Summary
(from "ENB on the side", published by IISD)
This event discussed the implications of adaptation metrics on climate negotiations, funding and governance. Following two presentations on the topic, a panel considered relevant questions, provided in advance.
Akio Morishima, Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), described projects in Bangladesh and India to develop proactive micro-adaptation strategies. He raised questions regarding: whether appropriate means and capacities to measure adaptation progress exist; whether it is appropriate to have adaptation targets akin to mitigation targets; and whether those who implement effective adaptation actions should be recognized and rewarded.
Jonathan Pershing, World Resources Institute, described the past, current and future levels of water availability according to both local- and national-level data, given the striking differences in the depictions, and argued for site-specific adaptation metrics.
Ancha Srinivasan, IGES, presented on his work with SVRK Prabhakar, IGES, on findings from an IGES-World Bank workshop on measuring adaptation effectiveness. He outlined major concerns in developing metrics, and noted that challenges remain, such as deciding whether metrics should be: deductive or inductive; site-specific or spatially scalable; direct or proxy; ex-ante vs. ex-post; project-specific or regional; discrete or composite; and qualitative or quantitative.
Heather McGray, World Resources Institute, discussed the outcomes of a workshop on assessing adaptation at the national level. She said that adaptation is highly context dependent, and she presented the schematic elements of an adaptation framework, including: planning, management, and service delivery functions; country-specific priorities; and progress measures.
Shuzo Nishioka, IGES, introduced the panel's questions, concerning: whether adaptation should be measurable, reportable and verifiable (MRV); whether metrics should be the basis of funding decisions, and what the barriers are to operationalizing metrics; whether metrics should be quantified; country-level governance issues, and how a future climate regime can improve governance at various levels; and how synergies between UNFCCC and non-UNFCCC initiatives can be strengthened.
In the panelists' responses, Ir. Sulistyowati, Ministry of Environment, Indonesia, said that just because MRV applies to mitigation does not mean it should apply to adaptation. Masato Kawanishi, Japan International Cooperation Agency, said that MRV requirements may be necessary but are very difficult, and highlighted the need for coordination. Ian Noble, World Bank, discussed metrics in defining vulnerability and described a World Bank pilot programme in climate resilience. Mozharul Alam, Bangladesh Centre for Advanced Studies, said that metrics can help identify infrastructure and institutional capacity needs and respond to sectoral impacts. Savio Carvalho, Oxfam, described adaptation realities in Uganda, and underscored the urgency in coordinating the humanitarian and climate communities.
Participants discussed: adaptation needs across ecosystems; risks inherent in developing metrics; and the utility of metrics.
|
