Supporting Countries to Integrate Climate Change …… · Web viewDraft for Consultation: October 2014. Supporting Countries to Integrate Climate Change into Planning and Budgeting.

Supporting Countries to Integrate Climate Change into Planning and Budgeting

A UNDP Approach

Prepared by

Ashley Palmer, Paul Steele, Thomas Beloe, Yusuke Taishi, Rohini Kohli, Pradeep Kurukulasuriya, Kevork Baboyan, Joanne Manda and Sujala Pant

Draft for Consultation: October 2014


I. Introduction

Addressing Climate Change as a Core Human Development IssueThe discourse on climate change has evolved considerably over the years, from an issue that was seen to be principally an environmental challenge to one with far wider repercussions, even raising the spectre of a reverse of human development gains made in the past. “[L]ooking to the future, the danger is that [climate change] will stall and then reverse progress built-up over generations not just in cutting extreme poverty, but in health, nutrition, education and other areas”.1

The connection between climate change and human development has come into ever clearer focus and is increasingly well documented. The 2012 Asia-Pacific Human Development Report, One Planet to Share: Sustaining Human Progress in a Changing Climate, was dedicated to this topic. It examined the many ways in which climate change threatens people’s fundamental choices and opportunities, from risks to livelihoods and economic assets, to the heightened potential for conflicts over environmental resources, to the health risks posed by climate-sensitive diseases. The report also highlighted the nexus between climate change and inequality, noting “[w]hile climate change will affect everybody to some degree, the poor are particularly vulnerable, with the fewest options for adapting or managing risk.”2

Responding to Climate Change Requires a Whole-of-Government ApproachAddressing climate change requires an integrated approach which reflects the multi-dimensional nature of its impact on human development. At the level of an individual country, an effective climate change response involves horizontal integration across economic, social, and environmental sectors and policy domains; policy coherence in the face of competing priorities; and vertical integration between governance levels.3 Looking at the institutional architecture of a government, it means that a ‘whole-of-government’ approach is needed. This can take many forms. National/sub-national climate change policies may be translated into the planning and budgeting process, and in turn inform the activities of sectors through line ministries and technical agencies. Or, climate change response strategies and activities which prove effective can inform national policy frameworks. Other scenarios abound as well.

In practice, a whole-of-government approach requires significant involvement of Ministries of Planning and Finance in working with Ministries of Environment as well as with key line ministries such as agriculture, energy, health, and transport. As a cross-cutting development issue, climate change cannot be effectively addressed as an environmental challenge alone, but instead must be reflected in overall planning and budgeting systems as an integral part of a country’s efforts to achieve its national development goals.

1 Fighting Climate Change: Human Solidarity in a Divided World, Human Development Report, UNDP, 2007/2008. 2 Asia-Pacific HDR. One Planet to Share: Sustaining Human Progress in a Changing Climate, UNDP, 2012.3 Regional, National, and Local Level Governance for Sustainable Development, Rio 2012 Issue Brief, 2011.

1

All around the world it is plain that climate change is happening and that human activities are the principal cause. Last month the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change confirmed that the effects of climate change are widespread, costly and consequential - from the tropics to the poles, from small islands to large continents, and from the poorest countries to the wealthiest. The world's top scientists are clear. Climate change is affecting agriculture, water resources, human health, and ecosystems on land and in the oceans. It poses sweeping risks for economic stability and the security of nations.-UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon, The Guardian, 6 May 2014


The Context of Climate Change Finance in Developing CountriesClimate change affects all countries, yet developing countries are among the most severely impacted. While there is often a great deal of attention to the financial resources being provided by the international community, developing countries are committing sizable amounts of their own domestic financial resources towards implementing their national response to climate change. In Indonesia, for example, 66% of public climate finance in 2011 originated from national sources.4

There are a range of challenges to managing climate change finance and developing countries are iteratively identifying approaches to address them. For domestic climate change finance from a Government’s own budget, this includes strategies for defining what actually constitutes climate change allocations and expenditures and integrating it – vertically and horizontally; across sectors and with involvement of multiple actors- into existing planning and budgeting systems. For international climate change finance, developing countries are identifying ways to align these resources with national development priorities and climate change policies.

There are clear incentives to improve on current approaches and strengthen existing systems. When it comes to domestic climate change finance, integration with existing planning and budgeting systems

allows a country to make informed decisions to align the use of resources with national climate change policy, and to avoid duplication and wastage. It also makes possible evidence-based reporting on the steps taken by the country, including the amount of domestic ‘own-source’ resources committed, to address climate change. As increasingly large sums of money become available from international sources, developing countries continue to improve their “readiness” for climate finance5 by strengthening institutions and systems for managing these resources to align with both national policies and international climate change obligations.

Against this backdrop, an effective approach has been to prioritize supporting countries to strengthen existing national and sub-national planning and budgeting systems for managing domestic resources, which in turn creates the right conditions for international climate change finance to flow. This emphasis on strengthening systems for managing domestic resources responds to overall resource trends. A recent report found that in the Asia Pacific region, domestic

resources- both public and private- have grown rapidly since the 1990’s, with Government spending having increased from 17% to 26% of GDP between 1995 and 2012.6

Supporting Developing Countries to Integrate Climate Change into Planning and Budgeting4 The Landscape of Public Climate Finance in Indonesia, Climate Policy Initiative, July 2014.5 A 2012 UNDP report defined climate finance readiness as the capacity of countries to plan for, access, deliver, and monitor and report on climate finance, both international and domestic, in ways that are catalytic and fully integrated with national development priorities and achievement of the MDGs.6 UNDP and Australian Government Department of Foreign Affairs, Asia-Pacific Effective Development Cooperation Report 2014, p. 14.

2

Blending Finance in MaliIn response to the fast changing architecture on climate finance and realization of the scale of resources required to address climate change priorities, the Government of Mali has embarked on operationalizing a strategy aimed at blending finance from multiple sources and channels. The Government is currently seeking to combine, sequence and blend public sources of finance, from domestic and international sources (including from vertical and bilateral channels), with private sources of finance including resources leveraged from the private sector as well as foundations. The governing instrument for the blending of finance is an integrated climate change strategy that defines clear outcomes and which is updated regularly through a consultative and participatory process.

http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/librarypage/environment-energy/low_emission_climateresilientdevelopment/-readiness-for-climate-finance/

http://climatepolicyinitiative.org/indonesia/files/2014/07/The-Landscape-of-Public-Finance-in-Indonesia.pdf


Against this backdrop, there is increasing focus on supporting developing countries to anchor their national climate change response in a strategic framework which integrates climate change with existing planning and budgeting systems. The contours of such a framework will differ depending on the country context, but work to date has pointed to some common features of a strategic framework for managing climate change finance, suggesting such a framework should:

Bring public sources of climate change finance (international/domestic) into the national planning and budgeting system, to be delivered through country systems, and align private sources of climate change finance with the overall fiscal policy framework;

Employ a whole-of-government approach, as well as more broadly involving all relevant actors, partners, and stakeholders;

Focus on planning climate change actions in the medium and longer term; Reflect a common and agreed definition, within the country, of what constitutes climate change

allocations and expenditures, allowing for consistent and accurate monitoring, tracking, and reporting on climate change investments;

Promote accountability in the use of climate change finance both to national stakeholders, particularly the most vulnerable, as well as externally to international donors and partners.

Strengthening existing systems towards such a strategic framework can pose a range of challenges, which differ depending on the country context. This paper will consider some of the approaches being taken, focusing in particular on key aspects of an ‘ideal’ strategic framework for planning and budgeting, and how such a framework can be adapted and fit-to-purpose by developing countries, in support of their own stated climate change policies and national development goals.

3

Cambodia’s Climate Change Financing Framework (CCFF) is an approach to managing climate finance across Government. Building on the national climate change strategy, the CCFF includes an assessment of climate financing scenarios, and a review of modalities for channeling this finance at the national and local level. At the heart of the CCFF is an innovative benefits approach to defining and analyzing climate finance which looks at whether the benefits of a policy/action are affected by climate change. This approach is innovative because:

A focus on the incremental difference in benefits with or without climate change for a policy or investment moves away from trying to quantify incremental costs. This approach asks the question, would the cost benefit ratio be higher or lower if climate change were to happen as predicted and if so by how much? This gives a numeric value to high, low or no regrets investments.

A focus on benefits brings in the long term perspective. This allows for a more nuanced policy dialogue about prioritizing investments which may not be considered viable in the short-term.

A focus on benefits moves country dialogue towards results based programming and performance based budgeting. The focus is on the result or benefits of the investment, making it possible to consider whether national plans are building resilience.

A focus on benefits provides incentives to Government to show how they are prioritizing their investments in a language that has political traction.

For Cambodia the process of developing the CCFF has been as valuable as the end product itself. There is broad ownership of the process and strong stakeholder commitment to implement the CCFF.

Impact: Developing countries have in place the institutions, systems and processes, at both national and sub-national levels, to effectively manage the risks to human development posed by climate change

Governments able to integrate climate change finance: on treasury, on

budget, part of longer term planning cycle

Governments able to accurately track, monitor, and report on use of climate change funds, and use

this information for decision-making

Decision-making about climate change takes into account the

needs of the poor and vulnerable

Prob

lemB

arriersIn

tervention

sO

utp

uts

Ou

tcomes

Imp

acts

Development Problem: Climate change negatively impacts on development gains, and constrains the choices and ability of people, particularly the poor and vulnerable, to participate in and benefit from development

Lack of whole of government approach; institutional and

sectoral siloes; lack of coordination; institutions not

fit for purpose

Insufficient focus on planning for climate change actions in the medium and longer term

horizon

Inadequate voice and accountability mechanisms for ensuring climate

change actions reach beneficiaries, and for overall accountable economic decision making

Much climate change planning, budgeting, delivery

(international and domestic) managed outside of country

systems

Insufficient knowledge sharing between countries on

approaches to climate resilient planning and

budgeting

Capacity and skills gaps on climate resilient planning and

budgeting approaches

Stocktaking of processes and entry

points, including through diagnostics such as CPEIR, NAP

stocktaking

Medium term climate-responsive fiscal framework guides decision making and

management of climate change resources

Medium term climate resilient planning framework (with sector

plans, attention to decentralization structure)

Institutional/governance framework for inclusive, accountable, whole-of-

government approach to managing climate risks

Support to strengthen budgeting and planning process for integrating

climate change into decision making and

development processes, at national and sub-

national levels

Facilitate sharing of experiences on

climate responsive budgeting and

planning between countries (S-S and

TrC)

Capacity building on specific technical

skills and competencies for

planning, budgeting

Sub-Problem: Decisions over scarce resources fail to adequately and effectively take climate change into account

Super Impact: All people, including vulnerable groups, are able to participate in, contribute to, and benefit from development, as barriers posed by climate change risk are minimized or eliminated


Integrating Climate Change into Planning and Budgeting: A Theory of Change

II. A Strategic Framework to Integrate Climate Change into Planning and Budgeting

4


National Systems for Planning and Budgeting: An OverviewWhile there may be some variations between individual countries, by and large national planning and budgeting cycles share some common features. The following diagram provides an overview of the process, and illustrates opportunities within that cycle for integrating climate risk. The next section of this paper will consider, in turn, elements of the planning process and the budgeting process as distinct. However, it is important to emphasize that the planning and budgeting processes must be interlinked, mutually reinforcing, and continuous, as portrayed here:

Given the complexity of integrating climate change into the planning and budgeting process, including the need for involvement of numerous institutions and stakeholders, many countries have found it helpful to undertake a focused diagnostic exercise. A Climate Public Expenditure and Institutional Review (CPEIR)7, for example, systematically considers the relationship between climate change policies, institutional mechanisms, and the technical processes of managing climate change finance within the national budgeting system. Some countries have also looked closely at their approach to climate resilient development planning, including by engaging in a stocktaking exercise to inform their National Adaptation Plan (NAP)8 process. The CPEIRs and a number of other products identified by the UNFCCC guidelines for NAP formulation (e.g. stocktaking, risk assessments, economics of adaptation and investment appraisal, participatory dialogue, etc) offer an opportunity to identify the most promising entry points within existing national systems to strengthen the climate change response.

The next section of this paper will look in more detail at the planning and budgeting cycles, and how they can be used in support of an overall national strategic framework for responding to climate change.Integrating Climate Change In the Planning Process9

7 For more information on CPEIRs, see: http://www.climatefinance-developmenteffectiveness.org/ 8 For more information on NAPs, see: http://unfccc.int/nap/

5

http://unfccc.int/nap/

http://www.climatefinance-developmenteffectiveness.org/


Most countries have some form of planning process to determine national political and economic priorities. This may take the form of a political manifesto of a party prior to election or a government action plan after an election has taken place. At a more technical level, this may take the form of a national development plan, which may be a five-year plan or over an even longer period. The challenge with these plans is the extent to which they are really translated into public expenditures through the budget process and are linked to annual, sectoral and subnational economic decision-making through sector strategies and subnational planning. To address the latter issue, some national planning processes involve elaborate bottom-up planning which brings together sectoral and subnational priorities. A stylistic budget process is set out below demonstrating the links between medium term and annual planning; between national development planning and decentralized and sector planning; and most crucially between planning and budgeting or financing. The red flags indicate entry points for mainstreaming – in this case for the National Adaptation Plan (NAP) process.

Source: GIZ adapted from Uandela (2010)10

9 This section has been adapted from Mainstreaming the Environment and Climate Change to Reduce Poverty: A Handbook for Strengthening Planning and Budgeting Processes, PEI, [draft] 2014.10 Uandela, André (2010), Planning and budgeting mechanisms in the Mozambique water sector: improving the decision making process, presented at the IRC (International Water and Sanitation Center) Symposium 2010 Pumps, Pipes and Promises, WASHCost project, Mozambique.

6

Indonesia and Nepal have both taken increasing steps to integrate climate change into their periodic planning processes. In Indonesia, the Planning Ministry BAPPENAS reviewed the impacts of climate on the latest 5 year plan, while in Nepal the National Planning Commission included linkages in their three year Plan. These efforts are also now starting to be replicated at the subnational level, with Nepal pioneering the use of the Local Adaptation Planning Process (LAPA).


Planning as an Institutional ProcessPlanning as a government function was at its height with the planned economies of socialist countries, but many developing countries still have Planning Ministries or Commissions which may be responsible for large capital expenditures, such as infrastructure through the Public Investment Program (PIP). In most OECD countries where the private sector plays a large role, the planning function of government has been reduced or merged with the Ministry of Finance or other parts of government. In countries where separate Planning and Finance Ministries continue, this may be a source of institutional tension and in some cases Planning Ministries have lost power as Ministries of Finance become stronger. For those who favor a separate Planning Ministry, the argument is that the Ministry of Finance may stress a short term focus on managing macro-economic indicators, without the benefit of a longer term view on economic and political trends that a Planning Ministry can provide. This longer term perspective of a Planning Ministry can also mean that Planning Ministries are more likely to take into account the longer term threats created by climate change.

Integrating Climate into National Planning DocumentsThere has been a good deal of work and much progress on reflecting climate issues in national planning documents. For example, the Planning Commission in Bangladesh produced a 5 th Five Year Plan with a much more substantive section on environment and climate change than earlier national plans. In the Cook Islands, climate change has been mainstreamed into Te Kaveinga Nui, the National Sustainable Development Plan (2011-2015). In Cambodia, the forthcoming National Plan recognizes the significance of climate change and is expected to includes climate indicators, in addition to being linked to the 10 Year Climate Change Strategic Plan.

Integrating Climate into National Planning ProcessesIntegrating climate change into national planning processes is a much more institutionally sustainable approach than simply inserting text into a planning document. It requires that a particular set of institutions and relevant sectors continue to address climate change issues over the course of a multi-year planning cycle. In addition, it allows for planning processes to be dynamic and flexible in order to respond to new data and risks over time and to address uncertainty within climate models. In Bhutan, the Gross National Happiness Commission (i.e. Planning Commission) chairs a “Mainstreaming Reference Group”, which has been recognized by a Prime Ministerial Decree, to support mainstreaming into the Five Year Plan and related policies and programs. In some countries, the Ministry of Environment can play this role in integrating climate change into national planning – but this requires an able and willing Ministry of Environment to be pro-active in championing such integration.

Integrating Climate Change In the Budgeting Process11

The budget is the key political and economic decision of a government. It includes both the expenditure decisions of a government i.e. what to spend on, but also the fiscal policy of a government i.e. what to tax and levy charges on. These public expenditure and fiscal policy decisions also incentivize private sector investments. Public expenditures can impact on environment and climate issues in terms of the “positive” expenditures on environment and climate priorities such as sanitation, watershed and forestry management and climate proofing infrastructure, and “negative” expenditures such as government funded fossil fuel power plants or state led land clearance. “Positive” fiscal policy can

11 This section has been adapted from Mainstreaming the Environment and Climate Change to Reduce Poverty: A Handbook for Strengthening Planning and Budgeting Processes, PEI, [draft] 2014.

7


include incentives for clean technology or private forestry plantations, while “negative” fiscal policies can include tax breaks for private fossil fuel investments or for private investors to clear forests. The

budget is a complex political and technical exercise, which therefore provides multiple entry points for integrating climate change considerations. The key steps in the budget process are budget planning and formulation, budget execution and

implementation, and budget monitoring and accountability. The diagram below shows how climate change in particular can be integrated into these different steps.

8


Climate Responsive Medium Term Fiscal FrameworkThe implementation of a climate responsive medium term fiscal framework should be part of the development of the Medium Term Budget Strategy (MTBS) which mitigates climate change; promotes a climate resilient economy; and incentivizes climate compatible, low carbon economic growth. The following are features and key process steps in such a framework.

Revenues:On the public revenues side, the Ministry of Finance should develop a climate compatible fiscal policy, as well as a domestic and international resource mobilization strategy, to feed into the medium term fiscal framework in line with its overall fiscal discipline objectives (budget neutral, etc.). This will need to be done with technical support from the National Revenue Commission, the Ministry of Environment and concerned line ministries (for example, Ministry of Energy, Ministry of Public Transportation). Key steps in this process are outlined as follows:

1. Measure the current share of domestic revenues allocated to climate relevant actions using the CPEIR expenditure analysis tool, which looks at how that share is expected to evolve according to the medium term macroeconomic framework and/or any existing medium term climate finance targets which have been established by the government;

2. Review and reform pricing, taxation and subsidy policies, including to private sector, to be climate compatible, and quantify their net impact on the budget;

3. Estimate the amount of funding expected from dedicated global funds (for example: SPCR, GEF, AF, LDCF, GCF and UN-REDD) and private finance and include in the medium term revenue framework;

4. Estimate the expected level of funding from international (ODA) sources by consulting donors about their future intentions and integrate this estimate into the medium term revenue framework, and;

5. Review methodological options for linking domestic sources of funds to their application in climate response. It should not necessarily be assumed that sums raised from fiscally based ‘green actions’ will be hypothecated for climate response, but rather a range of technical (e.g. a national fund) and policy linkages between the sources and applications of funds should be considered. This could mean a virtual fund comprising international sources and domestic sources; ring-fencing of sums raised from taxation measures; budget support; or a policy-based linkage. A full range of climate finance management options should be identified with attention to the pros and cons specific to the context.

Once these steps are completed, a medium term revenue framework can be developed which identifies which revenue streams are linked to a climate response. This provides the basis for deriving the climate resource ceilings for each line ministry, based on climate risk assessments and past expenditure trends in a given sector.

Expenditures:

9

Bangladesh’s Ministry of Finance has started to take an increasing role in a climate responsive budget. First the government reviewed its expenditure on climate change which was found to be $1 billion per year, with three quarters from domestic resources. This motivated interest by the Ministry of Finance who then set about developing a Climate Fiscal Framework which was approved by the Minister of Finance. The Ministry of Finance has also now chosen to lead on international finance, with the Economic Relations Department identified as the National Designated Authority for the Green Climate


On the public expenditure side, line ministries need to develop climate responsive medium term expenditure frameworks, within the set ceiling, to be submitted to the [central agencies] for approval and integration into the medium term fiscal framework. Planning and budgeting for expenditures involves the following steps:

1. Line ministries identify programs and expenditures which have a climate dimension (mitigation, adaptation, technology transfer and capacity building), by using the CPEIR expenditure analysis but also, importantly, by drawing on institutional knowledge and expertise;

2. The climate relevance of programs/expenditures is then determined, ideally by using a benefits approach, or alternatively through expert judgment based on expenditure description with the provision of climate finance and public finance expertise;

3. Line ministries then identify which climate relevant programs/expenditures need (i) up-scaling or (ii) modification in their design (such as climate proofing) in order to optimize the benefits from the investment. The line ministry should also decide whether there is a need for new climate dedicated programs/expenditures;

4. Programs should be prioritized, net economic, environmental and social costs and benefits understood, and phased, taking into account cross-sectoral linkages and complementarity of actions using various planning and appraisal tools, including: Project appraisal including cost-benefit analysis, benefit-cost ratios; Marginal abatement costs and benefits for mitigation/adaptation effectiveness; The level of uncertainty or risk inherent in the action. One of the main sources of risk will be

uncertainty about the severity and geographical as well as temporal extent of climate change and what this implies for the performance of the climate actions considered;

Scoring and multi-criteria analysis looking at environment, economic growth, poverty, gender and disaster co-benefits, and;

Participatory approaches.

5. Finally, under the leadership of central agencies, line ministries should define key performance indicators and, where possible, provide evidence of baseline values and targets for monitoring the ministry’s climate change strategic plan. These should be based on the selection of indicators already identified for possible inclusion in the National Development Plan.

Note on Planning Tools: It is important to mention that the planning tools listed above can be very useful for guiding decision making. However, there are other critical factors which should be taken into account in the decision making process. These include the opinions of senior decision makers within the ministry, as well as the enabling political environment. It is, therefore, fundamental to complement a technical planning exercise with an institutional and political economy analysis to consider other factors which affect the ability of public sector institutions to implement the actions.

Accountability in the Use of Climate Change FinanceThe accountable use of climate change finance is crucial – both in terms of expenditures being spent as and where agreed, as well as with regard to ensuring that resources reach the communities most in need. For this, the role of Parliaments is most relevant; similarly, anti-corruption commissions (or equivalent) also have a role to ensure that finance is being used as planned, and that leakage and rent-seeking is minimized. The role of non-state actors is also equally significant. Civil society organizations have an important role in ensuring the accountable and transparent use of climate change resources, as well as in working with communities to encourage their involvement in holding government to account.

10


III. Conclusion: UNDP’s Approach to Supporting Countries to Integrate Climate Change into Planning and Budgeting

The theory of change which informs UNDP’s approach involves a range of interventions for integrating climate change within planning and budgeting functions in government, shifting from a purely environment driven agenda. The nature and sequence of interventions depends upon the country context. Understanding the roles of different actors, enabling environment, legal framework, accountability mechanisms, and other governance factors which impact on the planning, budgeting and delivery of climate change finance is critical.

UNDP’s approach builds on overall development effectiveness principles and on its track record of working with leadership within countries to contextualize development support and align with national priorities. The approach emphasizes the human development mandate by strengthening not just the technical processes of planning and budgeting, but also focusing attention on the gender, poverty, vulnerability, and inclusiveness aspects of climate change policy and implementation systems. In practice, much of UNDP’s support to developing countries in this area has focused on strengthening national [country] systems for, first and foremost, managing domestic climate change finance. By extension, this approach contributes to creating overall conditions and enabling environments within countries which can also effectively absorb and manage international sources of climate change finance. This approach is also broadly in line with UNDP’s mandate and primary accountability to partner countries, with only secondary accountability to international climate change institutions/funds.

Against this backdrop, UNDP has supported the integration of climate change into development processes through a number of interventions and programs, including:

The Governance of Climate Change Finance Program focuses on promoting a whole-of-government approach in responding to climate change, using the budget process as an entry point. The program supports the Ministry of Finance to promote climate compatible budgeting across government, and focuses on ensuring that climate change finance benefits the poor and vulnerable. Engagement with civil society actors, as well as other state institutions such as Parliament is also an important aspect of the program. The program aims to: i) support the integration of climate change into budget formulation at national and sub-national levels; ii) strengthen institutions to track and report on climate change expenditures as part of the budget process at national and sub-national levels; iii) share knowledge effectively within and across countries as well as with key international policy processes related to climate change finance. More information: http://www.climatefinance-developmenteffectiveness.org/

The National Adaptation Plan Global Support Program (NAP-GSP) is assisting LDCs to identify technical, institutional and financial needs to integrate climate change adaptation into ongoing medium and long-term national planning and budgeting. The program helps strengthen institutional and technical capacities in all LDCs for iterative development of comprehensive NAPs that are country-driven, and based on existing national development priorities, strategies, and processes. The program objectives focus on: i) developing operational and flexible NAP papers and implementing training to advance medium- to long-term adaptation planning processes in the context of LDC national development strategies; ii) making tools and

11

http://www.climatefinance-developmenteffectiveness.org/


approaches available to LDCs to support key steps in the NAP process; and iii) exchanging lessons learned and knowledge through South-South and North-South Cooperation. More information: http://www.undp-alm.org/projects/naps-ldcs

The Economics of Climate Change Adaptation Capacity Building Program supports countries to advance their country-driven mainstreaming efforts and climate adaptation programs by providing training on the economics of adaptation. The skills developed under this program are intended to help practitioners select and design efficient adaptation projects in their country. This can help countries to more strongly interface with international climate adaptation funding sources, as well as to plan and budget adaptation projects to be financed domestically. The cost-benefit analysis training also helps practitioners include climate change in traditional development projects, thereby mainstreaming climate change risk management practices into domestic programs and national economic development planning. More information: http://www.undp-alm.org/projects/ecca-asia

These initiatives have supported countries to address climate change from different entry points, and collectively are contributing to making climate an increasingly more central part of the human development agenda. The added-value of UNDP working through a whole-of-government approach is that it strengthens planning and budgeting systems to manage climate finance by building on on-going activities in areas related to governance, environment, disaster risk reduction, and poverty. UNDP’s approach also stresses the need to work with both international and domestic finance to leverage all existing and potential resources.

12

http://www.undp-alm.org/projects/ecca-asia

http://www.undp-alm.org/projects/naps-ldcs