1 / 18

NAPAs and National Communications Cairo, Egypt 20 - 22 September 2007 Mr. Bubu Pateh Jallow - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

NAPAs and National Communications Cairo, Egypt 20 - 22 September 2007 Mr. Bubu Pateh Jallow CHAIR OF THE LEG. OUTLINE OF PRESENTATION. Context of NAPA Process under the Convention Status of Preparation Status of Implementation Barriers and Constraints Lessons learned

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'NAPAs and National Communications Cairo, Egypt 20 - 22 September 2007 Mr. Bubu Pateh Jallow' - nevan

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript



National Communications

Cairo, Egypt

20 - 22 September 2007

Mr. Bubu Pateh Jallow


Outline of presentation

  • Context of NAPA Process under the Convention

  • Status of Preparation

  • Status of Implementation

  • Barriers and Constraints

  • Lessons learned

  • Conclusions and Recommendation

Context of the napa process

By its Decision 5 CP.7, Section II, the COP decided:

  • to establish a work programme for the implementation of Article 4.9 of the Convention, which would include activities, among many others “Supporting the preparation of national adaptation programmes of action (NAPAs)” Para 11(c);

  • and in Para 15 the Decision relates the NAPAs to NATCOMs as “the information contained in NAPAs may constitute the first step in the preparation of initial national communications”;

Context of the napa process1

  • By Decision 7CP.7, COP decided to establish the LDC Fund to support the work programme for the least developed countries

  • By Decision 27CP.7, COP adopted the initial guidance to GEF for the operation of the LDC Fund to support the work programme for the least developed countries and requested GEF to provide funding from the LDC Fund to meet the agreed full cost of preparing the NAPAs, given that the preparation of NAPAs will help to build capacity for the preparation of national communications.

  • By Decision 28CP.7, paragraph 1 COP adopted the guidelines for the preparation of NAPAs;

  • By Decision 29 CP.7, paragraph 1. COP established the least developed countries expert group (LEG) with its terms of reference

Status of napa preparation

  • As of 31 July 2007, the following 21 LDCs have completed and officially submitted their NAPAs: Bangladesh, Bhutan, Burundi, Cambodia, Comoros, Democratic Republic of Congo, Djibouti, Eritrea, Haiti, Kiribati, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritania, Niger, Rwanda, Samoa, Sénégal, São Tomé e Príncipe, Sudan and Tuvalu.

  • The officially submitted NAPAs can be accessed on the UNFCCC website

Status of napa implementation

  • Out of the 21 submitted NAPAs, six NAPA implementation projects have been officially submitted by 21 May 2007 to the GEF for funding under the LDCF, including from Bangladesh, Bhutan, Malawi, Mauritania, Niger and Samoa

  • These projects have been “PIF-approved,” which means that the early- stage submissions have been identified as consistent with the LDCF eligibility criteria and that they have been entered into the LDCF pipeline

  • Since May an additional three NAPA implementation projects from Cambodia, Eritrea and Sudan have been officially submitted by UNDP to be included in the November 2007 LDCF Work Programme

Barriers and constraints
Barriers and Constraints

  • Change of Accounting System at the UNDP Country Offices coinciding with the start of NAPA process

  • Opening of Special Government Accounts for the depositing and managing NAPA Funds

  • Inadequate critical mass outside of Government and private Consultants not available when needed

  • NAPA endorsement process considered a bit longer than expected in some countries

  • Inadequate national capacity to translate NAPA Project Profiles to full fundable Projects

  • More data and information needed for the preparation of Project Identification Forms (PIFs) which is found inadequately presented in the current completed NAPAs

Lessons learned under the napa process

  • The total cost for priority adaptation projects identified in the submitted NAPAs so far amounts to USD 341,289 million

  • Current deposit in the LDC Fund is about US $ 150,000 leaving a funding gap of US $ 191,289 million.

  • Financial contributions from Annex II Parties were vital for the success register under the NAPA Process and the Parties and the LEG are highly appreciative of this support and recognizes that any future mandate of the LEG should have the endorsement of and continued support from Parties to carry out the activities entrusted to the group.

Lessons learned under the napa process1

  • Through the establishment of NAPA Teams and Working Groups, the NAPA process has improved coordination and dialogue at the national and regional levels. The Ministries of Environment, Finance, Planning and Development, and Civil Society have been driving the process.

  • The National Communication process should benefit from this broadened and bottom-up institutional framework.

  • The NAPA Stakeholder Consultation process particularly at the grassroots levels has generated a lot more data and information for climate change studies. The data and information includes traditional knowledge and coping strategies.

  • This additional level of information will particularly be useful for the process of preparation of Second National Communications by Parties.


Mainstreaming is a process and has been initiated under the NAPA Process through the establishment of appropriate institutional framework.

  • All NAPA Teams are multi-sectoral and multi-disciplinary with membership drawn from research institutions, agriculture, environment, forestry, fisheries, academia, media and civil society and private sector (Comoros) with some international consultants (Gambia and Uganda).

  • NAPA Teams are guided by a Project Steering Committee, which is more policy oriented and oversees the progress of the NAPA development process;

  • The NAPA Project Steering Committee of The Gambia is chaired by a Permanent Secretary and includes National Focal Points of the Desertification and Biodiversity Conventions and the GEF Focal Point, National Assembly and Civil Society.

  • Comoros established a NAPA Island Committees to coordinate the NAPA process at the island level.

Lessons learned under the napa process2

  • Mainstreaming through the PRSP, other National Plans and Programmes and the MDGs

  • In the selection of the priority NAPA projects in Bhutan, one of the criteria was to assess whether the projects complement national goals such as overcoming poverty, enhancing the adaptive capacity or other multilateral environmental agreements.

  • In Bangladesh the "Policy Matrix 18, integration of climate change adaptation in all policies, programmes and projects is one of the key targets and recognises that NAPA is closely related to the other environmental policies or programmes in particular the National Action Plan on biodiversity and the National Environmental Management Action Plan (NEMAD).

Lessons learned under the napa process3

  • Reduction of the vulnerabilities of the rural communities to the adverse impacts of extreme weather events, enabling the rural communities to adapt to climate change, attainance of food security, resettlement of population, provision of fresh water, rational use of coastal structures, effective land-uses, utilisation of marine resources, reduction of poverty and environmental degradation and achievement of sustainable rural livelihood are all elements of poverty reduction strategy that are common to the NAPA and the PRSP in Malawi and Samoa.

  • Key activities laid out in Mozambique’s PRSP include measures to manage its vulnerability to and strengthening its capacity to respond to natural disasters. This resulted to disaster risk management and reduction being the highest priority in the Mozambique NAPA.

Lessons learned under the napa process4

  • The NAPA process is entering a transition from NAPA preparation to NAPA implementation. Six countries have already received approval for funding implementation from the LDC Fund under the GEF.

  • The implementation of these projects and others to come will provided practical knowledge and experience on climate change adaptation in addition to whatever study outcomes will be coming out of the technical institutions and Universities. This “Learning by doing” is a concrete and fast way of gaining knowledge and the NAPA Implementation process will provide this to the global climate change process and in particular the experiences and knowledge gained will be good input to the National Communications process.

Summary and conclusions

  • The National Communications Process should adopt and maintain the institutional framework sutup under the NAPA process;

  • NAPA process is at a juncture – implementation phase is starting for about half of the LDCs that have completed their NAPAs, while the other half of LDC Parties are still at various stages of preparation - some of whom (East Timor, Afghanistan, Equatorial Guinea) are at incipient stages

  • There is continuing need for the LEG to provide technical guidance and advice on the preparation of NAPAs, to advise on capacity-building, to facilitate the exchange of information, and to advise on efforts to mainstream adaptation into development planning

Summary and conclusions1

  • Closer collaboration is needed to support LDC Parties to prepare NAPA proposals for funding, and to support NAPA teams that are in various stages of NAPA preparation;

  • Need to continue monitoring bottlenecks and constraints in the preparation of NAPAs through targeted questionnaires;

  • Variety of effective partnerships have been built which involve a number of support organizations at the international level as well as in-country institutions at the level of the individual NAPA

Summary and conclusions2

  • Contributed to raising awareness of adaptation among stakeholders, integrating climate change concerns across agencies represented in NAPA teams, and raising the importance of adaptation to the highest decision-making level through the NAPA endorsement process

  • NAPA preparation process has itself generated benefits beyond serving as a vulnerability and adaptation assessment. The challenge will be to maintain the momentum and awareness generated into the implementation phase

Summary and conclusions3

The COP should extend the mandate of the LEG at COP 13 for the continuation of the provision of advisory services to meet the special circumstances and needs of the LEAST DEVELOPED COUNTRIES (LDCs) and implementation of the remaining elements of the LDC Work Programme adopted by COP 7 in 2001