Transcript United Nations Environment Programme EBA Decision Support Framework: Moving from Principles to Practice Ole Vestergaard UNEP Division for Environmental Policy Implementation, Nairobi Adaptation Knowledge Day.

United Nations Environment Programme
EBA Decision Support Framework:
Moving from Principles to Practice
Ole Vestergaard
UNEP Division for Environmental Policy Implementation, Nairobi
Adaptation Knowledge Day III, 18 May 2012, Bonn
AIMS
DEVELOPMENT OF PRACTICAL GUIDANCE ON EBA
This effort aims to assist countries develop long-term effective EBA
interventions by addressing the strategic questions:
a) How to select the most appropriate EBA options relevant to a
specific context?
b) How to evaluate the effectiveness and long-term adaptation
outputs of specific EBA measures?
SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES
• Develop guidance to planners and decision-makers to select,
design and implement ecosystem-based adaptation options
relevant to the UNEP EBA Flagship ecosystems (coasts, drylands,
riverbasins, mountains).
• Review theoretical and practical approaches currently being
applied across a range of EBA and EBM programmes and
projects, and provide recommendations on appropriate evaluation
approaches within particular management contexts.
• Develop an operational Decision Support Framework to assist
planners and decision-makers compare and select adaptation or
EBA options.
Development steps
• EBA Profiling and background
analysis, 2011
• Expert workshop & synthesis, Feb
2012, Nairobi
• Final draft ‘Prototype’ completed
April 2012
• External review, April-May 2012
• Field testing & further
development – using existing/new
project as platforms
[Starting
up]
• Development of training package
and courses [Starting up]
EBA SITUATION ANALYSIS – WHERE?
EBA SITUATION ANALYSIS - WHERE?
• Distribution of EBA activities
across different regions
• Distribution of EBA
activities in different
ecosystem types
EBA SITUATION ANALYSIS - WHAT?
Some principles and resources on EBA that informed the EBA-DSF
•
Andrade, A. et al (2011) Draft principles and guidelines for integrating ecosystem-based.
approaches to adaptation in project and policy design: a discussion document.
•
Books, N. 2011. Tracking Adaptation and Measuring Development. IIED.
•
Cambridge Conservation Initiative (2011): Effectiveness of ecosystem-based approaches to
adaptation: A critical review of current evidence, Background document.
•
Lamhauge, N., E. Lanzi and S. Agrawala 2011. “Monitoring and Evaluation for Adaptation:
Lessons from Development Co-operation Agencies”, OECD.
•
Spearman, M. and McGray, H. 2011. Making Adaptation Count:
•
TNC 2011. Ecosystem-Based Adaptation: Bridging Science and Real-World Decision-making.
•
Hills, T., and Pramova, E. 2011. Informing decisions on ecosystem-based approaches for the
adaptation of people in the Asia and Pacific region
•
UNEP EBM Guide (2011)
Overview of principles for effective EBA (Adapted from TNC 2011)
PRINCIPLE
Promote
resilient
ecosystems
Maintain
ecosystem
services
Support
sectoral
adaptation
Reduce risks
and disasters
Complement
infrastructure
Avoid
maladaptation
REQUIREMENTS
DETAILS



Modeling of projected climate change
Revised systematic planning
Revision of protected area systems design
EBA approaches cover a broad spectrum in land
management, policy and project
implementations.



Valuation of ecosystem services
Determine climate change impact scenarios
Identify options for managing ecosystems or
managing use
Involve user communities in adaptation action
Trade-off analysis
Maintaining ecosystem services is key – and,
again, something that the field of conservation
must develop better understanding of how to
design and implement, and especially improve
our ability to effectively measure benefits
provided.


Include approaches in national adaptation plans
Incorporate ecosystem services in land/coastal
management frameworks
New opportunities are opening up for
partnerships and natural system solutions with
many of societies sectors impacted by climate
change.


Restore key habitats that reduce vulnerability:
Involve vulnerable communities in restoration efforts
There is growing interest in the security, public
safety and disaster prevention communities -we are seeing increasing awareness of climate
impacts and for the potential of natural system
solutions.

Dam re-engineering – maintain ecological flows in
rivers
Dams, levees – Restoration of floodplains for flood
attenuation
Innovations and strategies like these, for
complimenting infrastructure, are being tested
now around the world.
Improve analysis of impacts from adaptation activities
Avoid inadvertent impacts on natural ecosystems and
communities
Some engineered solutions can have significant
negative impacts to natural systems





Barriers to Achieving Principles of Effective Evaluation
• Uncertainty and long timeframes;
• Unclear objectives and no single definition of success;
• Diverse vulnerability factors and attribution; and
• Complex, cross-sector problems and activities.
• Climate adaptation interventions are implemented over short
periods and attributing change in resilience and adaptive capacity
at the community level to longer term climate impacts is
challenging.
• Further, many projects set broad objectives or use unclear terms,
such as ‘resilience’, which may have different meanings in different
contexts.
Barriers to Achieving Principles of Effective Evaluation - contd….
• Lack of guidance in indicator selection and/or the provision of
example indicators that do not meet evaluative criteria and do not
align to local context.
• Limited review of project and program indicator selection and
monitoring regimes prior to project financing.
• Disconnect between the creation of the monitoring and evaluation
framework and implementation (theory of change is ‘lost’ along the
way).
• Limited financing to establish baselines and implement regular
monitoring activities.
Rationale for DSF
A EBA Decision Support Framework should be:
• Framed to enable consideration of EBA against a suite of other
alternatives, and comes with an acknowledgement that EBA is not
the best adaptation solution in all contexts.
i.e. enabling decision-making processes to compare conventional
adaptation options (i.e. typically delivering a smaller range of
services that are easier to quantify) with EBA options (i.e. deliver a
greater range of options that are more difficult to quantify).
• Built around an embedded M&E framework that is both adaptive
and reflexive to inform the process of selection, design and
implementation of EBA initiatives.
• Pro-active: framing M&E guidance that acts to shape the key
questions to be addressed in the project design phase and through
the life-cycle of the EBA initiative.
Rationale for DSF
• Provide information to help users understand the range of options
available to treat climate related risks (both ecosystem and non)
and select the most appropriate option for their specific context;
• Ensure that the user has the ability to monitor the effectiveness of
their selected intervention in achieving its intended outcomes
TARGET AUDIENCE:
Mid-level decision-makers and planners setting up adaptation
Brings together complex information in accessible format to facilitate
decision-making a different levels – assessing EBA among other
adaptation options.
Decision Support Framework (DFS) Conceptual Model
Interrelationship between principles in the design and implementation of
effective EBA
M&E at the heart of the DSF – Two-tiered approach:
Long-term M&E
Project M&E
A: Setting the Adaptive
Context
D: Adaptive
implementation
B: Selecting Appropriate
Options for Adaptation
C: Design for Change
Draft EBA Decision Support Framework
A: Setting the Adaptive
Context
B: Selecting Appropriate
Options for Adaptation
What does your system
look like?
EBA approaches available?
How is it used?
What approaches are
suitable for your context?
Management concerns?
Adaptation goals?
D: Adaptive
implementation
Monitor
Interpret
Reflect and adapt
Sound decision-making
C: Design for Change
How will the measure be
implemented?
How will you know if the
measures are effective?
Draft EBA Decision Support Framework
DSF COMPONENTS & ASSOCIATED ACTIVITY SHEETS
Component ‘A’: Setting the Adaptive Context
Focus Question A4: Do you have clearly defined adaptation goals?
Adaptation goals refer to the intended outcomes of the adaptation intervention, both during the lifetime of the initiative and in the future (i.e. longer term adapt
IF YES:
You understand the primary problems at your intervention site from a systems perspective and have formulated context-specific
adaptation goals and objectives to inform selection of adaptation options through Component ‘B’
Go to COMPONENT ‘B’
IF NO:
Consider the following questions:

What is your problem statement?

What would your preferred future look like?

How would you get there?

How would you know if you had achieved your desired results?
For guidance on answering these questions refer to BOX 7.
BOX 7: GUIDANCE ON DEFINING PREFERRED FUTURES AND CONTEXT-SPECIFIC ADAPTATION GOALS
1.
What would your preferred future look like?
Describe the characteristics of your ideal future system, including social, cultural, environmental and ecosystem specific characteristics
2. How can you get there?
Consider all of the activities that would need to take place to ensure that the system transitioned to this new future. Some of the activities
will be outside the control of your intervention. However, make sure all activities are recorded. You can then be clear later in the project
design how your activities contribute to this future and what is beyond the scope of your project.
3.
How would you know if your system had transitioned to the new desired state, what would it look like?
Work with stakeholders to describe ‘what success looks like’. Refer back to your preferred future and describe what this looks like in your
context. For example, if you noted that your future system would have resilient livelihoods, explain what a resilient livelihood looks like in
your context – e.g. households have tin roofs.
4.
What are the thresholds for unacceptable change?
Discuss the expected system changes based on socio-economic and climate projections and the associated impacts. Through a
collaborative process, work with stakeholders to define the unacceptable changes in your system.
Component ‘B’: Selecting Appropriate Options for Adaptation
Component ‘C’: Design for Change
Component D: Adaptive Implementation
SOME CONCLUSIONS AND KEY MESSAGES
• EBA activities are taking place in a wide range of contexts
pertaining to different ecosystems, climate change risks, scales
etc. Subsequently, no comprehensive or inclusive definition of
EBA exists as a ‘one-size-fits-all’.
Rather, a clear ‘context-specificness’ or ‘it depends
factor’ is most explicitly recognised by the organizational
objectives of the implementing agency.
• Available information suggests that as a minimum, an adaptation
initiative must be measurable and reflective; prioritized; cost
effective; couched within existing policies and catalyzed by strong
leadership, particularly at a local level, if it is to be an effective
endeavor.
• The distinction between the long term M&E and project M&E in the
DSF will be a useful step towards establishing the sound
‘evidence for persuasion’ that is lacking.
SOME CONCLUSIONS AND KEY MESSAGES
• Lack of robust information on EBA options and measures in
comparison to more ‘traditional’ adaptation technologies. Need
easy information to inform the decision making process.
• Existing information on EBA has been largely directed at the
formulation of principles and objectives. While capacity building
expertise with respect to EBA may exist within the adaptation
community and beyond, it has yet to be extended to the provision
of support for on-the-ground decision-making at a project level.
NB. Developing an EBA decision-framework is a complex task..!
- we look for wide input and collaborations in further
evolution and application of EBA-DSF.
WHERE TO FROM HERE?
• Pilot testing in variety of ecosystem and decision contexts
• Development of training package and national / regional training
role-out (e.g. support to NAPA and NAP implementation)
• Synthesis of practical learning
Further development of EBA-DSF
• Practical M&E module
• Practical cost-benefit analysis
• Ecosystem specific DSF’s (coastal DSF, mountain DSF, etc)
Thank you!
Contact:
Ole Vestergaard
UNEP Division of Environmental Policy Implementation
Email: [email protected]