mainstreaming adaptation in action: case studies … adaptatio… · mainstreaming adaptation in...

WORKING PAPER | December 2018 | 1

WORKING PAPER

MAINSTREAMING ADAPTATION IN ACTION: CASE STUDIES FROM TWO STATES IN INDIAAYESHA DINSHAW, NAMRATA GINOYA, PARVATHI PREETHAN, ARIVUDAI NAMBI APPADURAI, MARINANGELES GUTIÉRREZ RIVERA

CONTENTSExecutive Summary ....................................... 1Introduction ............................................... 3 Context for Mainstreaming Adaptation in India ....................................... 6Case Study: Mainstreaming Adaptation into the Livestock Sector in Madhya Pradesh ......... 8Case Study: Mainstreaming Adaptation into the Forest Sector in Uttarakhand ................. 12Findings and Conclusions ...............................17Appendices ...............................................20Endnotes..................................................23References ............................................... 24

Working Papers contain preliminary research, analysis, findings, and recommendations. They are circulated to stimulate timely discussion and critical feedback, and to influence ongoing debate on emerging issues. Working papers may eventually be published in another form and their content may be revised.

Suggested Citation: Dinshaw, A., N. Ginoya, P. Preethan, A. Nambi Appadurai, and M. Gutierrez. 2018. “Mainstreaming Adaptation in Action: Case Studies from Two States in India.” Working Paper. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. Available online at http://www.wri.org/publication/mainstreaming-adaptation-action.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYHighlights ▪ India will face considerable and varied climate change

impacts in the coming decades. The country’s large population with high poverty and low adaptive capacity, dependence on climate-sensitive sectors, and negative climate change projections make adaptation critical. ▪ Integrating, or mainstreaming, adaptation into devel-opment plans, programs, and projects is an important strategy to ensure that adaptation can match the scale and urgency of the climate change problem. ▪ In India, states are key players on adaptation, and several vulnerable sectors are the responsibility of the state. Although some sectors in a few states have begun mainstreaming adaptation into their sectoral programs and projects, there is much more opportunity to inte-grate climate risks into development. ▪ This paper describes how sectoral departments in two states have sought to manage climate risks and incor-porate adaptation into their sector plans, budgets, and programs, as well as why this was necessary, what it looked like, and how this mainstreaming of adaptation was possible. ▪ In doing so, the paper provides findings that may be relevant to other sectoral departments and states: Programmatic mainstreaming may be more finan-cially sustainable than project-specific mainstreaming; funding streams can be used to intentionally support mainstreaming; having supportive policy frameworks in place can support mainstreaming; both political and administrative leaders play important and complemen-tary roles in enabling mainstreaming; building capacity and improving institutional memory are key elements of mainstreaming; and persistent communication and coordination among sectors is critical for managing climate risks.

2 |

Background Integrating adaptation into sectoral programs, policies, and projects is an effective way to address the magni-tude of climate change. India’s large population is highly vulnerable to climate change impacts, and it is important for communities and sectors to adapt rapidly, at scale, in a way that is sustainable over time. One way to achieve this is to integrate adaptation into the day-to-day functioning of relevant sectors, such as agriculture and water, upon which large sections of the population depend for their livelihoods.

In India, these key sectors are the responsibility of states, and states are expected to incorporate climate change into their regular functioning. To prioritize adaptation activities, states have developed and implemented State Action Plans on Climate Change (SAPCCs). These plans have resulted in some interventions being implemented, but there is much more opportunity for progress. Through the upcoming revision of the SAPCCs, states have an opportunity to accelerate and deepen efforts to get climate-sensitive sectors to identify and address climate change risks and impacts in their day-to-day operations, programs, and budgets.

However, there are institutional and financing dynam-ics that challenge integration of adaptation into sectoral strategies at the state level. For instance, in 2014, the Planning Commission, which was the central body that guided planning and development in India, was dissolved and replaced with National Institution for Transform-ing India (NITI Aayog). NITI Aayog is a policy think tank that aims to increase the involvement of the states in policymaking. While decentralization of power to the states will be beneficial in some ways, there is a need for centralized planning guidance, directives, and financial support to enable state-level adaptation policymaking. This institutional decentralization has been coupled with financial decentralization, which has resulted in states needing funding for their SAPCCs at a time when they have potentially less access to financial support from the central government. The SAPCC has no dedicated fund-ing mechanism for adaptation, and the link between the SAPCCs and India’s Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which is the country’s most recent climate plan, is weak.

Despite these challenging dynamics, there is scope for more and better adaptation to be integrated into sectoral programs and projects. This paper provides findings from

two case studies to enable and encourage this, by showcas-ing mainstreamed adaptation that has been done: what it looks like, and how and why it was achieved. One case study looks into how the Department of Animal Hus-bandry (DoAH) in Madhya Pradesh integrated adaptation into its programs, and the other looks into how a multisec-toral project was implemented by the Forest Department in Uttarakhand.

About This Working PaperThis paper provides two in-depth examples of how adap-tation is integrated into sectoral programs, projects, and budgets in order to highlight what mainstreamed adapta-tion looks like and also what is necessary for integrating adaptation into development. Ideally, these findings will enable sectors, departments, and states to accelerate and scale their efforts at integrating adaptation into their day-to-day functioning. Doing so will help India adapt to the negative impacts of climate change more rapidly and at scale. The findings are also relevant to stakeholders who can support the rapid uptake of mainstreamed adaptation in India, such as the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) and state climate change cells.

Findings

▪ Programmatic mainstreaming may be more financially sustainable than project-based mainstreaming. Programmatic mainstreaming has occurred when adaptation is integrated into a depart-ment’s programs and budgets and can be seen in its day-to-day work. Using the program’s budget for mak-ing the department’s day-to-day work resilient to cli-mate change can be challenging because sectors usually have constrained budgets. However, the benefit of this type of mainstreaming is that it may be more financially sustainable over time because program budgets are always accessible (if adequate) to support adaptation. This is in contrast to stand-alone adaptation interven-tions that are time-bound, after which there is no op-tion of accessing funds for further adaptation activities.

▪ Funding streams can be used to intentionally support mainstreaming. It is especially strategic to use sectoral funds to integrate adaptation into a department’s work when it does not require an over-haul of the existing program being implemented by the department. For instance, in the Madhya Pradesh case study, the Department of Animal Husbandry was able to use sectoral funds by retaining the way it delivered its program but changing the species of cows


Mainstreaming Adaptation in Action: Case Studies from Two States in India

it was promoting to a more climate-resilient species. In the case of project mainstreaming or when sectoral funds are inadequate to accommodate expenditure of adaptation, other sources may provide an opportunity to adapt. For instance in the Uttarakhand case study, 40 percent of the project was funded by cofinancing from the departments involved, and this cofinancing was dovetailed with budgets from relevant govern-ment schemes. The Mission for Integrated Develop-ment of Horticulture (MIDH) provided a subsidy for constructing the polyhouses that provided an alterna-tive to rain-fed farming that is vulnerable to increased drought and erratic rainfall.

▪ Policy frameworks are important, especially at the early stages of mainstreaming. Although the SAPCC recommendations are not mandates and can-not ensure that adaptation takes place, the two case studies showcase the different but important roles that the SAPCCs played in both states at the beginning of the mainstreaming process. In Madhya Pradesh it was not the final SAPCC document that spurred and enabled integration of adaptation into the DoAH as much as the process of developing the SAPCC, with the working groups and access to experts being critical elements that enabled mainstreaming. In Uttara-khand, the Forest Department prepared the SAPCC with support from the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), which seemed to enable the For-est Department to lead the project highlighted in the case study. The SAPCC itself was helpful in guiding selection of the location and activities of the project implemented by the Forest Department.

▪ Both political and administrative leaders have different yet complementary influences on the mainstreaming process. Political leaders have the ability to share high-level messages from state or sectoral plans with communities at local levels. For in-stance, in Madhya Pradesh, political leaders promoted incentive schemes at the village level to increase the uptake of the DoAH’s revised programs. Administra-tive leaders are government officials who allocate funds for various state-level programs and can influ-ence the strategic use of funds for mainstreaming. In the case of Madhya Pradesh, the chief secretary of DoAH was able to approve the well-documented case for amending the DoAH’s programs and budgets to integrate climate risks. Both these forms of support and influence are required for successful mainstream-ing of adaptation.

▪ Building capacity and institutional memory enables implementation and sustained ac-tion. Both case studies highlight how a commitment to engaging individuals and building their capacity to engage further enables implementation of adaptation interventions within a sector. Building capacity and institutional memory can also enable sustained action over time, despite turnover in personnel. The process of developing the SAPCC was critical for building the capacity of sectoral department staff in Madhya Pradesh, and both of the case studies show that an investment in information-sharing and training can ensure institutional memory.

▪ Persistent communication and coordina-tion across sectors are critical for managing climate risks. In cases where multiple sectors are in-volved, as in the Uttarakhand project, persistent com-munication and ongoing coordination between sectors and other key entities—in this case the State Climate Change Cell and UNDP—were critical to engage other departments and sustain the momentum of the project. As described further in the Uttarakhand case study and in the Findings and Conclusions, having persistent communication and coordination is feasible for projects with a clear lead implementer, which was the Forest Department in this case. However, in cases of inter-sectoral programmatic mainstreaming where there is no lead organization, it will be critical to agree upon distinct roles and responsibilities.

INTRODUCTIONIndia hosts a growing population of 1.3 billion people, with more than half living in rural areas and dependent on climate-sensitive sectors such as agriculture, forestry, and fisheries for their livelihoods (World Bank Group 2018; GoI 2008). With over 21 percent of the population having purchasing power parity below $1.90 a day (ADB 2017a), the nation faces development challenges that are compounded by its vulnerability to the adverse effects of climate change.

India is the fourth most vulnerable country in the world in terms of facing extreme weather events due to climate change (Germanwatch 2016). In addition to sudden shocks such as extreme weather events, slow-onset events like rising temperatures will put climate-sensitive sectors and livelihoods at risk of failing to be productive enough to sustain the populations that depend on them. Climate change will jeopardize the country’s development gains

4 |

and the country’s future growth (ADB 2017b), especially if global temperatures rise above 1.5 degrees Celsius (Levin 2018).

India’s large population with high poverty and low adap-tive capacity, its heavy dependence on climate-sensitive sectors and ecosystems, and the negative climate impacts projected for the country imply that almost all sectors will need to adapt (Kumar 2018). If a broad range of sectors do not begin to account for climate risks, they will be unsus-tainable in a future with climate change. For example, climate change hazards like excessive rainfall in short periods of time, which leads to flooding, are already hurt-ing the agricultural sector in India. These types of climate change impacts on agriculture will result in lowered yields, reduced income for farmers, and decreased food security. At a national scale, it is estimated that climate change is perhaps already causing a 1.5 percent loss in GDP (Gos-wami 2017).

Mainstreaming climate change considerations into socioeconomic policies, programs, or projects is critical for addressing the magnitude and urgency of the climate change problem in India. By altering the day-to-day func-tioning of sectors to account for the risks they face due to climate change, adaptation can become a regular part of how development occurs. As further described below, this paper looks at two examples of adaptation being inte-grated into development: one into a sectoral department’s program and another into a project implemented by a sectoral department.

Mainstreaming adaptation has several benefits. It makes development more effective because it accounts for cur-rent and future risks posed by climate change (FAO 2009) and ensures that development programs and projects will thrive despite climate change. Mainstreaming also reduces potential policy conflicts between adaptation and devel-opment that may arise if they are approached separately (Lebel et al. 2012; Alhassan and Hadwen 2017). It can be more efficient than doing adaptation and development separately by making use of existing institutional struc-tures and processes (IIED 2008; Lebel et al. 2012) and can leverage larger financial flows for adaptation than those available for stand-alone adaptation (Lebel et al. 2012). Critically, mainstreaming enables adaptation at scale, which is urgently needed to contend with the challenge of climate change (UNDP-UNEP 2011).

In India, states have an important role in adapting to climate change. Key sectors such as agriculture and water are primarily state subjects (Dubash and Jogesh 2014).

Therefore, state-level authorities are expected to incor-porate climate change into their regular functioning and to detail how they will do this in their individual SAPCCs (Kumar 2018).

States began the process of developing and implement-ing their SAPCCs in 2009. Although SAPCCs have great potential to be used as vehicles for mainstreaming adap-tation, they have thus far not resulted in much main-streamed action on the ground (Gogoi et al. 2017; Dubash and Jogesh 2014). One reason for this noted during the interviews done for this paper is that while there seems to be acceptance among most departments that climate change needs to be dealt with, there is uncertainty about how to interpret existing vulnerability assessments about how climate change will impact their sectors, what adapta-tion interventions would best address these impacts, and how to integrate these into their work.

Purpose and Scope of This PaperDespite the uncertainty about how to integrate climate considerations into sectoral work, some states and sectoral departments are actively integrating adaptation into their work. This paper provides a close look at two examples where adaptation is being mainstreamed into subnational budgets, plans, and programs. The two examples are of the Department of Animal Husbandry in Madhya Pradesh and the Forest Department in Uttarakhand.

These case study examples are intended to highlight not just what is important for mainstreaming—for instance, coordination—but also what that coordination looked like in practice and what made the coordination possible. These findings will ideally enable other sectors, depart-ments, and states to incorporate adaptation into their activities at a larger scale and more rapidly. If adaptation is mainstreamed into development at scale in India, states and their populations will be significantly less vulnerable to the negative impacts of climate change.

In addition to providing insight relevant for sector-specific officials to incorporate adaptation into their business-as-usual development activities, such as agriculture or water policies and programs, the paper also targets key stakeholders who can support this uptake of mainstream-ing. These include actors who can provide incentives and technical assistance on adaptation mainstreaming, such as the MoEFCC and state climate change cells. Collectively, these stakeholders can accelerate action on adaptation mainstreaming in India.



One particular opportunity to increase the uptake of main-streamed adaptation in India is through the upcoming revisions of the SAPCCs. As described further in Section 2, the SAPCCs are the main institutional mechanism for adaptation action in India, along with the state climate change cells. Both of the in-depth examples in this paper stem from the given state’s SAPCC, highlighting the important role the SAPCCs can play in fostering main-streamed adaptation in India.

This paper is intended to complement WRI’s working paper From Planning to Action: Mainstreaming Adapta-tion into Development, which examines approaches to mainstream climate change adaptation into development policies and especially highlights factors that can drive effective implementation (Mogelgaard et al. 2018). The From Planning to Action paper proposes several key enabling factors that, working together, can help bridge the implementation gap between mainstreaming ideas and plans and actual outcomes on the ground (see Appendix A for the factors highlighted in From Planning to Action). This paper builds on these enabling factors to explore mainstreaming action that is currently happening on the ground.

However, there are elements that are outside the scope of this paper. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) describes a simple four-step approach to adaptation planning that can be helpful for visualizing the process of mainstreaming adaptation into development: assess vulnerability, identify adaptation options, select adaptation measures, and develop a moni-toring and evaluation framework (OECD 2009). The case studies include information mainly on the first three steps, for which information was available. In Madhya Pradesh, basic monitoring has begun. However, because no moni-toring or evaluation has taken place in the Uttarakhand case study, very limited information on this fourth step has been included in this paper.

This paper also does not seek to judge whether the case-study states have successfully or unsuccessfully mainstreamed adaptation. Instead, the case studies are intended to illustrate what is possible and how to enable this so as to encourage other key stakeholders to main-stream adaptation. Similarly, this paper does not seek to compare the case studies with each other, although, where relevant, some findings do synthesize elements from both examples.

Because this was not an exhaustive study of all sectors in the two states chosen for this study, the findings do not

include mention of why mainstreaming was possible in these sectors but not others. The paper does include exam-ples of mainstreaming efforts that other sectors in both states are making, but this is intended only to provide a snapshot of where different sectors are in the process and not to compare why they are at a different stage. That said, the case studies do highlight the elements that seemed most important in enabling mainstreaming to occur.

MethodologyMadhya Pradesh and Uttarakhand were chosen as the states for identifying in-depth examples because they are both actively working on mainstreaming adaptation into sectoral plans and policies but are at different levels of advancement. Madhya Pradesh has a long and strong track record on adaptation and was therefore a good place to find relatively advanced examples. Uttarakhand, on the other hand, has begun working on adaptation more recently but is making gradual progress.

To begin the research, the authors undertook an analysis of climate change impacts on each state and key sectoral policies and plans in place to address these impacts. The authors used subjective sampling to choose key govern-ment and nongovernment stakeholders for important sectors in each state, based on expertise and the positions they hold, and contacted them for in-person or telephonic interviews. The authors conducted 25 interviews across both states, and these semi-structured interviews followed one of two questionnaires, depending on whether the interviewee was primarily a sector-specific expert or an adaptation expert (see Appendix B for the questionnaires). The interviewees included a diversity of stakeholders, including sectors such as the Water Resources and For-est Departments, agencies such as the State Knowledge Management Center on Climate Change and the Disaster Management Authority, and nonstate actors such as UNDP and the Asian Development Bank (ADB) (see Appendix C for a full list of agencies and departments that were interviewed). The interviews were conducted with the agreement that they would remain confidential, and information from the interviews is either paraphrased or presented anonymously.

The interviews revealed only a few examples of adapta-tion being integrated into policies and plans in each state. Ultimately, two were chosen from this short list of options: the Department of Animal Husbandry in Madhya Pradesh because it provides an example of mainstreaming adapta-tion into a sectoral department’s budget and program-ming, and interviewees were able to explain the process in

6 |

depth; and the Forest Department in Uttarakhand because it provides an example of mainstreaming adaptation into a project budget and design, and the critical actors, espe-cially UNDP, were accessible for follow-up interviews.

The study was conducted over five months from the begin-ning of March until the end of July, so financial resources and time limited the number of case study examples that the authors were able to investigate. However, additional case studies from other sectors in the same states or the same sectors in other states would validate the findings in this paper and yield additional valuable insight into mainstreaming adaptation in India.

CONTEXT FOR MAINSTREAMING ADAPTATION IN INDIAIndia has been actively addressing climate change con-cerns for the past decade. The following section provides a brief overview of India’s main efforts to address climate change and a few important dynamics that provide context for mainstreaming adaptation in India.

India’s Policy Response to Climate ChangeIndia’s foundational climate policy, the National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC), was published in 2008. The action plan proposed a multi-pronged approach, with long-term, interrelated mitigation and adaptation priori-ties expressed as eight sector-specific national missions.

At that time, it also became clear that climate change can only be effectively addressed if state governments play

an active role and incorporate climate impacts into their day-to-day governance, policies, programs, regulations, and investment decisions (Kumar 2018). Additionally, the sectors that are most vulnerable to climate change and require adaptation, for example—agriculture and water—are subject to the jurisdiction of the states. Therefore, in 2009 all states and union territories were requested to formulate SAPCCs. The SAPCCs play an important role in increasing institutional capacities to manage climate risks at the local level. While the SAPCC process is an impor-tant institutional vehicle for mainstreaming adaptation, some departments have gone one step further to conduct detailed studies on climate impacts on their sectors.

The central government also established the National Adaptation Fund for Climate Change (NAFCC) in 2015 for strengthening adaptation activities across the country. The NAFCC had an initial budget of $53 million (over 381.20 crores as of September 2018 exchange rates) with an addi-tional allocation of $28 million (over 201.39 crores as of September 2018 exchange rates) for the year 2016–17 and a funding cap for each state of $3.8 million (over 27.32 crores as of September 2018 exchange rates) (MoEFCC 2015). The aim of the NAFCC is to support implementa-tion of activities to manage the adverse effects of climate change at the local level, mainly focusing on sectors such as agriculture, animal husbandry, water, and forestry.

In late 2016, India submitted its Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The NDC now serves as India’s most recent climate plan and an updated

MINISTRY/AGENCY KEY ROLE AREA

Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC)

The nodal agency for the planning, promotion, coordination, and oversight of the implementation of India’s environmental and forestry policies and programs. Its Climate Change Division is the nodal body for climate change cooperation and global negotiations.

Policy & planning that influences program design at national and state level

Ministry of Science and Technology

The nodal agency for the implementation of the Mission on Sustainable Himalayan Eco-Systems and Mission on Strategic Knowledge for Climate Change. Assisting with establishing State Climate Change Center (SCCC) cells.

Knowledge center and financial assistance provider for climate cells

National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD)

The national implementing entity for the Adaptation Fund and the NAFCC that funds various government schemes and missions, as well as the direct access entity for the Green Climate Fund. Financing & coordination

Prime Minister’s Council on Climate Change

Coordinates the national action for assessment, adaptation, and mitigation of climate change, with assistance from the MoEFCC. Policy & planning

Indian Network for Climate Change Assessment

A network of scientists that produce peer-reviewed findings on climate change, extending India’s knowledge base. Including the National Institute for Climate Change Studies to conduct analytical studies as part of the Climate Change Action Program.

Knowledge center

Ministry of Finance; Finance Commission

The Finance Commission decides how revenue is to be distributed between the center and the states. It also decides the principles on which grants-in-aid will be allocated to the states. Financing

National Institution for Transforming India (NITI Aayog)

Created as a policy-focused think tank that would solely provide policy recommendations and technical support to states as the central government’s main planning body.

Policy & planning and advocacy for central and state-sponsored schemes

Table 1 | Key National Agencies Working on Adaptation in India



extension of the NAPCC missions. Several entities were instrumental in developing the NAPCC, supporting SAPCC development, and writing India’s NDC. These key agencies working on adaptation in India are listed in Table 1, along with the roles they play.

Dynamics Relevant for Mainstreaming Adaptation in India There are a few key institutional and financial dynamics that have implications for mainstreaming adaptation into development in India. Four such dynamics are described below: the dissolution of the Planning Commission and the creation of NITI Aayog, the subsequent financial decentralization that occurred and implications for state expenditure on adaptation, the lack of a specific fund-ing source from which states should finance adaptation expenditures, and the weak link between India’s NDC and state-level adaptation action.

▪ Major shift in India’s planning process: From the time of the NAPCC adoption in 2008, the country has experienced a paradigm shift in its governance structure. During Prime Minister Modi’s first year in 2014, he dissolved the Planning Commission to decen-tralize power and restructure social-sector financing. For 65 years, since 1951, the Planning Commission had presented 12 five-year plans that outlined central-ly driven schemes and proposed resource allocations to states under these schemes.

NITI Aayog is a policy think tank of the Government of India which aims to achieve sustainable develop-ment goals by increasing the involvement of state governments in policymaking processes. The last five-year plan ended in 2017, giving way to NITI Aayog’s first Three-Year Action Agenda (2017–20), which was prepared with only a few recommended actions for resilience building (NITI Aayog 2017). The move toward increased involvement and responsibility of state governments could enable them to participate in cooperative federalism and take more initiative to plan for adaptation. However, irrespective of the structure of the central planning authority, states need resources and support from the central government to effectively undertake sub-national adaptation action.

▪ Financial decentralization: The intended outcome of the Finance Commission’s five-year recommenda-tions in 2015–16 was to increase the amount of rev-enue that states received. The recommendations in-

tended to enable fiscal autonomy of states and create opportunities for improved planning at subnational levels. Although giving states control over their budget allows them to prioritize adaptation efforts, states also need more capacity to use these funds to integrate adaptation activities into their sectoral work.

However, if the central government reduces the rev-enue received by states, it will put pressure on states to commit more funds for critical development activi-ties instead of toward adaptation activities, which are still often seen as actions that are separate from regular development. This dichotomy makes it even more important that states mainstream adaptation into their development programming.

▪ Lack of supportive budgetary processes for adaptation: Activities in the SAPCCs are intended to be implemented through relevant sectoral budgets in each state. This can be challenging as the interviews conducted for this paper indicated that departments may not be willing, or do not have adequate funding, to allocate some portion of their budget to adaptation. In cases where departmental funds are available, a lack of understanding about how adaptation activities can be integrated into existing programs and how best to use these funds is also a deterrent for adaptation. Although the NAFCC exists, the amount of funding available for states is limited.

Yet, the need for finance to enable sectors to change the way they plan and program in response to climate change at the state level remains high. A 2015 report on the adaptation gap in India analyzed the budgets of states that had submitted their SAPCCs and notes that the total requirement indicated by the states exceeded current expenditure by three times (Garg et al. 2015). The lack of clarity on whether, how, and why sectors should commit their (usually constrained) budgets to adaptation impedes the ability of these sectors to adjust their plans and programs so that they are more climate-resilient.

▪ Weak link between India’s NDC and state-level action: By late 2016, India had ratified the Paris Agreement and submitted its NDC. The NDC now serves as the most recent climate plan and an updated extension of the NAPCC missions. It further empha-sizes the need for adaptation and building climate resilience, especially for the nation’s most vulnerable populations and economic sectors.

8 |

However, the NDC does not present a clear message on how adaptation is to be integrated into state-level development efforts. The only reference to state-level adaptation action in the NDC is that all states and union territories have put into place SAPCCs to main-stream climate change concerns into their planning (Climate Watch 2018). Given that responsibility for adaptation in India is primarily at the state level, hav-ing the NDC provide stronger support to subnational adaptation action will be beneficial. The five-year revisions proposed for NDCs can be an opportunity to strengthen and support state-level adaptation action in the future.

This set of dynamics paints a mixed picture: Although states have more opportunity to take initiative to plan for adaptation, and despite efforts to increase revenue and autonomy to use this revenue at their discretion, they are constrained by various factors. There is potentially less financing from central schemes that states can use for adaptation and a lack of central directives or support, no dedicated funding for the SAPCCs, limited guidance or support from the country’s NDC, and limited capac-ity at the subnational level to plan for climate change adaptation.

Despite these challenging dynamics, there are examples where adaptation has been integrated into sectoral programs and projects. The following sections describe how the Department of Animal Husbandry in Madhya Pradesh and the Forest Department in Uttarakhand have built adaptation into their policies and projects despite no planning or financial support from the central government or the NDC. The Department of Animal Husbandry is an example of how sectoral budgets can be used for adapta-tion despite the lack of dedicated adaptation finance at the state level, and the Forest Department is an example of how project funds can be used for integrating adaptation into sectoral development.

CASE STUDY: MAINSTREAMING ADAPTATION INTO THE LIVESTOCK SECTOR IN MADHYA PRADESHThis section provides an example of programmatic mainstreaming of adaptation into the livestock sector in Madhya Pradesh. It explores why the DoAH decided to incorporate climate-risk considerations into its programs and budget, what actions the department took to integrate adaptation into its programs, and how they implemented these actions.

The state of Madhya Pradesh is located in central India and is vulnerable to extreme heat and irregular rainfall patterns. These challenging weather patterns are exacer-bated by climate change. Home to a projected 80 million people by 2018 (Census 2011), 32 percent of Madhya Pradesh’s population lives in poverty (Planning Com-mission 2013). The main livelihood of the population is agriculture with animal husbandry, fisheries, and forest products substantially supplementing agricultural liveli-hoods. These livelihoods are sensitive to climate variability and change and are already being affected: Parts of 25 of 51 districts of the state have been declared drought-prone under the Drought Prone Areas Programme (Central Water Commission, 2008).

Overview of Adaptation Mainstreaming in Madhya PradeshIn 2013, under the central government’s directive, Madhya Pradesh published its first SAPCC with the theme of Inte-grating Concerns—Converging Possibilities. The Environ-ment Planning and Coordination Organization (EPCO) established the State Knowledge Management Centre on Climate Change (SKMCCC) to prepare the SAPCC, empha-sizing the need for capacity building in order to main-stream adaptation into development planning.

The SKMCCC’s first step in the SAPCC development process was to create sectoral and interdepartmental working groups to consult on vulnerability assessments, thereby involving the departments in the planning pro-cesses. The SKMCCC subsequently engaged officers from various departments in discussions with climate experts to build their capacity to understand the implications of climate change on their respective sectors. The SKMCCC also trained officers to interpret climate projections and vulnerability assessments and equipped them with tools to train others. Basic tools from the SKMCCC included checklists for sectors, such as water and urban develop-ment, which enabled them to look at their existing pro-grams through a climate lens and identify activities that needed modification. This training is an ongoing effort.

The SKMCCC, through enabling engagement with climate experts and training, helped each department understand the potential impacts that climate change will have on their sectors and programs. The SKMCCC also used dem-onstration projects to showcase how departments could strengthen their strategies in order to address climate change impacts. For example, EPCO guided the Depart-ment of Agriculture in demonstrating a project on climate-



smart agriculture in the districts of Sehore, Satna, and Rajgarh at the cost of INR 24.87 crores, to showcase how adaptation could be integrated into agriculture (EPCO 2016). These demonstration projects were supported by the NAFCC, the Climate Change Action Programme of MoEFCC, and UNDP.

After the SAPCC’s formulation, the SKMCCC advised sectoral departments to introduce new programming and modify existing programs to support adaptation efforts. According to interviews conducted for this paper, it appears that departments are at different stages of mainstreaming due to financial constraints, challenges with sharing data and information between departments, and low capacity to translate climate-related findings into programmatic adaptation actions, despite the efforts of the SKMCCC and EPCO described above. A sample of various departments’ status with respect to mainstream-ing adaptation is as follows:

▪ Agriculture: The department is focused on building the adaptive capacity of farmers by providing weather information through a climate information services program. SKMCCC developed and implemented the pilot program with support from the Agriculture Department. The department has not yet incorporated lessons learned from the demonstration projects to make significant programmatic change for the long term. However, the department is building internal capacity by training staff to understand the impacts of climate change on agriculture in Madhya Pradesh and to plan for adaptation activities in their programs in coming years. Current training programs focus on elements such as understanding and using weather information to inform farmers and understanding vulnerability assessments.

▪ Water: The department has set up a climate cell comprising climate experts and hydrologists to help them understand and mitigate climate risks to the sec-tor. The department is in the process of implementing its first pilot supported by UNDP on Participatory Ground Water Management with a focus on climate change. Findings from this project will help rede-sign groundwater programs. The department is also working with climate experts to understand climate impacts on surface water resources, potential impacts on irrigation projects, and the design of new water management strategies that consider climate impacts in addition to changing consumption patterns.

▪ Forests: The department develops 10-year working plans for its 56 forest areas, with each taking two to three years to formulate. Because the working plans include the study and management of the entire for-est ecosystem, timber and nontimber products, and eco-tourism, the department is of the opinion that the structure of working plans makes the best vehicle to combat climate risks.

▪ Science and Technology: With access to data, data analysis tools, and the capacity to interpret data, the Department of Science and Technology supports vari-ous sectors with data needs as and when requested. The department is also the Disaster Command Center for the state and is establishing an atmospheric research test bed for precise projections to better sup-port other departments with data needs in the future.

▪ Animal Husbandry: This department has been able to mainstream adaptation actions into its programs. For instance, the department has approached the negative impacts of increased heat stress on livestock through a gradual phasing out of exotic cattle that produce more milk but have lower tolerance for heat and promoting indigenous breeds that produce less milk but have a higher tolerance for heat. The follow-ing section provides a detailed example of the work done by the DoAH.

Through the process of revising the SAPCC, the SKMCCC wants to emphasize integration of adaptation activities in departments’ ongoing programmatic development activities rather than demonstration projects. Thus the SKMCCC’s primary focus is training officers and establish-ing processes of effective documentation and practices of maintaining continuity in order to retain institutional memory. Additionally, the SKMCCC aims to build owner-ship of the mainstreaming process in different depart-ments by asking them to lead the discussions as opposed to simply participating in them.

The Case of Animal Husbandry in Madhya PradeshLivestock is an important sector in Madhya Pradesh. The state has 10 percent of the cattle population of India (Gov-ernment of India 2017) and livestock contributes 26 percent of the 34 percent total agriculture sector contribution to the state’s GDP (in 2015–16 at 2004–05 prices) (ICRIER 2017). In the 2015–16 financial year, 49 percent of total milk in Madhya Pradesh came from cows, 46 percent from buffaloes, and 5 percent from goats (MoSPI 2015).

10 |

Why Adaptation Was Necessary in the Livestock SectorAt around 2010, the DoAH observed a decrease in milk yield and the reproductive characteristics of cows. As part of the SKMCCC working groups, the department started investigating how climate change affects the health of milk-yielding animals (mainly cows). After SAPCC consul-tations with climate experts, researchers, and veterinar-ians, the department found that increasing temperatures were affecting the cows, especially the exotic and cross breeds of Jersey and Holstein Friesian cows.

Jersey and Holstein Friesian cows are high-yielding cows that produce three times the amount of milk in compari-son with indigenous cows (MoA&FW 2017). However, these high-yielding cows are more susceptible to heat stress than low-yielding cows. To maintain a physiologi-cal temperature of 38.4-39.1°C, the air temperature has to range between 16 and 25 °C. With the air temperature rising above these figures, the cattle suffer from heat stress (Das et al. 2016). Heat stress increases body temperature, which affects the quantity and quality of milk produced. Internal metabolic heat production during lactation can further reduce the resistance of cattle to high ambient temperature, resulting in altered milk composition and reduction in milk yield. Additionally, elevated tempera-tures and humidity negatively affect feed intake, which negatively alters reproductive potential as well (Pragna et al. 2017).

Food availability and quality are another important ele-ment of livestock production in Madhya Pradesh. Fodder availability is already affected by overgrazing and loss of common property resources that provide free access to nutritious feed (Pankaj et al. 2013). Increased heat due to climate change puts even greater stress on fodder avail-ability and quality. Increased heat will affect feed quality and quantity by changing the species composition, as well as affect the digestibility and nutritional quality of pasture (Chauhan and Ghosh 2014).

What Interventions Were Implemented by the DoAHThe DoAH’s primary objective is to increase the state’s milk production to meet increasing consumption. To do this, the department has programs to encourage cattle ownership, improve breeds, reduce disease incidence, and monitor the number of productive and unproductive animals in the state. As described in further detail below, in order to contend with climate risks, the DoAH now also focuses on incentivizing and improving indigenous breeds

of cattle and fostering programs on fodder development, training, and insurance.

▪ Phasing out exotic breeds of cows and promot-ing indigenous species: Currently, 5 percent of cattle in Madhya Pradesh are exotic and crossbred (DAHD 2016) but they contribute 24 percent to the total cattle milk production (GoI 2017). During the previous three decades, to fulfill the growing demand for milk, there was a push toward increasing the number of exotic and crossbred species, but now the department is rethinking its policies due to the impact of heat stress on exotic species. Because indigenous species cannot compete with exotic and crossbred species in terms of milk production and reproduc-tion rates, replacing the entire exotic breed will affect short-term milk production in the state. Therefore, the department has started a slow phasing out of exotic species by promoting the procurement of indigenous species of cattle. For example, through the Vatsa (calf) Rearing Incentive Scheme, financial incentives are provided to farmers with high-yielding indigenous cows, as well as for rearing genetically superior indig-enous calves for two years.

▪ Investing in climate-resilient breeding pro-grams: Aside from promoting indigenous breeds, the department is also investing in breeding programs. These programs have traditionally supported cross-breeding of high-yielding varieties but are now moving toward identifying high-yielding indigenous cattle that possess superior reproductive traits and can tolerate heat stress. For example, under the Nandishala (bull school) scheme, the government identifies healthy indigenous male calves and supports the farmer with fodder, vet services, drugs and vaccinations, and insurance. The state has also started accepting only the highest quality semen from available samples, instead of following the minimum standard protocol of the Central Frozen Semen Production and Train-ing Institute, for breeding indigenous species. Semen quality refers to high reproductive value and general resilience to diseases and heat.

▪ Improving fodder quality and availability: The department is concerned with the increasing number of droughts, dry periods, or extreme summers in the state. These conditions affect fodder availability for the animals. In addition to the Vatsa and Nandishala schemes through which fodder is made available for calves and mothers, the department is, as a result of



this concern, now also investing in fodder acquisition and developing research projects on hydroponics. The DoAH is identifying nutritive heat and drought-resistant fodder, distributing seeds to farmers under the Feed Distribution Programme, and providing an impetus for greenhouse farming for fodder during the dry season.

▪ Research and training on breed improvement and disease identification: The department de-pends heavily on local para-vets and vets to provide doorstep veterinary health services to livestock own-ers. Started as a rural youth program, the Gausewak (cow attendant) training program now includes basic training on identifying heat stress–related issues. The E-Vet online portal connects para-vets with pharma-cies and veterinarians, allowing for better disease tracking. To provide farmers with improved indig-enous breeds of cattle, state and central governments are also training technicians on insemination and tracking the number and type of cattle that are part of the insemination activities via programs such as the Multi-Purpose AI (Artificial Insemination) Technician in Rural India program.

How Mainstreaming Occurred in the Livestock SectorThrough progressive leadership, the SKMCCC’s efforts, strong coordination, and the department’s own com-mitment, the DoAH took important steps to integrate adaptation into its programmatic activities. This section describes what enabled this integration and lessons that can be useful to other departments and states.

▪ Involvement in the SAPCC process: Even prior to the SAPCC formulation, the DoAH began observing changes in productivity and the reproductive traits of exotic breeds of cattle. This observation by the depart-ment was a crucial factor that led the department to be actively involved in the SAPCC formulation. For the duration of SAPCC formulation, the DoAH was part of the sectoral working groups that SKMCCC created, which encouraged DoAH to further investigate climate impacts on the sector. The SAPCC process provided the DoAH with information and assessments indicat-ing that climate-related risks would adversely affect the sector and formed the basis of continued research and engagement with various experts. This gradually helped the DoAH modify its programs and promote indigenous breeds of cattle.

▪ Sustained, persistent leadership: Under the lead-

ership of state ministers, senior bureaucrats, and the SKMCCC, the DoAH was able to initiate discussions on how to conduct further research, modify programs, and ultimately identify programmatic mechanisms to integrate climate change concerns in its regular programs. The political leadership encouraged this change and also promoted programs in villages to in-crease uptake. These new and modified programs have benefited from continuous support from the depart-ment’s secretaries and ministers, including the chief minister of the state, in the form of sustained finance availability and approving changes that allowed modi-fications of programs.

▪ Coordination for improved programming: The SAPCC did not provide many specific recommenda-tions for the sector, but the department was eager to understand the implications of climate change on the sector and what modifications were needed to ensure climate resilience after learning that milk produc-tion in the state would be adversely affected under a business-as-usual scenario. Therefore, the department coordinated deep-dive consultations with climate experts, policymakers, and veterinarians to explore possible entry points for integrating adaptation into existing programs. The officials of the department who had been part of the SAPCC working groups took the lead and continued further discussions with climate experts.

The DoAH also coordinates with the Madhya Pradesh Livestock and Poultry Development Corporation and the Madhya Pradesh State Cooperative Dairy Federa-tion Limited. These agencies are also the final delivery mechanisms for some programs, without which the DoAH would not be able to reach every village. The DoAH regularly corresponds with these agencies on research and guidelines on cattle breeds and their health.

▪ Information and capacity building: The SK-MCCC played a lead role in building the capacity of the DoAH, creating awareness, and later providing the department with required data and expertise on adaptation actions. The DoAH then took on the responsibility of sharing information and building ca-pacity as well. Its program delivery started with DoAH district and block-level officers being trained to deliver programs, and these officials subsequently trained in-dividual livestock farmers. The DoAH ensured capac-ity building at every level, which helps retain institu-

12 |

tional memory even when officials are transferred per state government orders. The workshops and training programs for livestock farmers were undertaken with support from line departments and other agencies, such as the State Disaster Management Authority and the Agriculture Training Institute.

▪ Utilization of sectoral budget: The DoAH did not receive additional funding from the state or other sources to support modification of its programs to contend with climate risks. The department repur-posed funds from its annual budget toward promoting indigenous breeds instead of exotic breeds. Capac-ity building undertaken by the SKMCCC and expert consultations was also financed by the department from its budget. During the interviews, officials said that new projects, if presented with robust research analysis, always find funding under the department budget. However, it is important to note that, unlike what may be possible in other sectors and depart-ments, the DoAH’s primary adaptation strategy, which was to promote indigenous breeds instead of exotic breeds, repurposed existing program delivery infra-structure and therefore required little additional fund-ing. Hence, this form of finance utilization, however convenient, may not be possible to achieve for other sectors and states. In other states and departments, additional finance to kick-start the process of climate sensitive program design may be needed.

The interviews conducted did not compare whether and how the SAPCC process enabled the DoAH to integrate adaptation differently from other departments in the state. However, it is clear that being part of the SAPCC process enabled the department to clearly understand the risks posed by climate change. The support of the SKMCCC and political leaders seems to have significantly bolstered the DoAH’s efforts.

It is also notable that the architecture of the DoAH’s programming and delivery stayed fairly consistent, with the only change being the species of cow being promoted. Having these previously defined program delivery mecha-nisms already in place enabled the DoAH to integrate training into the program delivery mechanism, which aided in implementation and support in setting up sys-tems that are able to track the uptake of indigenous cattle and their health in future. Another positive aspect of these training programs was that they resulted in better coor-dination among the various entities involved, such as line departments, cooperatives, and public corporations.

The Way ForwardClimate change is affecting the livestock sector in Madhya Pradesh very rapidly. The DoAH states that adaptation actions are not being implemented fast enough. Although the DoAH does not think finance is the primary obstacle to additional and more rapid mainstreaming of adaptation into its activities, the department does believe that if more finance were available, it could do more research, enhance breeding programs, and supply more superior quality animals to farmers.

According to the DoAH, it currently does not need to coordinate with other departments such as agriculture and water. However, the department recognizes that in the future it would benefit from collaborating with the Department of Agriculture on fodder development, the Public Health Engineering Department on planning for water-scarce months, and the Department of Science and Technology for climate data interpretation and data analytics, in order to make the programs more robust.

The DoAH will be participating in the SAPCC revision process where it will gain access to new data and poten-tially receive new recommendations to strengthen existing programs and continue new research and development.

CASE STUDY: MAINSTREAMING ADAPTATION INTO THE FOREST SECTOR IN UTTARAKHANDThis section provides an example of adaptation being mainstreamed into sectoral work through a pilot project. The project was implemented by the Forest Department in Uttarakhand in conjunction with other departments and with assistance from the SCCC and UNDP. This pilot is part of the “Strengthening State Strategies for Climate Action” a joint endeavor by UNDP, the MoEFCC, and the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC). The objective of this endeavor is to integrate climate change concerns into subnational planning in India and enhance the capabilities of states to operationalize their SAPCCs.

This case study explores why the Forest Department prioritized adaptation in its work, what actions it took to integrate adaptation into project activities, and how it implemented these actions. This case study differs from the Madhya Pradesh case in that it explores how adapta-tion was integrated into subnational planning through a project rather than through a sectoral program.



The state of Uttarakhand is located in northern India along the Himalayas, bordering the Tibetan Autonomous Region and Nepal. Uttarakhand is home to a population of over 10 million (Census of India 2011), with the majority being dependent on rain-fed agriculture. A lack of liveli-hood opportunities and water scarcity challenges have forced more than 100,000 people to leave their villages over the last decade (Uttarakhand Rural Development and Migration Commission 2018). Recently, erratic rainfall and rising temperatures have led to floods and landslides causing widespread casualties in human life, livestock, and infrastructure. This has increased the population’s vulnerability, and these climate hazards have exacerbated the rate of migration out of the state.

Overview of Adaptation Mainstreaming in UttarakhandIn 2014, the Government of Uttarakhand released its SAPCC with the theme Transforming Crisis into Opportu-nity. The SAPCC was prepared by the Forest Department, with technical support provided by UNDP. The SAPCC’s primary aim was to reorient development strategies so that they are more sustainable.

Driven by need, as well as political will following the 2013 floods and landslides, Uttarakhand has been making gradual progress on adapting to climate change. In 2016 an SCCC was established, serving as the nodal agency to promote the integration of adaptation interventions into various key sectors in the state. The same year, with approval from the SCCC, the state government decided that each department should allocate 1 percent of its budget for climate change adaptation measures. This allocation is considered a major step toward increasing the attention paid to adaptation at the sector level, and this mandate is expected to be formalized soon.

As part of the SAPCC process, a comprehensive Vulner-ability and Risk Assessment (VRA) for the state was also completed (CDKN 2016) with the intention that sectors should integrate these findings into their work to build climate resilience. In order to assist the departments and sectors in this endeavor, Acclimatise and the Climate Development Knowledge Network (CDKN) released Agendas for Climate Action in 2017, which are intended to provide guidance on incorporating the VRA findings into sector strategies.

Although departments are working toward incorporating these recommendations into their strategies, interviews with officials have revealed that progress has been slow

due to various institutional bottlenecks such as lack of awareness, capacity, and finance. However, some efforts are already ongoing in select sectors to integrate climate change adaptation into their programs. Key departments are undertaking the following efforts to integrate adapta-tion into their work:

▪ Disaster Management and Mitigation Centre (DMMC): The DMMC is actively involved in disas-ter risk reduction initiatives such as the integration of hazard, risk, and vulnerability assessment into programming and enhancing community response systems. Following the flash floods and landslide disaster of 2013, various climate-resilient rebuilding projects are reaching completion, with support from the World Bank and ADB. These focus on infrastruc-ture and roads in the state and include components of disaster preparedness in the planning processes. As examples, with assistance from ADB, the DMMC is constructing helipads in remote areas in the state so that they are more easily accessible; and UNDP is sup-porting the DMMC in piloting a project on a rainfall threshold–based early warning system for landslides in the Bhagirathi Basin.

▪ Watershed Management Directorate (WMD): Partnering with the World Bank on the Uttarakhand Decentralized Watershed Development Project-Gramya, the WMD has been actively involved in combating increasingly erratic rainfall due to climate change through rainwater conservation and rainwa-ter harvesting, as well as land resource management because the state depends heavily on rain-fed agricul-ture. The projects incorporate the climate risks being faced by the region and are prepared, implemented, and monitored in consultation with local stakehold-ers through the village-level Gram Panchayat Water-shed Development Plans. This process indicates that climate resilience is being integrated into local level planning (WMD 2018).

▪ Uttarakhand Housing and Urban Development Authority (UHUDA): Building urban resilience is an important component for Uttarakhand as its cities are experiencing an influx of people migrating from rural areas. The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) prepared a policy brief on urban resilience for the state that has helped identify and incorporate climate-resilient measures into the building bylaws of the UHUDA. The bylaws were amended following TERI’s recommendations (TERI 2016).

14 |

▪ Forest Department: After leading the drafting of the SAPCC, the Forest Department continues to re-main a pivotal player for advancing climate activities in the state. With technical assistance from UNDP, the Forest Department is piloting an initiative to increase the climate resilience of forest-dependent communi-ties. Details of this project are in the next section.

As reflected in the information above, most examples raised during the interviews in Uttarakhand are project-based efforts rather than programmatic mainstreaming. As described at the end of this section, the hope is that through experience being gained, these project-specific activities will be scaled up and lead to more climate-resilient activities in the state. As described at the end of this section, this seems to have already begun to occur.

The case of Uttarakhand also highlights how nongovern-mental agencies and international organizations such as UNDP provide strong technical support and assistance to integrate climate resilience into development plan-ning. These nongovernment and international organiza-tions have been working closely with the government on capacity-building activities and are engaged with local communities.

The Case of Forestry in UttarakhandSeventy-one percent of Uttarakhand is recorded as forest area, and the majority of the terrain is hilly (Government of Uttarakhand 2014). Uttarakhand’s forests are home to diverse flora and fauna, and they are also an important carbon sink. The forest and biodiversity sector, with the vast array of ecosystem services it provides, also has important links to other sectors, like agriculture, animal husbandry, water, and energy.

Why Adaptation Was Necessary in the Forest Sector Uttarakhand’s forests are vulnerable to both climate and non-climate stressors. Temperature and precipitation projections threaten the forest ecosystem in the coming decades (Govern-ment of Uttarakhand 2014). For instance, a projected increase in heavy precipitation makes the threat of floods and land-slides a critical concern for the state. One of the most severe landslides and flash floods took place in 2013, which affected 12 out of the 13 districts in the state and left more than 5,000 people missing or dead. Land-use decisions further diminish forests in Uttarakhand: Between 2000 and 2017, the state diverted over 50,000 hectares (123,553 acres) of forest land, and conflicts have arisen relating to land acquisition, tenure, and resource rights between the state agencies and the local communities (WRI 2017).

These types of climate and non-climate stressors pose a threat to the livelihoods of the local communities who are dependent on various forest resources. Climate change and increased deforestation will make it more challeng-ing for local populations to meet their fuel and fodder demands (UNDP 2017). The forest sector was therefore one of the priority sectors identified by the MoEFCC, UNDP, and SDC, leading to the pilot project, Building Climate Resilience of Forest Dependent Communities in Uttarakhand, which is the basis of this case study.

What Interventions Were Implemented by the Forest DepartmentThis section describes what adaptation activities have been introduced in the pilot project, which is being imple-mented by the Forest Department in conjunction with other sectoral departments. This pilot aims to improve the adaptive capacity and resilience of forest-dependent communities with a focus on gender inclusion. The project began in 2017 and has completed its pilot period of 15 months. According to representatives from the SCCC, this project is crosscutting in nature and brings together vari-ous key sectors. It focuses on issues such as sustainable forest management, agricultural diversification, and water security enhancement, which were identified and priori-tized based on the VRA and SAPCC.

The Pheri Kimora village in the Jaunpur block of the highly vulnerable Teri Garhwal district was chosen for piloting this initiative based on the VRA for Uttarakhand (INRM 2016), as well as on consultations with local stake-holders and a situational analysis. The pilot area covers about 114 hectares (282 acres) and benefits a population of about 500 people. Jaunpur block, largely dependent on rain-fed agriculture, had been facing many problems exac-erbated by the changing climate, such as springs drying up, increased frequency of droughts and flash floods, and forest degradation, according to the vulnerability analysis (UNDP 2017). These problems have adversely affected the livelihoods of the local community and increased their vul-nerability, and the project helped identify and implement objectives aimed at building community adaptive capacity and resilience. Some of the specific activities which have been successfully implemented are discussed as follows (UNDP 2018):

▪ Increased water storage and sustainable access: Agriculture in the state is largely rain-fed (Government of Uttarakhand 2014), but increasing variability in seasonal precipitation due to climate change has led communities to be ever more depen-dent on natural streams and springs for irrigation.



However, due to continued deforestation and higher levels of runoff, there was a decline in availability of surface water for agriculture. In addition, the water that was available from natural streams was not be-ing captured due to lack of appropriate water storage structures in the village. According to UNDP, through this project, about 100,000 kiloliters (26.4 million gallons) of water storage capacity has been created for the region by constructing check dams (which are very small dams built on streams that help ground water recharge without creating additional risks for down-stream users) to arrest the flow of the natural streams and rainwater harvesting infrastructure, thus reducing water shortages for the village. The women of Jaunpur used to spend as much as five to six hours every day searching for diminishing water sources. By provid-ing water collection tanks in the villages, the time they spend in collecting water has been reduced.

▪ Forest regeneration: The VRA has classified the Himalayan ecosystem as being susceptible to climate change due to rising temperatures that cause plant species to migrate to higher altitudes. These shifts in vegetation will degrade the quality of the forest cover and change soil conditions. This, coupled with the increasingly intense and erratic rainfall projected, will result in flooding and soil erosion. To combat these climate impacts, the Forest Department worked with local communities on assisted natural-regeneration (ANR), and about 20 hectares (49 acres) of degraded forest lands have registered an improvement. ANR promotes the growth of natural inhabitant species of trees, which will increase forest cover and density. It also involves soil control measures like trenching and constructing bunds, which will reduce soil loss from the forest floor and check flooding in the streams, thus building overall environmental resilience to climate change.

▪ Diversification of cropping methods and crops: The agriculture sector in Uttarakhand is vulnerable to both droughts and floods, and the pro-ductivity of most crops is expected to decrease due to increases in temperature and decreased water avail-ability. However, farmers did not know how to modify their practices to contend with these impacts. To help them cope, the Forest Department assisted them in building polyhouses. Polyhouses are structures similar to greenhouses that help control temperature and humidity and also reduce the incidence of pests and weeds. Several polyhouses have been built with the

assistance of the farming community to diversify crop-ping patterns and accommodate more remunerative varieties of vegetables and fruits.

How Mainstreaming Occurred in the ProjectThis section describes the combination of factors that were necessary to integrate adaptation into this project in the Pheri Kimora village. This project is just the beginning of the process of addressing climate risks by the Forest Department and, being a pilot, is intended to enable inte-gration of adaptation into future plans and strategies.

▪ Alignment with policy frameworks and schemes: In India, it is standard practice for sectoral departments to implement activities according to their state-allocated budgets. These business-as-usual activities lack a climate perspective. This pilot project sought to bring a climate perspective to the activi-ties of the Forest Department and carefully align the sector’s objectives with the goals of the SAPCC. The adaptation activities for the project were thus identi-fied based on the climate actions suggested in the SAPCC and prioritized according to the VRA. Based on discussions with staff from the different sectoral departments as well as the local population, project activities were approved by the Gram Sabha1 and in-corporated into the forest plans of the Van Panchayat.2 The activities were also aligned with the objectives of existing government schemes. For example, activities were tied to the National Rural Drinking Water Mis-sion with the objective of improving access to drinking water for villages, and the MIDH, which provided a subsidy for constructing polyhouses. This alignment enabled the departments to understand that climate-resilient activities could receive financial support from various government schemes, and it may encourage further uptake of resilience-building activities by these departments.

▪ Persistent communication and coordination with key stakeholders: The lead department for implementing the project was the Mussoorie Forest Division of the Forest Department, but the project involved a range of other sectors, including Disaster Management, Agriculture, Horticulture, Education, and Energy. There were clearly delineated responsi-bilities for each of the players that were involved in different adaptation activities in the village. However, most departments were busy with their own sec-toral work and delayed the mandates of this project. Although this dynamic was initially challenging, the

16 |

Forest Department identified officers within each department to carry out the adaptation activities and established communication with them. Persistent communication by the Forest Department, with as-sistance from the SCCC, ensured that they ultimately carried out their respective adaptation activities as part of the pilot project. In addition to other sectoral departments, the project also involved stakeholders at the district level, such as the Gram Panchayats,3 Van Panchayats, and Jal Samrakshan Samitis,4 to help identify and implement adaptation activities. Thus, rather than creating new entities, the aim was to use existing institutional structures at the local level and build capacity within them. This effort is in line with the SAPCC, which emphasizes revitalizing traditional local institutions and enhancing their capacity to implement adaptation interventions. In the meet-ings that were held, the Forest Department also made efforts to include women, who are at risk of being excluded from local-level decision-making processes.

▪ Individual and institutional capacity-building: It was challenging for village members to change their activities because of a lack of awareness of how to contend with climate impacts and the technical know-how to shift to more resilient practices. Many rounds of local workshops by the Forest Department, with technical support by UNDP, sought to raise awareness about the importance of adapting to changing climate conditions while also providing training on under-standing climate impacts and implementing identified activities. The workshops also helped establish trust between villagers and Forest Department officials through ongoing engagement and involvement of lo-cal forest staff and village members in meetings and through tools such as the participatory rural appraisal, an approach used to enable the participation of rural people in decision-making and incorporate their local knowledge into development planning. This type of coordination between the sectoral and local commu-nity levels helped with the uptake and implementation of adaptation actions and also helped build the institu-tional memory necessary to integrate adaptation into long-term sectoral and community-level development plans and strategies.

▪ Information and tools: Another important factor was the Forest Department’s integration of the VRA into all aspects of the project, with technical assistance by UNDP. The information from the VRA helped identify the pilot region, following which it was used

to guide the planning and conceptualization of the project, including identifying and prioritizing a broad range of adaptation initiatives that would be required across several sectors.

▪ Alignment and use of funding streams to in-tentionally support mainstreaming: The project was financed on a 60-40 basis, with 60 percent from project funds, and 40 percent generated through cofi-nancing from the various departments involved. The Forest Department and the SCCC held meetings with each department to determine an appropriate cofi-nancing budget. As mentioned previously, the project dovetailed its adaptation strategies with various exist-ing government schemes and used the available bud-gets per the norms issued under respective schemes. Generally, these schemes reach wealthier farmers, as some financing needs to be borne by the farmers themselves. Many marginal farmers, many of whom are women, are unable to afford this. During this proj-ect, however, the most vulnerable farmers were identi-fied, and their land and labor were accepted in lieu of monetary compensations, thus allowing them to avail themselves of the schemes and carry out activities.

The project involved a range of different sectors and local level stakeholders. The Forest Department’s leadership to help coordinate the activities across these sectors and institutions was essential to complete the project. The department was assisted by the SCCC and the UNDP, both of whom were involved right from the conceptual stages of the project through to implementation. By focusing on communication with and capacity building within local level institutional bodies in particular, the inten-tion is to both increase their uptake of adaptation activi-ties and to build institutional memory to support future implementation.

Also, because this was a project, it had dedicated funds; but these funds were supported by cofinancing generated by the sectoral departments involved—by aligning the adaptation strategies with relevant existing government schemes and using available budgets per the norms issued under respective schemes. This sort of alignment can encourage departments to continue to implement adapta-tion in the future and to scale up their activities once the project has ended.

The Way ForwardFindings and key lessons from the pilot have been used to create guidance for incorporating climate change into the Working Plans of the Forest Department, with assistance



from the UNDP. This guidance includes specific activities and strategies for building climate resilience for the dif-ferent districts. Efforts have already begun to incorporate such a chapter into the next Working Plans (2021–30) for the Teri Garhwal region, as well as for other regions, like the Chakrata region, in the state. This shows how a pilot project can help scale up efforts to integrate adaptation into sectoral planning.

Adaptation activities from the pilot are also being incor-porated into the Gram Panchayat Development Plans and the Comprehensive District Agriculture Development Plans for the Teri Garhwal region. The SCCC and UNDP are looking for other potential financial resources, includ-ing the Green Climate Fund, to scale up the project and replicate it in other vulnerable regions in Uttarakhand in the future.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONSThis section highlights findings about the process of inte-grating adaptation into sectoral activities from the case studies in Madhya Pradesh and Uttarakhand. Although the case studies are not intended to judge whether the mainstreaming efforts were successful or unsuccessful, these findings can provide insight on what enabled adap-tation to be integrated into programs and projects and can be useful for guiding and accelerating future mainstream-ing efforts in India.

▪ Programmatic mainstreaming may be more financially sustainable than project-specific mainstreaming. The Madhya Pradesh case study is an example of programmatic mainstreaming—where adaptation was mainstreamed into several activities of the DoAH’s ongoing programming—while the Ut-tarakhand case study is an example of project-specific mainstreaming—where adaptation activities were implemented by the Forest Department during a specific time-bound project period. Both approaches have merit, but programmatic mainstreaming may be more sustainable over time. Funds for continuing to mainstream adaptation can be accessed by the DoAH from its sectoral budget at any point, whereas funds for mainstreaming adaptation are not accessible to the Forest Department after the end of the project. While project implementers are looking for new sources of funding for scaling up the project in Uttarakhand, the sustainability of the mainstreaming progress made during the project period is dependent on accessing these additional funds. This argument also makes the case for more funding being available at the state level

for adaptation, whether through state and sectoral budgets or through dedicated funding for implement-ing the SAPCCs and stronger mandates and incentives from the central government on prioritizing adapta-tion being integrated into development.

▪ Using funding streams to intentionally sup-port adaptation. As described in the context for mainstreaming adaptation in India, the SAPCCs do not have dedicated funding sources. Sectoral depart-ments are expected to use portions of their budgets for adaptation, and this was done in Madhya Pradesh. The DoAH continued the same main activities as before—promoting and breeding livestock—but the livestock on which they focused switched from exotic breeds to indigenous ones. Since the existing pro-gramming and delivery mechanisms remained largely the same, and only the species of cow being targeted changed, not much additional funding was required. While it may not be possible for all sectors to retain their program and delivery mechanisms and replace what is being disseminated, it may be possible in some sectors. For example, in the agriculture sector, drought-resistant seeds can be distributed instead of regular seeds. The agriculture extension agencies and other institutional support mechanisms can remain in place, while adjusting the support they provide to the drought-resistant variety. In the Uttarakhand case, the various departments involved did not use their own sectoral budgets to provide the 40 percent cofinancing but instead used funding available through existing government schemes. For instance, the MIDH pro-vided a subsidy for constructing the polyhouses that provided an alternative to rain-fed farming that is vulnerable to increased drought and erratic rainfall. This is a different strategy for using existing funding sources for integrating adaptation into sectoral work.

▪ Policy frameworks are important inputs es-pecially at the early stages of mainstreaming. Policy frameworks can guide actions that integrate adaptation into development programs, projects, and budgets. Although the SAPCC recommendations are not mandates and cannot ensure that adaptation takes place, through the two case studies we see the differ-ent but important roles that the SAPCCs played in both states at the beginning of the mainstreaming pro-cess. In Madhya Pradesh it was not the final SAPCC document that spurred and enabled integration of adaptation into the DoAH as much as the process of developing the SAPCC, with the working groups and

18 |

access to experts being critical elements that enabled mainstreaming. In Uttarakhand, the Forest Depart-ment prepared the SAPCC with support from UNDP, which seemed to enable the department to lead the project highlighted in the case study. The SAPCC itself was helpful in guiding selection of the location and activities of the project that were implemented by the Forest Department.

▪ Both political and administrative leaders have different yet complementary influences on the mainstreaming process. The case studies show the critical roles that leaders can play in encouraging mainstreamed adaptation programming to be devel-oped and implemented. The case studies show differ-ent forms of leadership that were supportive of the mainstreaming process. Political leaders have the abil-ity to share high-level messages from state or sectoral plans with communities at local levels. For instance, in Madhya Pradesh, political leaders promoted incentive schemes at the village level to increase the uptake of the DoAH’s revised programs. Administrative leaders are government officials who allocate funds for vari-ous state-level program and can influence the strategic use of funds for mainstreaming. In the case of Mad-hya Pradesh, the chief secretary of DoAH was able to approve the well-documented case for amending the DoAH’s programs and budgets to integrate climate risks. Both these forms of support and influence are required for successfully mainstreaming adaptation.

▪ Building capacity and institutional memory enables implementation and sustained ac-tion. For mainstreamed adaptation to be sustainable over long periods of time, individual and institutional capacity are critical. Both case studies highlight how a commitment to providing information to individuals and building their capacity to engage further enables implementation of adaptation interventions within a sector. In Madhya Pradesh, the SKMCCC trained department officers on how to interpret the sectoral vulnerability assessment and understand the impacts that will be felt by the sector and provided informa-tion and tools that these trained officers could use to

train others. Providing tools to train others was a way to build institutional memory and mitigate the conse-quences of government officials being transferred. In Uttarakhand, the project involved local government entities like the Gram Panchayats and Van Panchay-ats at all stages of the project. This built institutional capacity and memory at the local government level and ensured effective implementation on the ground. Especially in the case of project-specific mainstream-ing, this capacity building can ensure that adapta-tion continues to be prioritized even after the project period is completed.

▪ Persistent communication and coordination across sectors are critical for managing cli-mate risks. When multiple sectors are involved, as in the case of the project implemented by the Forest Department, persistent communication and ongoing coordination among sectors and other key entities—in this case, the SCCC and UNDP—were critical in sustaining the momentum of the project. As described in the Uttarakhand case study, in its role as the lead implementer, the Forest Department had to identify individuals within each of the sectoral departments and follow up with them persistently. In the context of a pilot project, with a lead implementer, this role is understandable, but it reveals the need for clear roles and responsibilities for communication and coordi-nation should state governments seek to integrate adaptation into sector departmental plans on a more programmatic basis. That said, not all mainstreaming requires multiple sectors to be involved. For instance, in the DoAH case study, the department was able to integrate adaptation measures into its programming without involving other sectors; although for future efforts, it is likely that the department will need to coordinate with other relevant departments, such as the agriculture department, on the topic of fodder management.

As described in the first two sections of the paper, the main institutional mechanisms for state-level adaptation in India are the SAPCCs, which provide policy direc-tion, and the state climate cells, which provide hands-on



support. Both case study examples in the paper grew out of the respective states’ SAPCCs, which show that these plans are being implemented on the ground. However, during the interviews conducted for this paper it was clear that sectoral staff are still unsure about how to assess and address climate vulnerability and integrate adaptation into sectoral functioning. Therefore, there were only a few examples to choose from to explore in depth. This shows that there is much more opportunity for state climate cells to help states and sectors to integrate adaptation into their day-to-day functioning.

The ways in which the SAPCC was used in the two case studies differed. The Madhya Pradesh case study describes the SAPCC having very few specific recommendations for the livestock sector; but because key stakeholders in the DoAH were convinced of the future negative impacts of climate change on livestock, they used the SAPCC process as a means to delve further into what adaptation actions were needed. In contrast, in Uttarakhand the VRA devel-oped as part of the SAPCC process and the SAPCC itself were the basis for the adaptation interventions imple-mented in the pilot project.

The upcoming revisions of the SAPCCs provide an opportunity to orient these plans more strongly toward mainstreaming and accelerate the rate at which sectors integrate climate change considerations into their activi-ties. To address the magnitude of climate change impacts that India will face in the coming years, mainstreaming adaptation into sectoral efforts needs to become the norm rather than the exception. Crucially, mainstreamed adap-tation plans will need to be implemented and not remain aspirational. The enabling factors in the From Planning to Action paper (Appendix A) can help states and sectors better understand the various ways in which mainstream-ing can be achieved.

Although the revised SAPCCs are a good avenue to accel-erate mainstreaming in India, there is also a need for a greater degree of institutional and financial support for integrating adaptation into business-as-usual subnational sectoral development in India. As described in the text that provides context for mainstreaming adaptation in India, this can include institutional and financial support from the central government, especially in light of the

devolved planning structure and expectation for states to take the lead on adaptation. Increased financial alloca-tions, whether through central funds or national schemes, will likely be needed for states to integrate adaptation into their sectoral programming at scale.

In addition to financial resources for integrating adapta-tion, guidance for sectors on how to spend limited bud-gets on activities with adaptation cobenefits may also be necessary. This form of assistance in implementing the revised SAPCCs can help states take action and move from planning to action on the ground. As seen in the two case studies in this paper, integrating adaptation into sectoral programs and projects requires leadership; sustained communication and coordination; and, ideally, alignment with existing plans, schemes, and policies.

Additional studies on adaptation that has been main-streamed into either sectoral programs or projects from additional states will help grow the baseline of under-standing on this topic. This paper only looked at two case studies, which limited the degree to which the authors could discuss the procedural differences between pro-grammatic and project-specific mainstreaming, but this could be a topic for future research.

As adaptation is increasingly integrated into sectoral func-tioning, an important requirement for learning about what is working and why is a system for monitoring progress and success of mainstreamed adaptation interventions. As noted in the Introduction, monitoring and evaluating mainstreamed adaptation (the fourth step in the planning cycle) has only just begun in Madhya Pradesh, and under-standably was not approached during the pilot project in Uttarakhand. However, monitoring adaptation that is integrated into development is an important area that requires funding and capacity in the future.

Particularly once monitoring is occurring, there also needs to be a culture of sharing these lessons learned to ensure that states and sectors are benefiting from each other’s experiences, thereby avoiding repetition of mistakes and replicating successes. This paper and other publications like it help move in this direction, but a systematic knowl-edge-sharing platform for subnational sectoral main-streamed adaptation could help truly accelerate action on mainstreaming in India.

20 |

APPENDIX A: FACTORS THAT ENABLE IMPLEMENTATION OF MAINSTREAMED ADAPTATIONThe WRI Working Paper From Planning to Action proposes a conceptual model with five factors that can help accelerate the move from mainstream-ing commitments and plans to implementation.

This model is flexible, given that mainstreaming efforts and the barriers to implementation are different from place to place. Not all five are necessary for bridging the implementation gap in every case; rather, they can work together in various combinations, like a set of gears. In working together to bridge the implementation gap, aspects of one gear can catalyze or acceler-ate action in others. Furthermore, they don’t need to work in a linear fashion; the gears, as presented, can turn in different directions, with dimensions of one gear fitting into one or more other gears at varying points in time (Mogelgaard et al. 2018).

This Working Paper has used these five factors to organize the findings about what enabled the two case-study examples to be implemented:

▪ Policy frameworks, including political commitments, mandates, or laws that support mainstreaming. Policy frameworks are more likely to catalyze imple-mentation when they contain mechanisms for accountability or enforcement.

▪ Sustained, persistent leadership from inside or outside government, including political leaders, bureaucrats, or civil society organizations. Such leadership could manifest in heads of state launching new strategies that encourage mainstreaming, ministries creating new institutions, or citizens champion-ing innovative initiatives that accelerate implementation of mainstreaming commitments.

▪ Coordination mechanisms across sectors and between government depart-ments, such as inter-ministerial steering committees or task forces, that support shared mainstreaming goals. These systems can cut across policy levels, encompass public and private institutions, and encourage ongoing public engagement.

▪ Information and tools, which can encompass learning initiatives, training, or access to technical expertise that enables mainstreaming. Knowledge brokers, who can facilitate information-sharing across sectors and policy domains, are critical in bridging the implementation gap.

▪ Supportive financial processes that encourage decision-makers to consider climate risks as well as identify, track, or cover costs to adapt. These could include budget expenditure tracking initiatives, budget tagging efforts, or special funds that governments establish to support mainstreaming efforts.

APPENDIX B: INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRESQuestionnaire for People with Climate Change Expertise

Objective: To understand what the individual/department is doing to mainstream adaptation into other relevant sectors (section 1). Ideally, to also get a fairly detailed description of a specific example of the process of mainstreaming adaptation into a specific policy/plan/program that they have worked on (section 2).

Method: This is a semi-structured questionnaire that is intended to guide the interviews but not prescribe exactly how they should progress. Section 2 especially will require the interviewer to choose appropriate questions and prompts and be flexible and investigative to arrive at the most useful answers. Sections in italics are notes/prompts for the interviewer.

Introduction: Before the interview starts, recap the email sent very briefly—who we are, what the project is about, why we are interested in speaking with them. Remind them that our main point of interest is integration of climate change into development planning/policymaking.

Section 1 – Broad Questions

These questions are intended to provide a general sense of whether and how the interviewee is currently mainstreaming or enabling mainstreaming to occur.

▪ Can you tell me briefly about your familiarity and experience with climate change and adaptation?

▪ Do you think that integrating adaptation into sectoral plans, development policies, etc., is important? Why or why not?

If the respondent does not think integration is important, then probe the importance of stand-alone adaptation projects.

▪ Can you tell me about your experience with integrating climate change into development or sectoral plans/policies/etc.?

While the respondent is answering this question, take note of whether they are bringing up outputs or outcomes.

Probe the following, as need be:

□ Supporting legal frameworks or policies (e.g., links to SAPCC/NAPCC)

□ Financial mechanisms or sources of funding

□ Links with budget processes

□ Processes of institutional coordination (e.g., new institutions within depart-ments dedicated to CCA, CCA experts integrated into sectoral depart-ments)

□ High levels of leadership or support

□ Nongovernment partners playing a role

□ Information sources or tools



▪ Do you have a specific example that you have worked on when adaptation was integrated into a specific policy/plan/program? Can you tell me more about it?


□ Why this particular policy/plan/program?

□ Why did the integration happen at this time? What were the key drivers?

□ What is the current status?

□ What is the time frame for implementation?

□ Was it a centralized/decentralized process (check power dynamics)?

Section 2 – Specific Questions for the In-Depth Example(s) of Mainstreaming

These questions are intended to get more detailed information about a spe-cific instance in which mainstreaming is occurring.

▪ What have you found is necessary to have in place when integrating adapta-tion into this specific example (use specific example they provide).









▪ What were the most difficult challenges or barriers faced in this effort?

▪ Has the policy/project/etc., in question (use specific example) been imple-mented?

If yes, ask what has been critical to leading to implementation (use hallmarks in Q5 prompt). If no, then ask about the main reasons for why this policy has not been implemented, to get at the implementation gap.

▪ Has there been any assessment of its progress?

▪ What could help such examples be more successful in the future?

▪ Do you think there will be opportunities in the future for further integration of climate change into sectoral policymaking/planning/etc.? Why or why not? If yes, then what are these opportunities?

Thank the respondent for his/her time.

Questionnaire for Sectoral Departments

Objective: To understand where the individual/department is with regard to adaptation and mainstreaming (section 1). Ideally, to also get a fairly detailed description of a specific example of the process of mainstreaming adapta-tion into a specific policy/plan/program in their sector (section 2).

Method: This is a semi-structured questionnaire that is intended to guide the interviews but not prescribe exactly how they should progress. Section 2 especially will require the interviewer to choose appropriate questions and prompts and be flexible and investigative to arrive at the most useful answers. Sections in italics are notes/prompts for the interviewer.

Introduction: Before the interview starts, recap the email sent very briefly—who we are, what the project is about, why we are interested in speaking with them. Remind them that our main point of interest is integration of climate change into development planning/policymaking.

Section 1 – Broad Questions

This first set of questions is quite broad and is intended to get a general sense of whether and how you engage with climate change in your work.

▪ Are you familiar with climate change and the impacts it is going to have on your sector? If yes, please describe these briefly.

▪ Do you have access to information about the actions needed to deal with climate change in your sector?

▪ Has climate change changed what you need to do for your job? If yes, can you describe what you are doing differently because you are incorporating climate concerns?

▪ Are there requirements or incentives to incorporate climate change into your job, as you described above? If so, what are they?

▪ Do you interact with climate change specialists for your work? If so, how frequently? How do you engage with them?

Prompt: how does this interaction come about—institutional linkages, per-sonal connections, etc.?

▪ What are the challenges you have faced when integrating climate impacts into your work?

▪ What is the best example you have of an instance when you have integrated climate change into your work?

Section 2 – Specific Questions for the In-Depth Example(s) of Mainstreaming

These questions are intended to build off any examples raised in the conver-sation thus far and get more detailed information about a specific instance in which mainstreaming is occurring.

▪ Can you tell me more about the example you raised earlier (use specific example name/description)?

22 |


□ Why this particular policy/plan/program?

□ Why did the integration happen at this time?

□ What is the current status?

□ What is the time frame for implementation?

□ Was it a centralized/decentralized process (check power dynamics)?

▪ What have you found is necessary to have in place when integrating adapta-tion into sectoral plans, policies, etc.?









▪ Do you face challenges in integrating climate into this policy/plan/program? Can you describe what these are and what can be done to help mitigate them?

▪ Can you describe your links with other agencies (like MoEFCC, NABARD, and other government departments) and any role they have played or will play in integrating adaptation into this project/policy/plan?

▪ Has the policy/project/program been implemented, and is there any assess-ment of its progress?

If yes, then refer to the five characteristics of mainstreaming and ask which of the five characteristics has been the most effective in leading to implementa-tion. If no, then ask about the main reasons for why this policy has not been implemented, to get at the implementation gap.

▪ Do you think there will be opportunities in the future for further integration of climate change into the work you do? Why or why not? If yes, then what are these opportunities?

▪ Is there anyone else you recommend that we speak to for further information about the specific example we discussed?

Thank the respondent for his/her time.

APPENDIX C: LIST OF AGENCIES INTERVIEWEDMADHYA PRADESH

State Actors:

▪ State Disaster Management Authority

▪ Department of Animal Husbandry

▪ Water Resources Department

▪ Forest Department

▪ Farmer Welfare and Agriculture Department

▪ Department of Science and Technology

▪ Environmental Planning and Coordination Organization; State Knowledge Management Center on Climate Change

Non-state Actors:

▪ Towards Action and Learning

▪ United Nations Development Programme

UTTARAKHAND

State Actors:

▪ Agriculture Department

▪ Watershed Management Directorate

▪ Forest Department

▪ State Council for Science and Technology

▪ Directorate of Economics and Statistics

▪ Uttarakhand Housing and Urban Development Authority

▪ State Disaster Management Authority

▪ Irrigation Department

Non-state Actors:

▪ The Energy and Resources Institute

▪ Asian Development Bank

▪ United Nations Development Programme

▪ BAIF Development Research Foundation (formerly registered as the Bharatiya Agro Industries Foundation)



ENDNOTES1. Gram Sabha is a meeting of all the adults (above 18 years old) of a particular panchayat area.

2. Van Panchayats are local or village-level forest management councils.

3. Gram Panchayats are the local-level governance bodies in India.

4. Jal Samrakshan Samitis are water conservation bodies.

24 |

REFERENCESAlhassan, S., and W.L. Hadwen. 2017. “Challenges and Opportunities for Mainstreaming Climate Change Adaptation into WaSH Development Planning in Ghana.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 14 (7): 749.

ADB (Asian Development Bank). 2017a. Basic Statistics. https://www.adb.org/publications/basic-statistics-2017.

ADB. 2017b. A Region at Risk: The Human Dimension of Climate Change in Asia and the Pacific. Manila: ADB.

Chauhan, D., and N. Ghosh. 2014. “Impact of Climate Change on Livestock Production: A Review.” Journal of Animal Research 4 (2): 223–39.

Census. 2011. Madhya Pradesh Population Census Data 2011: Future Population. https://www.census2011.co.in/census/state/madhya+pradesh.html.

Central Water Commission. 2008. ISO data Bank. http://cwc.gov.in/ISO_DATA_Bank/waterrelated2008/FINAL%20TABLES%20CH5-PDF/TABLE%205.03FINAL.pdf.

CDKN (Climate and Development Knowledge Network). 2016. Climate Change Risks and Opportunities in Uttarakhand, India. Prepared by INRM Consultants Pvt. Ltd. in association with IISc, Bangalore, and Geo Climate Risk Solutions Private Limited. http://sccc-uk.org/reports/publish3r1.pdf. Climate Watch. 2018. Climate Watch: India NDC. Resource Watch. https://www.climatewatchdata.org/countries/IND. DAHD (Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairy, and Fishery). 2016. Animal Husbandry Statistics Division. http://dahd.nic.in/Division/statistics/animal-husbandry-statistics-division. Dubash, N., and A. Jogesh. 2014. “From Margins to Mainstream? State Climate Change Planning in India.” Economic and Political Weekly 49 (48): 86–95.

EPCO (Environmental Planning and Coordination Organization). 2016. Project under National Adaptation Fund for Climate Change (NAFCC) of MoEFCC, GoI. Bhopal: Madhya Pradesh State Knowledge Management Centre on Climate Change, EPCO, Department of Environment, and GoMP.

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2009. How to Mainstream Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation into Agriculture Policies. http://www.fao.org/docs/up/easypol/778/mainstream_clim_change_adaptation_agric_policies_slides_077en.pdf.

Garg, A., V. Mishra, and H. Dholakia. 2015. “Climate Change and India: Adaptation GAP (2015).” Working Paper No. 2015-11-01. Ahmedabad: Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad. Germanwatch. 2016. “Global Climate Risk Index 2017: Who Suffers Most from Extreme Weather Events? Weather-related Loss Events in 2015 and 1996 to 2015”. Briefing Paper. Bonn: Germanwatch e.V.

Gogoi, E., A. Bahadur, and C. del Rio. 2017. “Mainstreaming Adaptation to Climate Change within Governance Systems in South Asia: An Analytical Framework and Examples from Practice.” Learning Paper. Action on Climate Today.

Goswami, S. 2017. “Climate Change Impact on Agriculture Leads to 1.5 Per Cent Loss in India’s GDP.” Down to Earth. May 2017. https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/climate change-causes-about-1-5-per-cent-loss-in-india-s-gdp-57883

GoI (Government of India). 2008. National Action Plan on Climate Change. New Delhi: Government of India.

GoI. 2017. Basic Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Statistics. New Delhi: Ministry of Agriculture and Farmer Welfare, Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries.

Government of Uttarakhand. 2014. Uttarakhand Action Plan on Climate Change. Dehradun, Uttarakhand: Government of Uttarakhand.

ICRIER (Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations). 2017. “Making Rapid Strides—Agriculture in Madhya Pradesh: Sources, Drivers, and Policy Lessons.” Working Paper 339. New Delhi, India: Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations.

INRM (Integrated Natural Resource Management Consultants) Pft. Ltd. 2016. Climate Change Risks and Opportunities in Uttarakhand, India. New Delhi, India: INRM.

Kumar, V. 2018. Coping with Climate Change: An Analysis of India’s State Action Plans on Climate Change. New Delhi: Centre for Science and Environment.

Lebel, L., L. Li, C. Krittasudthacheewa, M. Juntopas, T. Vijitpan, T. Uchiyama, and D. Krawanchid. 2012. Mainstreaming Climate Change Adaptation into Development Planning. Bangkok: Adaptation Knowledge Platform; Stockholm: Stockholm Environment Institute.

MoA&FW (Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers’ Welfare). 2017. Annual Report 2016–17. New Delhi: Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries, MoA&FW, Government of India.



MoEFCC (Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change). 2015. Government Has established National Adaptation Fund on Climate Change: Javadekar. http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=124326.

Mogelgaard, K., A. Dinshaw, N. Ginoya, M. Gutierrez, P. Preethan, and J. Waslander. 2018. From Planning to Action: Mainstreaming Adaptation into Development. Washington DC: World Resources Institute. MoSPI (Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation). 2015. (Database). Production of Milk. https://data.gov.in/resources/state-ut-wise-production-milk-2010-11-2015-16. Accessed July 24, 2018. NITI Aayog. 2017. India Three Year Action Agenda 2017–18 to 2019–20. New Delhi: NITI Aayog.

OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2009. Integrating Climate Change Adaptation into Development Co-operation: Policy Guidance. Paris: OECD.

Pankaj, P.K., D.B.V Ramana, R. Pourouchottamane, and S. Naskar. 2013. “Livestock Management under Changing Climate Scenario in India.” World Journal of Veterinary Science 1: 25–32. Planning Commission. 2013. “Press Note on Poverty Estimates, 2011-12.” http://planningcommission.nic.in/news/pre_pov2307.pdf.

Pragna, P., P.R. Archana, J. Aleena, V. Sejian, G. Krishnan, M. Bagath, A. Manimaran et al. 2017. “Heat Stress and Dairy Cow: Impact on Both Milk Yield and Composition.” International Journal of Dairy 12 (1): 1–11.

SCCC (State Climate Change Centre). 2016. Agenda for Climate Action. Linking the Vulnerability and Risk Assessment for Uttarakhand with Policy Implications for the State, Strengthening State Strategies for Climate Action. http://www.climateactions.in/.

TERI (The Energy and Resources Institute). 2014. “Road Map for Mainstreaming Urban Climate Resilience in Uttarakhand .” Policy Brief. https://www.acccrn.net/sites/default/files/publication/attach/rockefeller-teri_briefingpaper_uttarakhand.pdf.

Uttarakhand Rural Development and Migration Commission. 2018. Palayan Aayog Report. Dehradun, Uttarakhand: Uttarakhand Rural Development and Migration Commission.

UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). 2017. Vulnerability Assessment of Water, Forests, and Disaster towards Climate Change in Tehri Garhwal, Paudi Garhwal, Haridwar, Champawat and Dehradun Districts of Uttarakhand. Dehradun, India: UNDP.

UNDP and UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). 2011. Mainstreaming Climate Change Adaptation into Development Planning: A Guide for Practitioners. Nairobi: UNEP-UNDP Poverty-Environment Facility.

UNDP, State Project Management Unit (PMU), State Climate Change Centre, Uttarakhand. 2018. Building Climate Resilience of Forest Dependent Communities in Uttarakhand. Dehradun, India: UNDP.

WMD (Watershed Management Directorate). 2018. Climate Resilient Initiatives by Gramya—A Few Replicable Practices. Dehradun, India: WMD.

World Bank Group. 2018. Data: Population. (Database). https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL?locations=IN. Accessed July 23, 2018.

WRI (World Resources Institute). 2017. Restoration Opportunities Atlas: State Reports. https://s3.amazonaws.com/wri-doc/State+Report.pdf.

ABOUT WRI World Resources Institute is a global research organization that turns big ideas into action at the nexus of environment, economic opportunity, and human well-being.

Our Challenge

Natural resources are at the foundation of economic opportunity and human well-being. But today, we are depleting Earth’s resources at rates that are not sustainable, endangering economies and people’s lives. People depend on clean water, fertile land, healthy forests, and a stable climate. Livable cit-ies and clean energy are essential for a sustainable planet. We must address these urgent, global challenges this decade.

Our Vision

We envision an equitable and prosperous planet driven by the wise manage-ment of natural resources. We aspire to create a world where the actions of government, business, and communities combine to eliminate poverty and sustain the natural environment for all people.

Our Approach

COUNT IT

We start with data. We conduct independent research and draw on the lat-est technology to develop new insights and recommendations. Our rigorous analysis identifies risks, unveils opportunities, and informs smart strategies. We focus our efforts on influential and emerging economies where the future of sustainability will be determined.

CHANGE IT

We use our research to influence government policies, business strategies, and civil society action. We test projects with communities, companies, and government agencies to build a strong evidence base. Then, we work with partners to deliver change on the ground that alleviates poverty and strengthens society. We hold ourselves accountable to ensure our outcomes will be bold and enduring.

SCALE IT

We don’t think small. Once tested, we work with partners to adopt and expand our efforts regionally and globally. We engage with decision-makers to carry out our ideas and elevate our impact. We measure success through government and business actions that improve people’s lives and sustain a healthy environment.

Copyright 2018 World Resources Institute. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of the license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

10 G Street, NE | Washington, DC 20002 | www.WRI.org

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSWe are pleased to acknowledge our institutional strategic partners, who provide core funding to WRI: Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Royal Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency.

The authors would like to thank Anu Jogesh and Akshay Srivastava for pilot testing the interview questionnaires. We would also like to thank the follow-ing people for enabling the interviews undertaken for this paper and provid-ing ongoing input and support through the process of writing: Rashmi Bajaj and Subrato Paul from UNDP, Lokendra Thakkar and Saransh Bajpai from the Madhya Pradesh State Knowledge Management Centre on Climate Change, and R.N. Jha from Uttarakhand State Climate Change Centre. We greatly appreciate the contributions of all the interviewees, especially at the Depart-ment of Animal Husbandry in Madhya Pradesh and the Forest Department in Uttarakhand. The authors are grateful to the reviewers of this publication for their thoughtful input—Apurba Mitra, Arabinda Mishra, David Gibbs, Lauretta Burke, Lokendra Thakkar, L. Venkatachalam, Mark Robinson, Moushumi Chaudhury, Rajasree Ray, Ruchika Singh, Sachin Kamble, Tyler Ferdinand, and Uttara Narayan—and especially Christina Chan for her helpful guidance. Thanks to Emily Matthews, Maria Hart, Caroline Taylor, and Romain Warnault and Billie Kanfer for their assistance with editing and producing this paper.

ABOUT THE AUTHORSAyesha Dinshaw is a Manager with the Climate Resilience Practice at WRI India. She works on mainstreaming adaptation into development and monitoring to ensure effective resilience-building efforts.

Contact: [email protected]

Namrata Ginoya is a Senior Project Associate in WRI India’s Climate Resil-ience Practice. She works to advance climate resilience policies at national and subnational levesl in India.


Parvathi Preethan is a Consultant with WRI India’s Climate Resilience Practice. She is involved in WRI’s work on mainstreaming climate change adaptation and climate proofing development plans in India.


Nambi Appadurai is the Director of Climate Resilience Practice at WRI India. His work is focused on climate risk management, mainstreaming adaptation into development, and climate policy.


Marinangeles Gutiérrez Rivera is a graduating Master’s student in Devel-opment Practice from Emory University. Her research and studies focus on climate change adaptation and resilience building, with a special interest in human mobility in the context of climate change.

mainstreaming adaptation in action: case studies … adaptatio… · mainstreaming adaptation in...

Documents