Sector Wide Approach

• Sector Investment Programme (SIP), Sector Programme

SWAp

Sector Wide Approach (SWAp)

• (1) a single sector policy and expenditure programme, • (2) under government leadership, • (3) adopting common approaches across the sector, • (4) uses government procedures to disburse and

account for all funds”

• (5) Sector-wide in scope• (6) All donors sign on• (7) Local stakeholders involved

SWAp

(Foster et al 2000)

(Harrold and Associates 1995))

• “Sector wide programmes are found exclusively in highly aid dependent poor countries. Roughly 80 sector programmes are being prepared and implemented. The vast majority of those, 85%, are in Sub Saharan Africa.”

SWAp

(Foster et al 2000)

Challenges (in Agriculture)

• “The agricultural sector is usually dominated by private sector producers and represents a significant share of national output and employment, thus making SWAps less relevant”

SWAp

(Foster et al 2000)

Challenges (in Agriculture)

• “Most of the important government actions which influence the sector are concerned with policy rather than service delivery.”

• E.g. exchange rates, interest rates, prices, trade, taxation, land reform, market structures, and input and output subsidies

SWAp

(Foster et al 2000)

Challenges (in Agriculture)

• “Public action in agricultural SWAps must face and pass stiffer tests than social sectors where the main issues is the provision of services to groups previously denied to them”

• i.e. farmers must be able to ‘translate’ SWAp contents in to market opportunities

SWAp

(Foster et al 2000)

Challenges (in Agriculture)

• “One size does not fit all. Unlike education and health SWAps, one approach [agricultural policy] cannot be nationally replicated, hence the economies of scale and of standardization arguments for a SWAp are weaker”.

SWAp

(Foster et al 2000)

Challenges (in Agriculture)

• “Farmers are experts too; in agriculture, the exchange of knowledge needs to be two way in agricultural SWAps”

SWAp

(Foster et al 2000)

Challenges (in Agriculture)

• “Many problems with agricultural SWAps result from the contested and shrinking role of the state in the agricultural sector”

SWAp

(Foster et al 2000)

Challenges (in Agriculture)

• “A SWAp defined to correspond to the responsibilities of the line ministry in Health and Education sectors will come far closer to covering key sectoral interests than can be achieved within agriculture”

• i.e. “the most important public expenditures for supporting agriculture may not be in the agricultural sector. Think roads and markets, for example.

SWAp

(Foster et al 2000)

SWAps Decentralization

• “It may be that the most appropriate form of SWAP for supporting agricultural development and sustainable rural livelihoods involves supporting the development of local government, with the Ministry of Local Government as the partner through which districts receive support”

SWAp

(Foster et al 2000)

Why Agricultural SWAp failed in Zambia:

• Donors insisted on separate national identification of their contributions.

• Funding the SWAp was irregular as ‘basket funding’ wasn’t working.

• SWAp was poorly integrated in to the government’s administrative structure

• Decentralization should have PRECEDED SWAp implementation, not be seen as a part of the plan.

• Private sector interest waned in the early implementation phase.

SWAp

(van Donge 2007)

Flexible SWAps• [Basket funding] All partners involved in funding a sector sit at the negotiating

table on policy, irrespective of whether they participate in basket funding or not. The contributions of those that do not fit in the basket are fitted in to general policy concerns.

• [Projects] Projects are welcome if they fit and do not contradict the policy direction of the SWAp.

• [Harmonization] There is pressure on those that have not harmonized procedures to incorporate them gradually in to their work, especially new comers.

• [Policy] Attempts are made to formulate a comprehensive policy, but the emphasis is on annual work plans. The aim is evidence-based policy making, with the stress on the development of information collection and analysis oriented to outcomes.

• [Comprehensive nature] A basket may cover only part of a sector (for example a district basket), and several SWAps may be allowed in one sector”. [The SWAp idea was used to open up possibilities rather than to prescribe cooperation]

(van Donge 2007)

SWAp

(Cassels 1997)

SWAp Implications for CC• Agricultural policy, needs to develop strong

synergies with other sectors, including forestry, water, and land use.

• In-tune with macroeconomic (political-economic) context

• Projects are needed for experimentation and innovation

• Decentralization (first) is key• We can start small -- district pilots

SWAp

NEXUS

NEXUS

3

3

3

3

CC Integration Guidelines3

4

4

5

• Methods for cross-sector CCA planning could include:– (1) the establishment of thematic working groups which

combine to produce working portfolios (Nepal), – (2)a combination logical framework analysis (LFA)/Multi-

criteria analysis (i.e. Akropong Approach) (Ghana),– (3) Integrated Adaptation Assessments (India -

forthcoming),– (4) guidelines for integration with development planning

(Tanzania)

NEXUS

NEXUS

AKROPONG

• The approach aims to reduce the number of discussions by identifying those activities where an in-depth discussion would be most useful using a comparatively rapid activity, while avoiding detailed discussion of activities that are likely to be independent of one another. The approach was refined and formalized during a workshop held in Akropong Akuapim, Ghana, and has been named the ‘‘Akropong Approach.’’

NEXUS

NEXUS

Local Adaptation Plans of Action

• LAPA pilots were conducted in 2010 Climate Adaptation Design and Piloting Project (CADP-N), supported by DfID

• From this, a legal framework was developed and approved by parliament

LAPA

• Pilot Implementation reached 69 Village Development Committees (sub-district admin units) and 1 Municipality under the Nepal Climate Change Support Programme (NCCSP)

• Three national NGOs LI-BIRD, Rupantaran Nepal, and BNMT were involved with the pilot LAPA preparation

LAPA

• “Both NAPA and the Policy have made mandatory provisions to disburse at least 80 percent of the available budget for the implementation of adaptation and climate change activities at the local level.” (GoN LAPA Framework)

LAPA

• 2998 adaptation actions have been identified in the 70 LAPAs prepared to date

• Approx. 60% of “most urgent and immediate actions” will be implemented over a three year period (600 actions/year)

LAPA

LAPA

RISK ASSESSMENT AND RANKING

LAPA

RISK ASSESSMENT AND RANKING

• This risk assessment and prioritization is NOT completed by sector at the community level, which is a-typical of planning approaches at higher levels

• Local, contextual, high-resolution methods (hazard mapping, institutional mapping,

LAPA

DESIGN OF STRATEGY AND MEASURES

LAPA

“Based on those countries that did include this level of detail, it appears multicriteria analysis, nominal group methods, criteria weighing and cost-benefit analysis are most commonly used, and often in multistep prioritization processes.”

Implementation

LAPA

Challenges

• Limited capacity and CC awareness at DDC and VDC levels

• Limited ownership (apart from MoSTE)• There exists institutional coordination, but

there is limited legislative support to impose sanctions and legitimize actions

• Long term funding

LAPA

What LAPA does well

• Supplies high resolution, context specific risk assessment and vulnerability studies (albeit of the CURRENT system)

• Establishes new institutions and assigns clear responsibility (for LAPA development, NOT implementation)

• Provides clear channel for integration of adaptation planning in to DDC development plan (downward accountability)

• Provides a pathway for reassessment of NAPA priorities (adaptive institution)

LAPA

Decentralization

• “any act in which a central government formally cedes powers to actors and institutions at lower levels in a political-administrative and territorial hierarchy” (Ribot 2001: v., citing Mawhood 1983 and Smith 1985).

• ‘downwardly accountable representative actors with significant domains of discretionary power’.(Ribot 2001)

• Regions, Districts, Villages

DECENTRALIZATION

• “most of the literature on decentralization focuses more on expectations and discourses than on practice and outcomes”. (Ribot 2001)

DECENTRALIZATION

• Fiscal decentralization– Improved income generation through taxation

• Administrative decentralization– Improved participation in bureaucratic planning

processes (localized needs assessment)• Political decentralization– Improved representation and increased decision

making authority

DECENTRALIZATION

Decentralization Challenges

• [Admin/Financial Dec.] Limited human/Financial resource capacity at sub-national administrative levels

• [Admin Dec.] Too much responsibility too fast• [Political Dec.] Upward accountability through

central level political appointments at subnational levels

• [Political Dec.]Dominance by local elite figures, and the acute gender inequalities

DECENTRALIZATION

Implications for CC

• LAPAs and other local CC initiatives will rely on sub-national administrative units

• NAPA Limitation was its one-off nature, NAPs can facilitate policy learning, but only with input from subnational units

• Sensitization and capacity building should happen at sub national levels

• CC can provide and impetus to further decentralization efforts

DECENTRALIZATION

Stakeholder Influence Mapping

• Who (which agency) is most influential in the development of National Adaptation Plans?– Institutional Arrangements– Prioritization of actions– Arrangement of financing

• National Planning Commission• Political Parties• Private Sector • President/PM• Bilateral Donors• Multi-lateral donors• Farmers• Ministry of Agriculture• Ministry of Environment• Ministry of Finance• Ministry of Local Government• Climate Change Council• UN Agencies• International NGOs• Local NGOs• Research Agencies/Academia