervention.  How then to evaluate and measure impacts of climate change adaptation interventions?

This was the question I attempted to answer in the session on climate change and M&E, organized by SEA Change CoP – an Asian community of practice on the monitoring and evaluation of climate change interventions, with financial support provided by the Rockefeller Foundations and technical and logistical support from PACT.  I began by looking at evaluation institutions and processes related to climate change adaptation in Nepal.  My conclusion was that there are good mechanisms instituted, but the focus is more on monitoring than evaluation.  Moreover evaluation activities by multiple players and at different levels are not well-connected and harmonized in practice.

In the second part of my presentation I used CDKN and the Pilot Programme for Climate Resilience (PPCR) as case studies of evaluation systems for CCA projects.   Examples of indicators used by CDKN and PPCR include:

• Numbers of people supported by the project to cope with effects of climate change;
• Degree of integration of climate change in national, including sector, planning;
• Extent to which vulnerable households, communities, businesses and public sector services use improved (the project) supported tools, instruments, strategies, activities to respond to climate vulnerability and climate change;
• Evidence of strengthened government capacity and coordination mechanism to mainstream climate resilience;
• Negotiation skill (on climate change) enhanced in international forums by using knowledge and recommendations generated through the project.

The CDKN and PPCR case studies highlighted the challenges and complexities in evaluating CCA related projects.  How to distinguish between development and adaptation?  How to take into account the fact that people often respond to CC in autonomous ways?  How to measure elements such as adaptive capacity, transformative change and resilience?   There has been a move towards result-based and participatory M&E activities, but efforts are fragmented and not sufficient to address current challenges.  The CDKN approach of focusing on practical aspects and flexibility were well appreciated and so was that of PPCR.

The main conclusion from the session was that there is no fixed model: evaluation needs to be adaptive, based on the context and project needs.  There was also general agreement on the fact that additional precautions (such as focusing on a programmatic approach and building capacity of stakeholders) need to be taken while developing evaluation systems for CCA projects.  The complementarities of adaptation vs. development have to be explored.  Continuous assessment and sharing learning among stakeholders are also important.  Perhaps the main conclusion was that evaluation of CC adaptation projects is evolving and further research is needed.

Ram Chandra Khanal is CDKN’s Engagement leader in Nepal. He is also the former Natural Resources Management Specialist / National consultant within the Ministry of Environment for the Strategic Program for Climate Resilience (SPCR) in Nepal, and can be contacted at khanalrc@gmail.com

The post FEATURE: The challenge of evaluation appeared first on Climate and Development Knowledge Network.

New research and evidence is published every week on the impact of climate change in South Asia: changing rainfall patterns, projected temperature rises and whether and the extent to which the Himalayan glaciers are melting.

We also see and experience the complicated relationship between the physical impacts of climate change, and its effect on economic development.

In Delhi we have just survived what was reported as the hottest summer in 300 years, which caused regular power blackouts as everyone turned up their air conditioner on full. While in Nepal, repeated dry winters have in recent years caused major cereal deficits.

Governments in the region recognise that their economic growth and poverty reduction efforts are being put at risk by climate change. But, by how much, and exactly how and where is less clear.

Yet this detail is vitally important. Knowing the breakdown of the economic impact of climate change allows Governments to target their scarce resources and direct their policies at where it will have most benefit.

A growing number of donors and institutes have recognised this and an ‘Economics of Climate Change’ research agenda is developing.

The Asian Development Bank (ADB) is undertaking a regional assessment of the economics of climate change in South Asia, following the successful assessment in South East Asia. National consultations were held recently where experts and policy-makers were invited to input into the national studies and models being used.

The ADB assessments will provide medium and longer-term modelling of the economics of climate change. This will produce headline economic cost estimates of the overall effects on the economy, similar to the Stern Review, as well as provide aggregate sector estimates. The primary purpose is to highlight that climate change is an economic and development issue of the highest priority.

It is using a high resolution Regional Climate Model – downscaling ECHAM 5 (RegCM version 4.1.) and plans to assess physical impacts at regional, national and sectoral level and then use these for macro- economic and sectoral economic modelling.

CDKN participated in the workshops in Delhi and Kathmandu and shared ideas and learning from our projects in the region, in particular from a new CDKN project in Nepal which is going to build on the ADB initiative.

The project, being implemented by IDS-Nepal, Practical Action Nepal and GCAP will focus in detail on the important agriculture and water sectors in Nepal. As well as considering the potential economic costs of climate change, it will also develop a climate compatible adaptation pathway, using multiple lines of evidence.

The project will start by studying existing impacts of climate variability and extremes, as well as emerging climate trends. By grounding this analysis in current and planned development policies, the project will look at the key risks – and the priorities for building resilience – in national and sector policy.

It is also considering the medium to long-term economic effects of climate change, sampling across a range of downscaled climate projections for Nepal to capture uncertainty. Adaptation pathways will then be developed which include the early actions needed to address the potential long-term economic costs.

The project has a strong capacity building theme, and will undertake extensive stakeholder consultations. The aim is to provide practical policy-relevant information and to support the Government to assess the potential effectiveness of different policy options and climate compatible development pathways.

While the work of CDKN, ADB and others is advancing the state of knowledge, the economics of climate change remains an emerging field. There are some big questions which everyone is grappling with. For example, how to consider uncertainty within the climate models and translate this into robust and resilient adaptation? How to combine bottom-up and top-down data and modelling? How to effectively link the time periods of assessment – short, medium or long term? Both the ADB and CDKN initiatives provide valuable case studies for how to tackle all such questions and advance the methodology considerably.

There is a lot to learn from these complementary studies and collaboration and cross- learning between the two studies in Nepal is already underway. For example, the ADB team is assessing the impact of climate change on agriculture (i.e. crop yield) by using Decision Support Systems for Agrotechnology Transfer (DSSAT) model, and the CDKN team will use this analysis, along with other evidence lines, to build up the analysis of long-term risks.

The workshops held provided the first of many opportunities for CDKN, the ADB and our partners to share experiences and learning. Together we will be able to advance understanding of the economics of climate change – and the economics of adaptation – which will ultimately allow us to estimate the potential cost of climate change and the most efficient way of adapting to it.

Elizabeth Colebourn is a Project Manager for CDKN Asia based in New Delhi, and Ram Chandra Khanal is a Country Coordinator for CDKN based in Kathmandu. For more information on CDKN’s project in Nepal on the Economics of Climate Change, contact elizabeth.colebourn@cdkn.org

The post FEATURE: Economics of climate change in South Asia appeared first on Climate and Development Knowledge Network.

More than 250 participants, from 25 countries, participated in the conference and enjoyed two days of active discussion and debate, with ministers and stakeholders sharing their priorities for climate change and urging Mountain Governments to work together to promote the special needs of mountain regions within the UNFCCC.

The Prime Minister of the Government of Nepal, Dr Baburam Bhattarai addressed the conference and said, “Mountains are great sources of energy, food and biodiversity for billions of people. Recently climate change has however affected mountains disproportionately, making both ecosystems and people’s livelihoods in the regions more vulnerable”…

“But we also should recognise that it offers new opportunities for undertaking alternative development models and more equitable and cleaner global development pathways…with robust global partnership, both north-south and south-south”.

This high profile conference marks a watershed moment for the Government of Nepal and their long campaign to raise awareness of the common interests of Mountain Governments within the UNFCCC.

The KCA delivers a strong message and the widespread media attention that the conference has received, together with the follow up action planned should ensure that this message is heard loud and clear at the international stage.

The headline points from the KCA, include:

• Urging development partners to support the establishment of dedicated funding arrangements for adaptation and mitigation programmes in Mountain Countries;
• Encouraging building appropriate incentive mechanisms at various levels to recognise and reward mountain communities for conservation and maintenance of mountain ecosystems services;
• Promoting research as well as the use of traditional knowledge for sharing, learning and exchange of information and best practices to support science-policy interface and to help find best solutions to climate change challenges;
• Recognising the high potential of mountain ecosystem services to promote green growth strategies.

However, the overriding message from the conference was the need for Governments to work together to promote a shared agenda on climate change for Mountain Countries. This goes beyond advocating for mountain issues at the UNFCCC, but also the exchange of best practices and experiences, and designing collaborative action.

Qatar’s Minister for Environment, Abdullah Bin Mubarak Bin Ebood Al-Meadadi, who is hosting the next CoP meeting later this year, stressed this point and commended the Government of Nepal for organising the event and providing such a good opportunity to listen to the issues of interest to Mountain Countries.

In his key note speech Dr R.K Pachauri, IPCC chair, also emphasised that no single country can solve the problems caused by climate change. This is a common concern for all human beings and therefore, to fight climate change, collective action in a comprehensive and transparent manner should be considered by all countries.

Hon. Hem Raj Tater, Minister for Environment, Government of Nepal said that the KCA has reaffirmed the spirit of solidarity and cooperation among Mountain Countries to a common cause and he hoped that support from the international community would continue.

The conference has undoubtedly been a great success in terms of bringing Mountain Governments together and starting the process of talking and sharing. However, the test will be in the months ahead and in particular at the upcoming inter-governmental conferences in Rio for the UNCSD and in Bonn and Qatar for the UNFCCC. Mountain Governments need to strategically and collectively engage with these international negotiations to translate the KCA from words to action.

As a climate change expert from Nepal said ‘this is an initial step where people from Mountain regions raise their voice collectively but many things need to be done in order to get  our voices heard at international fora’.

What is clear is that this conference has given the Government of Nepal a new confidence to take forward this issue and be a leader among Mountain Governments. With the right support I am sure they will be able to get mountain issues onto the agenda of the UNFCCC.

*CDKN supported the Government of Nepal to host this conference as part of a project, being implemented by IDS-N that is strengthening their capacity to strategically engage with the UNFCCC.

 Ram Chandra Khanal is CDKN’s  Country Coordinator in Nepal.

The post FEATURE: Mountain countries stand united on climate change appeared first on Climate and Development Knowledge Network.

• How can such a programme facilitate management by communities rather than just promoting a top-down, blueprint approach?

• How can it deliver real local-level transformation instead of target-counting?

• How can limited resources be used most productively?

Designing the programme effectively is critical to Nepal because so much is at stake. Ram Chandra Khanal, a Freelance Consultant in the area of Climate Change Adaptation and Resilience, takes a look at the programme and outlines its attempts to answer these questions.

Due to its geography, and the large proportion of its population who are dependent on climate-sensitive sectors such as water and agriculture, Nepal is one of the most vulnerable countries to climate change. In a country ranked 139th on the UNDP human development index, some of the poorest communities in the region are already feeling the effects of global warming. There’s an urgent need for a large and secure source of finance to address climate impacts. The recent award from the Climate Investment Fund (CIF) to build climate resilience has the potential for a dramatic impact on the country’s development prospects.

The CIF selected Nepal along with nine countries around the world for the Pilot Program for Climate Resilience (PPCR). Nepal’s Strategic Programme for Climate Resilience will receive US$ 40-50 million, as well US$ 36 million in concessional resources. Nepal will use these resources for five components, agreed after an in-depth participatory programme engaged a large number of people from government, civil society and the private sector at national, district and local levels.

The five components include: a) building the climate resilience of watersheds; b) building resilience to climate-related hazards; c) ensuring climate change risk management forms a key plank of economic development; d) building climate-resilient communities through private sector participation; and e) enhancing the climate resilience of endangered species.

At the end of the pilot stage, the project is expected to have improved access to water resources; strengthened Nepal’s resilience to respond to climate-induced disasters; safeguarded the country’s development programmes and policies from the effects of climate change; and enhanced food security through the promotion of climate-resilient agriculture.

The project recognises the potential uncertainty and dynamic process of climate change, and builds the capacity of the people involved to understand and manage climate risks.

Last, it’s hoped that the project will have helped Nepal’s vulnerable private infrastructure to better withstand climate change, and built up greater levels of knowledge and incentives to improve the climate resilience of critically endangered species. The project also highlights how gender has an effect on climate resilience: it will address constraints on the participation of women in decision-making around climate change responses.

Now the even harder job begins, of ensuring that the programme is undertaken in a truly participatory way, building capacity at the very grassroots. Given slow bureaucratic processes, the ‘sector’-driven mindset of some important stakeholders, and the lack of priority sometimes given to climate change by policy-makers, the involvement of diverse stakeholders in implementation will be a challenge for the government of Nepal during the pilot phase. The government will need to do some extra critical thinking while designing the full proposal and implementation plan.

Ram Chandra Khanal is the former Natural Resources Management Specialist / National consultant within the Ministry of Environment for the Strategic Program for Climate Resilience (SPCR) in Nepal, and can be contacted at khanalrc@gmail.com

The post FEATURE: Climate resilience in Nepal moves a step closer to reality appeared first on Climate and Development Knowledge Network.