workshop for capacity building on climate change impact … repor… · “the workshop for...

Workshop for Capacity Building on Climate Change Impact Assessments and Adaptation Planning in the Asia-Pacific Region:

Toward mainstreaming of climate change adaptation

01-02 February 2017 | Manila, Philippines

WORKSH OP REP ORT

2 | WORKSHOP REPORT

CONTENTS

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ................................................................................................... 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................... 4

BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................. 6

PURPOSE .......................................................................................................................................... 8

Day I: 1 February 2017 ..................................................................................................................... 9

OPENING SESSION ............................................................................................................................ 9

Session I .......................................................................................................................................... 10

Session I Question and Answer ................................................................................................. 16

Session II ......................................................................................................................................... 18

Session III ........................................................................................................................................ 21

Session III Question and Answer ............................................................................................... 25

Session IV ....................................................................................................................................... 25

Session V ........................................................................................................................................ 26

Day II: 2 February 2017 .................................................................................................................. 29

Recap of Day 1 ................................................................................................................................ 29

Session VI ....................................................................................................................................... 30

Session VI Question and Answer .............................................................................................. 39

Session VII ...................................................................................................................................... 41

Session VII Question and Answer ............................................................................................. 45

CLOSING SESSION ........................................................................................................................... 45

ANNEX I: AGENDA .......................................................................................................................... 47

ANNEX II: LIST OF PARTICIPANTS ................................................................................................... 52

3 | WORKSHOP REPORT

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

ACCCRN Asian Cities Climate Change Resilience Network

ADB Asian Development Bank

APAN Asia Pacific Adaptation Network

BAPPENAS Ministry of National Development Planning (Indonesia)

CCA climate change adaptation

CCCI Cities and Climate Change Initiative

CCCSP Cambodia Climate Change Strategic Plan

CLIRAM Climate Information Risk Analysis Matrix

CLUP Comprehensive Land Use Plan

COP Conference of the Parties

DRG Disaster Risk Graph

DRR disaster risk reduction

GAD Gender and Development

GCC global climate change

GCM Global Climate Model

GMMA Greater Metro Manila Area

IGES Institute for Global Environmental Strategies

INDC Intended Nationally Determined Contribution

LiDAR Light Detection and Ranging

LLDA Laguna Lake Development Authority

M&E monitoring and evaluation

MOEJ Ministry of the Environment of Japan

MOF Ministry of Finance MONRE Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources

MPI Ministry of Planning and Investment NAP National Adaptation Plan

NAPA National Adaptation Program of Action

NRCT National Research Council of Thailand

NSDP National Strategic Development Plan

PACC Pacific Adaptation to Climate Change

PAGASA Philippine Atmospheric Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration PISMA Urban Stormwater Management Master Plan

RMDP Regional Mid Term Development Plan

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

UNEP United Nations Environment Programme

UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

UPLB University of the Philippines Los Baños

4 | WORKSHOP REPORT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

“The Workshop for Capacity Building on Climate Change Impact Assessments and Adaptation

Planning in the Asia-Pacific Region: Toward mainstreaming of climate change adaptation” was

held in Manila, Philippines on 1-2 February 2017 as part of the initiative of the Ministry of

Environment of the Government of Japan (MOEJ). The workshop aimed to understand and

identify key aspects for mainstreaming climate change adaptation (CCA) and the necessary CCA

background assessments into existing national and subnational planning processes. Participants

include government representatives engaged in the field of CCA from 12 countries in the Asia-

Pacific region – Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cambodia, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Nepal, the Philippines,

Samoa, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Vietnam – as well as researchers and representatives of

international organizations, the academe, development partners, and expert practitioners in the

region.

The workshop provided a platform for knowledge-sharing and exchange of best practices on CCA

mainstreaming, integration, and coordination among national-level agencies and local-level

implementation as well as vertical integration. The participants were also able to collectively

discuss and identify existing strengths, gaps, and challenges as well as opportunities to fully

mainstream and integrate CCA.

The first day of the workshop highlighted the current status of the participating countries’ efforts

to mainstream and integrate adaptation efforts into national-level policy, strategies and actions

across various sectors and development efforts. Representatives from Cambodia, Indonesia, Sri

Lanka, and Vietnam presented their governments’ initiatives and experiences including the

Cambodia Climate Change Strategic Plan; Indonesia’s monitoring and evaluation and reporting

platform for adaptation plan; as well as Sri Lanka’s and Vietnam’s existing national adaptation

planning processes and institutional mechanisms. The participants showed keen interest on

Indonesia’s system of earmarking adaptation plans and projects especially in accounting for funds

used to finance such activities. An expert panel was also put together to share approaches and

strategies on how to strengthen mainstreaming and integration of CCA in policy, planning, and

practice. Highlighted initiatives include UNDP’s assistance to governments in the design and

5 | WORKSHOP REPORT

implementation of projects promoting livelihoods, planning and budgeting, and risk-informed

development and the Green Climate Fund available for countries with NAPs; UN-Habitat’s Cities

Climate Change Initiative (CCCI); National Research Council of Thailand’s strategy on climate

change research so as to avoid duplication in research outputs; and JICA’s use of the Disaster Risk

Graph.

Real world case experiences on local-level implementation and national approaches to support

vertical integration were discussed during the second day of the workshop. Representatives from

the Philippine Atmospheric Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration (PAGASA), City

Government of Santa Rosa, and ICLEI Southeast Asia Secretariat shared their experiences and best

practices in local-level implementation of adaptation planning including the development of a

climate information package and Climate Information Risk Analysis Matrix (CLIRAM); conduct of

risk assessments through land use maps and flood modelling and the GHG inventory; and the

implementation of the Asian Cities Climate Change Resilience Network (ACCCRN) Project.

Government representatives from Malaysia, Philippines, and Samoa also discussed their national

policies and adaptation frameworks.

Another highlight of the workshop is the collaborative activity which enabled participants to map

out necessary systems and functions and identify key aspects or factors for effective national-level

mainstreaming.

6 | WORKSHOP REPORT

BACKGROUND

In the fiscal year of 2015, the series of workshops related to adaptation planning and climate

change impact assessment were organized by the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies

(IGES) with support from Ministry of the Environment of Japan (MOEJ) and in cooperation with

the Asia Pacific Adaptation Network (APAN) and the United Nations Environment Programme

(UNEP).

The events included “The Workshop for Capacity Building on Climate Change Impact Assessments

and Adaptation Planning in the Asia-Pacific Region: Needs and Challenges for Designing and

Implementing Climate Actions” held in Bangkok, Thailand on 1-2 October 2015 (hereinafter called

the Bangkok workshop), and “The Workshop for Capacity Building on Climate Change Impact

Assessments and Adaptation Planning in the Asia-Pacific Region: Technical Review of Background

Assessment for Climate Change Adaptation” held in Manila, the Philippines on 27-28 January 2016

(hereinafter called the Manila workshop).

The Bangkok workshop aimed to identify the status of and needs for adaptation planning and

climate change impact assessments at the national level in the Asia-Pacific region, providing a

platform for knowledge sharing and learning. Major needs and challenges on adaptation planning

included limited institutional and human capacities, such as the lack of internal and external

coordination among relevant stakeholders, insufficient policy framework and mainstreaming of

climate change adaptation (CCA) into other policies, less priority on implementation of adaptation

planning, and weak public awareness and participation, and the need for greater human resources

development.

The Manila workshop, following the previous Bangkok workshop, aimed to facilitate a more

technical discussion on the background assessments (e.g. climate change impact and risk

assessments) necessary for effective adaptation planning. Three distinct categories are used to

classify CCA background assessments, as follows: 1) climate change scenarios and impact

assessments; 2) risk, hazards and vulnerability assessments; and 3) effectiveness assessments of

CCA countermeasures. Major findings included the needs to enhance technical, institutional and

7 | WORKSHOP REPORT

human capacity development for CCA background assessments, especially vulnerability

assessments and effectiveness assessments of CCA countermeasures. This can be done through a

better understanding of the related approaches and tools, an adequate interpretation of scientific

knowledge, and an effective communication at the local level.

8 | WORKSHOP REPORT

PURPOSE

According to Technical Guidelines for the National Adaptation Plan (NAP) Process (UNFCCC, 2012)

for least developed countries, the NAP process included four elements: A) Lay the Groundwork

and Address Gaps (“stocktaking” stage); B) Preparatory Element (“assessment” stage); C)

Implementation Strategies (“implementation” stage); and D) Reporting, Monitoring and Review

(“M&E” stage). Under Element B of the NAP Process, the last two steps related more directly to

the actual planning for adaptation and covered the importance for addressing communication of

national adaptation planning to all stakeholders and integration of climate change adaptation

(CCA) into existing national and subnational planning processes including budget allocation.

Besides that, Element C with four steps, especially step four, suggested promoting coordination

and synergy for implementing adaptation planning. Considering the importance of addressing the

needs and challenges on technical, institutional and human capacities identified in previous two

workshops, mainstreaming of adaptation planning and the CCA background assessments into

national and subnational planning processes corresponded directly with those identified in steps

B.4, B.5 and C.1-C.4 of the NAP process guidelines.

This workshop aimed to understand and identify key aspects for mainstreaming CCA and the

necessary CCA background assessments into existing national and subnational planning processes.

The expected outputs from this workshop included a better understanding and identification of

key requirements and conditions for mainstreaming adaptation planning into the all levels,

including the subnational. Approximately 40 participants were invited to the workshop, including

those who are engaged in the field of climate change adaptation (e.g., national government

officials, policy makers, practitioners, and researchers) in the Asia‐Pacific region.

9 | WORKSHOP REPORT

Day I: 1 February 2017

National-level Mainstreaming, Integration, and Coordination

OPENING SESSION

Dr. Koji Kumamaru ǀ Japan

Climate Change Adaptation Specialist

Research and Information Office | Global Environment Bureau

Ministry of the Environment Government of Japan (MOEJ)

Dr. Kumamaru of MOEJ officially opened the workshop. In his address, he congratulated Fiji for

being selected as the host for the Conference of Parties 23 (COP23). He shared that the Japanese

government, in coordination with other nations, recognizes their responsibility in supporting

developing countries that are in the forefront to address the effects of climate change through

bilateral and multilateral cooperation.

Particularly, he shared MOEJ’s plan to launch a shared Asia-Pacific region climate adaptation

platform. This platform aims to encourage contribution from various stakeholders in the region,

including national government agencies, research institutions, and the private sector, among

others. The platform is still in its development phase and the MOEJ is open to perspectives and

insights on how it could be further improved. He also reiterated that updated and verified climate-

related information is key in planning adaptation and mitigation strategies.

Dr. Kumamaru further noted that this workshop is part of the Ministry’s campaign to further

promote coordination and knowledge-sharing among various nations. He mentioned that one of

the most important strategies of climate change adaptation is to ensure cooperation and

connection. In conclusion, Dr. Kumamaru highlighted Japan’s willingness to further support

activities like the workshop and wished for its success.

Dr. Robert Didham ǀ Japan

Senior Coordinator for Capacity Development

Education and Knowledge Management

10 | WORKSHOP REPORT

Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES)

Dr. Didham of the Institute for Global Environment Strategies (IGES) served as the facilitator of

the workshop. In his overview, Dr. Didham presented a review of the findings that have been

tackled by previous workshops particularly the status of the National Adaptation Plan (NAP), tools

and approaches that were used and their status of usage, and mapping exercises specifically

assessments, scenarios, impacts, and SWOT analysis.

After giving a brief review of the workshop objectives, Dr. Didham stated that one of the outcomes

of the workshop is to construct a guideline for the development of other capacity building

initiatives. Themes day one of the workshop is horizontal integration while day two will focus on

vertical integration.

Session I

Current status of national-level mainstreaming, integration, and coordination

Dr. Rohini Kohli, Lead Technical Specialist of the United Nations Environmental Programme-

Green Low Emission Climate Resilient Development Strategies (UNDP-GEP), chaired the first

session of the workshop. Presenters of this session include representatives from Cambodia,

Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and Vietnam. The session focused on the sharing of the current status, best

practices, and challenges on policy integration approaches of CCA into different national planning

agendas i.e., development plan, coordination mechanisms across ministries and departments,

and budgetary alignment mechanisms.

“Policy Integration Approaches of CCA into different National Planning: Cambodia Climate

Change Strategic Plan Implementation”

Dr. Heng Chan Thoeun ǀ Cambodia

Deputy Director

Department of Climate Change | Ministry of Environment


Dr. Thoeun opened his presentation with a discussion of Cambodia’s National Strategic

Development Plan (NSDP). He reported that the NDSP 2014-2018 is the road map for

implementing the Rectangular Strategy Phase III which will be implemented in a five-year period.

He also added that the Ministry of Environment of Cambodia will take a comprehensive

development approach of mainstreaming NDSP through the following methods:

1. Sustainable management of resources

2. Intensifying efforts to reduce impacts of climate change by strengthening the adaptation

capacity and resiliency to climate change particularly through the implementation of

strategies such as National Strategic Plan on Green Development 2013-2030, National

Policy on Green Development, and the Cambodia Climate Change Strategic Plan 2014-

2023.

3. Strengthening technical and institutional capacity mainstream climate change responses

into plans and policies at the national and sub-national level

4. Designing and implementing programs to further protect the environment and

ecosystems

He also discussed the Cambodia Climate Change Strategic Plan (CCCSP) 2014-2023. He noted that

the main goals of the plan is to reduce vulnerability to climate change specifically its impacts to

the people and to induce a shift towards a green development path through promoting low-

carbon development and technologies. Objectives of the plan include:

Promoting climate change resilience through improving food, water, and energy security;

Reducing the vulnerability of sectors, regions, gender, and health to climate change

impacts;

Ensuring climate resilience of critical ecosystem including Tonle Sap Lake, Mekong River,

coastal ecosystems, highlands, protected areas, cultural sites, and others;

Promoting low-carbon planning and technologies to support sustainable development of

Cambodia;

Improving capacities and knowledge of climate change responses;

Strengthening institutions and coordination frameworks for national climate change

responses; and


Strengthening collaboration and active participation in regional and global climate change

processes.

Implementation of the Strategic Plan

After providing an overview of the plan’s objectives, Dr. Thoeun proceeded to explain the

implementation process of the CCCSP. It was reported that in 2015, 15 ministries and government

institutions have already developed their respective climate change action plans (CCAPs). Dr.

Thoeun explained how each CCAP contributes to the attainment of the objectives outlined by the

CCCSP. Approved CCAPS are now being implemented through various means such as national

budgeting and planning process, dedicated climate change projects funded by partners, CCCA’s

grants to pilot sites to implement CCAP actions.

Challenges in the implementation of the CCCAP

In his presentation, Dr. Thoeun outlined the current challenges that they have encountered in

implementing CCCAP. These challenges include: lack of inventories of existing data on climate and

vulnerability; insufficient data on climate scenarios, cross-sectoral collaboration on climate

adaptation programming at national and sub-national levels; limited technical and institutional

capacity; lack of understanding about CC and its impacts and GHG mitigation potential; lack of

connection between research results, policy design, and formulated actions; and budgetary

constraints.

Way Forward: CCCSP Implementation

As a way forward, Dr. Thoeun expressed the department’s desire to scale up the implementation

of CCCSP. At the national level, it was envisioned to further scale up CCCSP’s implementation

among sectoral CCAPs. On the other hand, scaling up at the sub-national level would entail

garnering enhanced support and awareness as well as capacity development of provincial and

local authorities for climate change mainstreaming. Other plans for the CCCSP include creating a

legal and regulatory framework, establishing the basis for GCF accreditation, research and


knowledge management particularly in engaging researchers on CC issues, and updating of GHG

inventory.

”Monitoring, Evaluation, and Reporting for Adaptation Plan in Indonesia”

Ms. Syamsidar Thamrin ǀ Indonesia

Ministry of National Development Planning (BAPPENAS)

Ms. Syamsidar Thamrin of Indonesia discussed on their country’s Monitoring, Evaluation, and

Reporting for Adaptation Plan. Her presentation clarified the main goal of RAN-API; which is to

promote climate change-adaptive sustainable development. To achieve this goal, the following

are considered: ecosystem resilience, specific region resilience, economic resilience, and living

system resilience which creates a supporting system. She also listed out the subsectors which are

included in each of these systems:

Sector Subsector

Economic Resilience Food Security Energy Independence

Living System Resilience Health Housing Infrastructure

Ecosystem Resilience Ecosystem and Biodiversity

Specific Region Resilience Urban Coastal and small islands

Supporting system Data and Information Capacity Building Research and Development

In a framework, Ms. Thamrin also listed out the specific ministries included in these sectors. She

further explained how the national government could adopt the RAN-API into their regional

midterm development plan (RPMD). Ms. Thamrin identified specific content of the RPMD which

can adopt the RAN-API to come up with adaptation strategies. These parts include Public Policy

and Regional Development Program, Indicative Priority Program Plan and Funding Needs, and

Revised Indicative Priority Program Plan and Funding Needs. Through these parts, a long list of

adaptation or action program could be listed for each sector. A compatibility analysis would be


conducted to come up with a short list of adaptation or action program for each sector. Through

these, a priority adaptation action could be designed.

Ms. Thamrin also discussed the method for earmarking activities in line with climate change

adaptation strategies. She shared methods on applying general and specific criteria on which

activities to earmark. She especially noted that big ministries, which have more budget lines than

smaller ones, have to calculate resources to ensure that they go into supporting CCA strategies.

She added that earmarking is a time consuming activity, however, it also demands timing since

most government agencies and ministries carefully plan their finances early on.

To ensure that line ministries earmark activities for adaptation and mitigation, they are provided

with a template that they can easily fill out. Monitoring these activities also entails a detailed

process; requiring each implementing unit to submit reports and photos as proof of the project

status.

Way Forward

For future activities, Ms. Thamrin identified the need of conducting a comparative analysis

between the ideal indicators with current development indicator used by the ministries. She also

reiterated the need to continuously monitor and evaluate in both outcome and output level to

monitor the implementation of RAN-API. Lastly, she mentioned the need to track budget

allocation for each program or activities related to the national action plan of adaptation to

climate change.

”Climate Change Adaptations in Climate Change Negotiations”

Mr. Ranga Pallawala ǀ Sri Lanka

Member, National Expert Committee on Climate Change Adaptation

CEO, Janathakshan GTE

Mr. Pallawala started his presentation with the basic overview of Sri Lanka. He specifically noted

the challenges and impacts experienced by the country in the face of the changing climate. Taking

up the discussion to adopting climate change adaptation strategies, Mr. Pallawala identified key


challenges which include setting up the platform for climate change adaptation discussions in a

volatile time, just after experiencing prolonged conflict, overlapping responsibilities among

government levels or tiers, identifying an opportunity for appropriate and institutional

coordination mechanism, and proposing a structure to be used in mainstreaming CCA in both

national and local planning.

He also discussed the NAP roll out which include national level initiative while also taking into

consideration subnational level plans. The main objective of the rollout was to mainstream

climate change into existing institutional mechanisms. A national working group was formed

which included officials from different ministries as well as an Expert Committee. This working

group ensures the interlinkage among various national plans such as NPP, Haritha Lanka, CCMP,

and SDGs, among others.

At the regional level, provincial councils were formed with representatives from central and

provincial channels. The council also has members from district and divisional Secretariats and

local government as well as representatives from local CSOs. The CSOs were further engaged

through a National CSO forum which aimed to encourage coordination among CSOs and ensure

their active engagement in CCA.

Some learning points from these experiences include gaining contributions to the integration and

mainstreaming of CC; documenting a good learning curve; and bringing in cooperation and

harmonization of administrative and technical expertise. The challenges identified, on the other

hand, include working with administrative and ecological boundaries; dealing with different levels

of authorities; use of appropriate communication channels; and strengthening capabilities.

”Overview of the Existing Policy and Planning Framework for Adaptation in the Country”

Dr. Ngan Ngoc Vy ǀ Vietnam

Head, Climate Change and International Affairs

Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment


Dr. Vy of Vietnam opened his presentation with his country’s situationer. Loss and damage due to

climate change accounts for at least 8% of the country’s GDP. He also reported that Vietnam has

a committee working exclusively on climate change at the national level and this is chaired directly

by the Prime Minister. He also shared the Existing Climate Change Adaptation Overview which

included relevant resolutions and national decisions pertaining to CCA.

Dr. Vy also discussed the National Strategy on climate change which aims to simultaneously adapt

to climate change and reduce GHG emissions while focusing on adaptation in the early stage.

Adding to this, he shared the National Target Program Responding to Climate Change which aims

to raise awareness regarding climate change and build adaptation models and processes. In

addition, he also tackled the Support Program Responding to Climate Change which aims to

mobilize oversea resources to support the country in responding to the effects of the changing

climate. This is supported by four policy matrices which were first initiated in 2011 and were

finalized in 2014.

At the national level, the developed NAP is being implemented following these principles;

commitment to the UNFCCC, following the country-driven agenda in a satisfactory manner, use

of the best, appropriate, and available scientific and indigenous knowledge, and to undertake

strategies with a view to integrating these into relevant social, economic, and environmental

policies and actions.

Some implications identified in the presentation include improvement of policy reformulation,

building capacity especially at the provincial level, leveraging adaptation and mitigation strategies

to be in line with national sustainable strategies, and development of an implementation

guideline.

Session I Question and Answer

Mr. Rey Guarin of UNEP-Philippines asked the presenters to specifically define adaptation projects

and how countries track finances allotted to adaptation projects to avoid double counting. Ms.

Thamrin of Indonesia responded that they use a certain set of indicators and criteria to define and

prioritize adaptation projects. However, this may be limited since they do not have exact

indicators. They try to mitigate this with an adaptation secretariat composed of experts who help


them define or accept projects related to adaptation. To avoid double counting, projects funded

by several funding sources are asked to define and specify the allotment from each funding source.

Meanwhile, Ms. Maceda from the Philippines noted the amount of budget allotted for adaptation

strategies. The same query was raised by Mr. Sakhakara of Thailand, asking further if there is a

prioritization program to determine which would be funded first. To this, Ms. Thamrin noted that

ministries are mandated to report to their finances every quarter for regular spending. However,

ministries with development spending might get their budget cut if they don’t comply. The small

budget only reflects the adaptation budget since the bulk of the administration’s budget was

allotted for health insurance. However, there are 10 priority programs for adaptation.

As an observation, Ms. Ueselani from Samoa noted that since climate change is a cross-cutting

issue, it also touches various sectors. She observed that climate change is also related to disaster

risk reduction (DRR) and hence most governments mainstream these two themes into their

national planning down to the community level. In her country, she mentioned having KPIs for

different ministries who have included CC in their budget allocation. She also reminded everyone

that coordination is imperative in this movement and no one should work within silos.

Another question raised by the Mr. Sharma of Nepal is the confusion between NAP and sectoral

planning. Dr. Vy of Vietnam explained that at the national level, it is important to define the role

of the Ministry of Planning and Investment (MPI) and the Ministry of Finance (MOF). The main

problem documented here is the weak coordination among ministries which leads to difficulties

especially in financing issues. The MOF should coordinate with the MPI to come up with a

proposed budget which will then be presented to the PM. At the local level, on the other hand,

livelihood should always be linked to adaptation. Economic development should be considered as

well as the stance of political leaders. Gaining support from the political leaders is advantageous

especially that their buy-in would influence which activities and strategies they will prioritize.

The session chair, Ms. Rohini closed the question and answer portion by summarizing the

presentations. She also reiterated that decision-making occurs at both top-down and bottom-up

approaches. It is, thus, imperative to involve various ministries in adaptation planning.


Session II

Roundtable discussion

Dr. Monthip Sriratana Tabucanon, Director of Climate Change Research Strategy Center, National

Research Council of Thailand (NRCT) served as the facilitator of the roundtable discussion. This

session encouraged the participants to actively discuss strengths and weaknesses on

mainstreaming, integration, and coordination across countries.

First to share his observations was Mr. Itagaki of JICA. He noted that CCA implementation is in

need of concrete knowledge from various sectors. In terms of DRR, knowledge needs to be built

and shared first before it could be mainstreamed into CCAs. He also noted the importance of

traditional knowledge in building adaptation strategies. In the Philippines, he shared that

implementation could be a challenge. Based on his personal experience working with the

Philippine government, he noted that there is no lack of knowledge, the structures are in place,

but implementation remains to be problematic.

Dr. Cabrido of SEARCA shared some of the strategies implemented by the Philippines. He noted

that there are different forms of mainstreaming at the national level. In terms of policy, adoption

of national laws and regulations was encouraged. At the same level, CC and DRRM acts are in

place which identified provisions to NGAs and LGUs to integrate CC and DRRM in all planning and

decision-making processes. Mainstreaming CCA was also done through formulating national

action plans and bringing this down to the local level. However, before implementing the

mainstreaming process, guidelines had to be prepared first. Aside from these guidelines, capacity

building programs were also conducted in NGAs and LGUs.

One of the weaknesses noted by Mr. Cabrido is the budgeting process. He shared that it was

particularly interesting to learn about Indonesia’s technique of tagging or earmarking their CCAM

projects. He expressed his desire to adopt this strategy not only for DRRM but for CCA as well. As

for Project NOAH, they have already developed the database for maps but access to these proved

to be problematic. LGUs are also in the process of developing their own database. It was also


shared that the PAGASA would hopefully adopt Project NOAH to ensure its continuity. Climate

information is also provided for free.

Further, it was noted that one of the lacking features of R&D and CC in the Philippines is its

noticeable impact on agriculture, marine resources, public health, and transportation. Further

research has to be done to strengthen DRR and CC’s foundation.

As for the tools used in climate modelling, PAGASA shared that they were previously using CMIP

3 and they have transitioned to CMIP 5 which enables them to look into risk scenarios of a

particular sector. Consequently, when asked about the accessibility to these data, especially of

the grassroots level, PAGASA noted that they are involved with different levels of the government

which helps translate technical knowledge to information that the community can readily

understand and use. Most of the data are available online but this becomes a problem especially

if the area has no Internet connection. In line with this, the agency is working on a tool to

disseminate information digitally without requiring Internet access.

Mr. Choda of Bhutan shared that since he came from a small country that puts premium on

happiness rather than wealth, Bhutan have identified different pillars and one of these is

environmental conservation. He noted that they do not compromise the environment for the sake

of development. He noted that they have NAPA and on top of that, they are also working actively

to reduce their GHG emissions. In lieu of big industries, the country focused on developing agro-

industries. Lastly he noted that he observed good leadership and commitment in the leaders of

his country and that there is good coordination in the horizontal and vertical levels of the

government.

Ms. Uesalani of Samoa shared that one of the biggest challenge of adaptation in their country is

gaining funding to ensure continuity of adaptation actions. She noted that they are prioritizing the

mainstreaming of CCA and DRRM in their planning process and frameworks as they want to veer

away from a project-based approach and move to a more programmatic approach. Further, she

shared that they are very dependent on donor funding so it would be helpful to learn from other

countries how to gain and manage funding effectively. Dr. Monthip then asked the representative


from Samoa to share their adaptation strategies now that their country is in the forefront of sea

level rise. Ms. Ueselani shared that they have made gathered strong commitments from various

ministries and government agencies in addressing this problem. However, she noted that increase

in frequency of intense climate events such as cyclones and prolonged drought. The water sector,

which she is closely working with, is also very much affected by climate change both in terms of

quantity and quality.

On the issue of considering gender and development (GAD) in CC projects and initiatives, Dr. Vy

of Vietnam shared that in his country, there are several NGOs who are working to integrate a

gender lens in their mainstreaming process. He said that there is a lack of consideration on gender

in varying levels of the society. In his ministry, the MONRE, they are organizing a workshop to

gather experts and discuss gender perspectives on the subject of climate change. For her part, Dr.

Monthip shared that when Thailand experienced flooding in 2011, they learned that women are

especially vulnerable in disaster situations considering their gendered needs. Drawing from that

experience, they came up with guidelines to ensure the wellbeing of women and children in times

of calamities.

Mr. Guarin from UNEP-Philippines stated that in consideration of the roles of women, they are

looking for ways to expand their livelihood project in Mindanao. This is to enable women to use

their skills and expand their expertise in the emerging economies of their communities. In line

with this, Erika Inoue of JICA reiterated that the gender perspective does not only focus on women

but should also consider children. Just like women, children are especially vulnerable in times of

disasters and it is important to ensure that they are protected. Mainstreaming this, according to

Inoue should not only be at policy-level but also in implementation in the ground to ensure

children’s survival.

Ms. Thamrin of Indonesia shared that they have updated their curriculum to integrate concepts

of climate change. She also said that since 2015, various ministries have developed their own

guidebooks and content and have these submitted to the Ministry of Education. However, one of

the challenges of this initiative is that it is somewhat difficult for the Ministry to review and

approve all the content and convert this to a national curriculum.


Bringing the discussion back to the economy, Mr. Guarin of UNEP highlighted the workshop that

they did on climate finance. He also shared that they are working with TESDA to create more jobs

which feed to the green economy. Drawing from Ms. Thamrin’s experience, Mr. Guarin reiterated

that an educational system with a climate change lens can prepare the people with knowledge as

well as technical education to enhance their marketable skills. He mentioned the Twin Phoenix

Project of UNDP which aims to provide long term capacity development to cities and

municipalities by addressing risks from climate change and natural hazards. He also mentioned a

micro-insurance project being implemented by Oxfam.

Speaking of insurance, Dr. Monthip inquired if anyone has worked on developing a guideline in

crop insurance for ASEAN countries. She noted that a similar project is being supported by the

FAO. Contributing to this topic, Ms. De Guzman of PAGASA shared that the agency uses a weather-

based index insurance which enables them to identify which crops would be covered by the

insurance. Mr. Guarin of UNEP noted that a micro-insurance project in Mindanao insures rice and

corn depending on the risks associated with the weather.

Ms. Kohli of UNDP voiced out that the organization has been supporting various countries on their

NAP. However, one of the main challenges is the systematic training of policy makers and

implementers. There is a need for skills and knowledge development. To come with this, an

exhaustive skills assessment has to be done. Mr. Sharma of Nepal reiterated that ministries such

as MONRE and other national government agencies have to commit to CCA. It is always difficult

to gain political will but it is a must. Additional problems identified by Mr. Sharma are the different

framework, processes, and methodologies used in crafting CCA strategies.

Session III

Expert panel on mainstreaming and integration approaches


This session was chaired by Mr. Satoshi Tanaka, Principal Fellow, Programme Management Office

of IGES.

Discussion Highlights:

Ms. Rohini Kohli, Lead Technical Specialist, NAP-GSP, Green Low Emission Climate Resilient

Development Strategies represented UNDP in the panel. UNDP promotes adaptation

mainstreaming through its assistance to governments in the design and implementation of on the

ground projects such as promoting livelihoods, planning and budgeting, and risk-informed

development. In the last 10 years, most of these projects were implemented at the sub-national

level. Recently, UNDP has been working with national governments building on the experiences

gained from the ground implementation of these projects. This is done by working key ministries

including environment, planning and finance in promoting risk-informed planning and budgeting.

Activities with these ministries include building capacities on economic adaptation as well as

training programs on cost-benefit analysis and multi-criteria analysis to identify and prioritize

investments. UNDP also partnered with UNEP to conduct NAP regional trainings in Asia, Africa and

Latin America. In partnership with FAO, UNDP also works with 11 countries on risk-informed

planning and budgeting in the agriculture sector. Specific to budgeting, UNDP is also involved in

preparing budget codes and tracking of climate finance with several countries globally. One of the

biggest work that UNDP is embarking on is on international climate funds, particularly the Green

Climate Fund (GCF). The GCF has been made available to countries with NAPs. In this regard, UNDP

is working with many countries in the region to enhance their readiness to propose and access

financing from the GCF.

UN-Habitat was represented by Ms. Laids Cea, Regional Coordinator of the Cities and Climate

Change Initiative (CCCI) in the Asia-Pacific Region Programme. The CCCI promotes the

mainstreaming of climate change in line with the organization’s mandate to promote socially and

environmentally sustainable towns, cities and human settlements to achieve adequate shelter for

all. Most countries climate change and urbanization policies are disconnected. The CCCI, therefore,

supports national governments in addressing this disconnect in mainstreaming both policy

subjects. UN-Habitat has recently redefined its focus in recognition of the Sustainable

Development Goals (SDGs), Paris Agreement, and confirmation of the new Urban Agenda wherein

climate change and resilience are key components. A lot of the work done by the organization has

been in promoting and supporting cities in the conduct of their risk and vulnerability assessments

and using these as basis for decision-making and policymaking at the local and national levels. UN-


Habitat advocates mainstreaming of adaptation through promotion of available scientific data

and understanding vulnerabilities in urban areas. This approach makes key stakeholders

understand that if they don’t employ adaptation measures, they are either introducing

maladaptation or anticipating difficult and costly adaptation later on. At the same time, with the

Paris Agreement in place, UN-Habitat strives to combine adaptation and mitigation frames such

that these are trying to achieve resiliency through low-carbon development trajectory and

strategy. These initiatives would be made possible through access to climate financing and new

technologies being introduced cities. The process being delivered include strengthening

institutions; enhancing capacities either through technical advisory or partnering with sister

agencies in the UN; or implementing demonstration projects on shelter development, housing for

the poor and many other facets in the urban system that need adaptation support. UN-Habitat

believes that multi-level governance is a key factor in introducing resiliency in countries. Ms. Cea

emphasized that her organization advocates that local realities should also dictate what should

be mainstreamed in national policies.

Dr. Monthip Sriratana Tabucanon, Director of the Climate Change Research Strategy Center

represented the National Research Council of Thailand (NRCT). The NRCT is under the office of the

prime minister of Thailand that provides research funding to public, private and academic sectors.

The NRCT devised a strategy on climate change research so as to avoid duplication in research

outputs. They also implement pilot projects following the watershed-based adaptation

framework. These pilot projects are envisioned to be replicated in all 35 watersheds of the country.

Dr. Tabucanon stressed the need to bridge scientific data and social science information and

utilize these in the NAP process. She also emphasized the need for involving the public throughout

the entire NAP process.

Mr. Osamu Itagaki of JICA Philippines expressed his interest on concrete implementation

especially in the area of flood risk reduction. DRR and climate change adaptation should be viewed

in isolation from each other. According to Mr. Itagaki, measuring the future amount of flood risk

in a concrete way is difficult. The proposed Disaster Risk Graph aims to address this difficulty.

Through this graph, one can monitor and understand the state of DRR and therefore identify

concrete measures to employ. He also stressed that a lot of data being produced may not be

meaningful in understanding DRR. This Disaster Risk Graph concept aims to present a basic and

simple concept that enables the identification of useful data in monitoring and implementing DRR

in a target area.


Mr. Rey Guarin is the Country Lead for the UNEP GCF Readiness Program for the Philippines, UNEP

Economy Division. The programme was funded by BMUM and implemented on the ground by

UNDP, UNEP and the World Resources Institute (WRI). The ultimate goal of the programme was

to enable access to climate financing. In order to achieve this, Mr. Guarin said that there should

be a sense of readiness in mainstreaming climate change into policies, plans, programs, and

projects. The programmed tied up with the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG)

in order for it to be anchored with the agency’s Public-Private Partnership (PPP) programme. This

was seen as a good opportunity for UNEP to concentrate its resources to support the development

of both the public and private sectors. Mr. Guarin presented the Climate Smart Roadmap. As an

initial step in the development of the roadmap, consultation with several regions in Mindanao to

scope for potential projects was done. The roadmap recognizes the need to capacitate local

officials in screening projects through the provision of tools such as the Investment Prioritization

Guidelines; to produce and use robust scientific and local data; to develop a mindset that

adaptation should not be compartmentalized bur rather be considered later on as business-as-

usual (BAU) scenario; to provide knowledge products that address harmonization of guidelines

and models. One of the major outcomes of the roadmap was the Climate Advisory and Advocacy

Network that help sustain this program beyond the technical assistance being provided. Mr.

Guarin also shared that the roadmap has taken a life on its own as it already identified programs

and projects such as green jobs, green curricula, and investment maps that are already being

taken on by different government agencies.

Ms. Kohli expressed that bringing findings from the implementation of projects on the ground to

the national level is very difficult from UNDP’s perspective. She said that the NAP process provides

the opportunity to influence national policies from implementation of local projects.

Ms. Cea stressed the importance to make cities understand and appreciate their critical role

within and outside their boundaries in contributing and gaining returns in economic and welfare

development for this is enough motivation for cities to be engaged in mainstreaming adaptation

initiatives. She shared that it is a reality that decisions are not entirely done by cities but hugely

influenced by the national government and private sector. This proves to be a challenge for

organizations such as UN-Habitat but also provides them a chance to go back to the basics and

appeal to highlighting their mandate in the discussions. This is not always true for all cities

therefore there is a need to understand the governance system that cities work on and that would

be an entry point through which UN-Habitat’s support can be provided.


According to Mr. Guarin, the quality of a project qualified for climate financing is ensured by:

making sure of the good quality and credibility of data used for vulnerability assessments;

harmonization of screening and prioritization methodologies and models; employ a programmatic

approach to ensure opportunity to scale up and for replicability; and collaboration with different

stakeholders with different skill sets.

Session III Question and Answer

Mr. Ranga Pallawala of Sri Lanka inquired if they should invest more in the urban or the rural areas

and how to strike the balance in relation to this. UN-Habitat responded by saying that a lot of the

needs and resources needed of urban areas comes from the outside/rural areas, thus, a systems

approach is needed. There should be a more encompassing, more interconnected approach but

it has to be that advanced as well in urban adaptation which a lot of countries are not putting in

their policies. Ms. Kohli added that that livelihood security is very important in rural area. Our

planners are thinking of megacities but there are secondary cities, too. Thus, we have to take into

account the population dynamics and movement. Urban adaptation in cities is moving separately

from the overall population plan.

Mr. Kumamaru from MOEJ asked Dr. Monthip to expound on the watershed management

approach. To which she responded that they have signed an agreement with the Chinese

government to compare river basins, exchange of researches with a focus on the Mekong

riverbasin.

Session IV

Group activity guidelines

Dr. Didham facilitated the Session IV group activity dividing the participants into three groups.

Each group was assigned to map key features for mainstreaming and integrating climate change

adaptation. This activity provided an opportunity to collectively explore the needs and challenges

for mainstreaming and integrating climate change adaptation in the Asia-Pacific region. In order

to achieve this, the groups were tasked to map necessary systems, functions and mechanisms for

effective national-level mainstreaming; and identifying future scenarios for improved

mainstreaming considering how to enhance overall coordination and integration.


Group discussions considered six aspects related to the mainstreaming and integration of climate

change adaptation: policy Integration into national planning and agenda; coordination

mechanisms for cross-agency cooperation; budgetary alignment mechanisms; support

mechanisms for vertical integration and implementation; sectoral integration and prioritization;

and local-level Integration and Implementation. These six aspects were reviewed based on the

current status, the strengths and weaknesses, and the future scenarios, the opportunities for

strengthening and innovative approaches for application.

Session V

Summary and presentation

For Session V, the three groups presented the results of their discussions.

First to present is Mr. Ranga Pallawala of Sri Lanka, in behalf of his group composed of

representatives from Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Japan, Cambodia, Indonesia, and the Philippines.

Summary of their discussion is shown in the table below:

Strengths Gaps and/or Needs

Policy Integration into National Planning and Agenda

Every country has integrated the climate change into National Planning and Agenda.

Coordination Mechanisms for Cross-agency Cooperation

There are existing coordination mechanisms in place.

Lack of budgeting makes it less effective.

Budgetary Alignment Mechanisms

There is an existing adaptation fund. Understanding of the budget requirement. Linking to risk management.

Sectoral Integration and Prioritisation

Yes, there is existing sectoral integration.

Lack of implementation of programs. Lack of project integration. Less prioritisation.

Support Mechanism for Vertical Integration and Implementation

There are existing frameworks for some countries.

There are existing gaps in the implementation.


Strengths Gaps and/or Needs Local-level integration and implementation

Not widely implemented. Only in the Philippines is this required by law.

The second presenter is Mr. Kollawat Sakhakara from Thailand, representing Group II consisting

of representatives from Japan, Thailand, Malaysia, and the Philippines. Summary of their

discussion is shown in the table below:

Strengths Gaps and/or Needs

Policy Integration into National Planning and Agenda

Opportunities within existing policies. NAP processes – to be /initiated (Benchmark). Existing SDG processes.

Lack of technical/Institutional capacity. Limited access/availability of information/data.

Coordination Mechanisms for Cross-agency Cooperation

Existing coordinating institutions (inter-ministerial committees/bodies, etc.).

Budgetary Alignment Mechanisms

Budget tagging systems (Indo/Phil). National Budgetary system in Indonesia.

Sectoral Integration and Prioritisation

Existing National level Climate Action Plans/Strategies.

Limited access/availability of information/data

Support Mechanism for Vertical Integration and Implementation

Existing institutions (Commissions/Secretariats/Trusts/Councils). Technology innovations – ICT.

Lack of implementation strategy for NAP/Adaptation. Lack of technical capacities.

Local-level integration and implementation

National Budgetary system in Indonesia. Local government support programmes. Level of devolution of power (both strength and weakness).

Limited access/availability of information/data. Volatility of Local Governments

Last presenter is Dr. Ngan Ngoc Vy of Vietnam shared their list of identified strengths and

weaknesses in the implementation of climate change adaptation for their respective countries.

Their group consists of representatives from Bhutan, Samoa, Vietnam, Japan, Nepal, Indonesia,

and the Philippines. Summary of their discussion is shown in the table below:


Classification

Strengths Good coordination system (from high level to local community) CC expenditure targeting Budget Line Allocation for CCA Data is available

Gaps and Needs Coordination among sector Lack of identification criteria for CC budget by MOF Lack of eligibility criteria for CC projects funding. Lack of translating CC data

Recommendations Enhance (Alignment) SDGs implementations Making localization of SDGs Mainstreaming CCA & DRR Development of effective coordination system (High level, involvement of politicians)


Day II: 2 February 2017

Local-level implementation and vertical integration

Recap of Day 1

The second day of the workshop opened with a recap of Day 1 discussions facilitated by Dr.

Robert Didham. He summarized the outputs from the group activity conducted on the first day,

presented in the table below. He also discussed some current gaps and needs following the same

categories.

Current Strengths Current Gaps and Needs

Policy

integration

approaches

• Existing CCA Planning Process provide basis for mainstreaming and establishes benchmark

• SDG processes promoting further mainstreaming

• Most countries are already taking efforts to integrate Climate Change into national planning and agenda setting

• Baseline data is useful for planning and agenda setting

• Lack of Technical & Institutional capacities for mainstreaming CCA into wider policies and plans

• Limited access and availability of relevant information/data for supporting decision making

• Lack of proper translating and interpretation of available CC data for use in decision making

• There are opportunities for strengthening through better alignment of CCA and DRR

• Structured guidance on integrating CCA into planning at different levels and the appropriate ordering

• Current capacity building approaches are one-off initiatives; a systematic and scaffolded capacity building approach would support long-term progression

• High turn-over rate of government staff can undermine efforts taken for CCA capacity building and limit long-term continuity

Coordination

mechanism

• Most countries have existing coordination bodies, some specialising on climate change

• Most countries have established coordination mechanisms for vertical

• While coordination bodies exist, there actual achievements are often limited to knowledge sharing

• Lack of alignment between coordination and budgeting makes them less effective


Current Strengths Current Gaps and Needs

integration from national-to-local

• Some countries are taking efforts to interlink and coordinate across different plans and strategies

• Technical capacity building is needed for effective cross-agency and cross-sectoral coordination

• Coordination between sectors is challenging under current institutions

• More high-level involvement of politicians is needed in CC coordination

Budgetary

alignment

mechanism

• Some countries demonstrating good practice in CCA Budget Tagging and integration into National Budgetary systems

• Availability of specific Adaptation Funds

• Some countries are developing frameworks/criteria for prioritizing funding for different types of CCA actions and responses

• Budgetary alignment is currently not seen as an inclusive part of the NAP process

• Ability to link CCA budget alignment to effective risk management is limited

• Understanding budget requirements for integrating “Climate Proofing” into development investments

• Lack of identification criteria for CC budgeting

• Lack of eligibility criteria for CC project funding

• Moving from a project based approach to a programmatic based approach for CCA financing requires greater alignment between planning and budgeting

• Continued dependence on donor funding may limit sustainability of CCA efforts

Session VI

Local-level real world case experiences on implementation

This session was chaired by Dr. Paulo Pasicolan, Capacity Building Specialist of the Southeast

Asian Regional Center for Graduate Study and Research in Agriculture (SEARCA). Speakers for

this session were requested to share best practices and challenges on local-level

implementation of adaptation planning and CCA background assessments.

”Pilot Studies to Improve Uptake of Climate Information”

Ms. Thelma Cinco ǀ Philippines


Assistant Weather Services Chief, Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical Services Administration

Ms. Cinco’s presentation centered on the process by which PAGASA developed climate

information package involving different levels of local and national government. Pilot areas were

selected from the Greater Metro Manila (GMMA) area which includes Manila, Marikina City,

Pasig City, and San Juan City and Salceco in Eastern Samar. The pilot approach and development

followed these steps: inception workshop; LGU workshop; barangay workshop; and focus

workshop. These steps were planned and executed to enhance the awareness and capacity of

the LGUs, develop user needs-based climate information, and utilize climate information

effectively.

During the inception workshop, it was found out that participants from GMMA exhibited good

understanding of climate change and its concepts while residents of Salcedo showed basic

understanding of the subject matter. During this workshop, the participants were also

introduced to the PAGASA-produced climate information which enabled PAGASA to assess

current levels of understanding. Feedback from this workshop also helped in critiquing the

material and identifying improvements to make it more user-friendly. Consequently, it was

during these inception workshops that participants learned about planning activities and priority

sectors in their areas. Planning activities identified included Comprehensive Development Plans,

Comprehensive Land Use Plans, Disaster Risk Reduction Management Plan, and Local Climate

Change Action Plan. Priority sectors, on the other hand, include health and livelihood. In Salcedo,

priority areas were agriculture and fisheries. Lastly, the inception workshop enabled PAGASA to

review the information and highlight the importance of climate projections in assessing impacts

as compared to historical disaster information.

During the follow-up LGU workshops, a training of trainers (ToT) orientation was conducted to

build a common understanding of climate information. In the said workshop, PAGASA provided

tips to the focal persons on the effective facilitation of such workshops and provision of technical

assistance on understanding climate change material; practiced their skills through practical

sessions; and asked for their feedback to continue improving the training pack. During the said

workshop, the participants also communicated the difficulty in understanding climate


projections made by multi-model ensembles of data and how these could be integrated into

their day to day planning.

At the follow-up workshop at GMMA, a model called Climate Information Risk Analysis Matrix

(CLIRAM) was developed to help leads interpret various data sets. This workshop also set the

stage for reviewing the planning processes and tools and finding out where in these tools climate

information could be integrated.

In reviewing the existing tools for vulnerability and adaptation assessment, the following table

was generated:

Vulnerability and Adaptation Assessment Tool

Purpose

Gap Analysis Tool Make use of existing plans and profiles of the city or barangay

Existing Vulnerability Models

Models which are based on data collected in the previous tool to

quantify existing vulnerability and adaptive capacity

Existing CDRR Measures Building on all the information from the tools, the participants

were asked to list down priority projects

Elements at Risk (Existing)

Elements of risks were examined through the use of risk maps

and table format to numerate the population and critical

infrastructure at risk from climate related hazards

Climate Information and Risk Analysis Matrix

The matrix presented scenarios, models, and projections for

rainfall and temperature for 2050 (2036-2065).

Elements at Risk (Future) Through the use of climate change scenarios, additional

pressures on existing risks and vulnerabilities were considered

to identify potential adaptation strategies.

Climate Change Impact Chain

The data produced through these tools were used to construct a

climate change impact chain.

The main outcome of the series of workshop include the climate orientation pack, co-produced

climate information, climate information and risk analysis matrix, and guidance in integrating

climate information in local planning.

Noteworthy lessons and recommendations gleaned include the following:


1. The climate information pack helped the LGUs in delivering a basic climate change

orientation to other LGUs and community members.

2. The modular format of the training pack enables a more interactive flow of information.

3. Working collaboratively with the participants ensured that the final outcome was a

collective effort of PAGASA and of those who attended the workshops.

4. Collaborative workshops strengthened PAGASA’s capability to develop user-friendly

materials.

5. The CLIRAM tool helped in prioritizing risk areas and what could be done as means of

adaptation.

6. The promise of Business Continuity Planning, while still at its earliest stages, is a promising

mechanism to integrate climate information in local planning processes which highlights

the business sectors in towns and communities.

”Mainstreaming Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation”

Ms. Erlinda Carrasco-Creencia, EnP ǀ Philippines

Environment and Natural Resources Officer, City of Santa Rosa

Ms. Creencia provided a brief background of Santa Rosa stating that it was once an agricultural

town but due to its proximity to Metro Manila, it attracted investors of various kinds. Now, the

city is home to agro-industrial parks, malls, and factories, among others. However, this economic

development does not exempt them from the hazards of flooding, which have been affecting

the city for years now. To come up with adaptation strategies not only to flooding but to the

various impacts of climate change as well, Santa Rosa identified and conducted these important

steps:

1. The use of the Participatory Watershed Land-Use Management Methodology: a

management approach which aimed to improve land-use at the watershed level. This tool

was also used to mitigate risks associated with rapid economic development and climate

change.

2. Risk assessment through land use maps and flood modelling and the GHG inventory: Land

use maps to reflect current situation and assess future scenarios as basis for drawing up

adaptation plans. These maps were complemented with flood modelling to see which parts

of the municipality will be more affected by flooding as the years go by. Further, to carefully


plan adaptation and mitigation strategies to the adverse effects of climate change, the city

of Santa Rosa in partnership with USAID, conducted a thorough inventory of their GHG

emissions. The final report identified which sectors emits the highest amounts of GHG and

the the different sources of GHG emissions in the city.

3. Countermeasure development: Taking into consideration the risks faced by the city, the

local government conducted several participatory rapid appraisal activities. These

workshops, conducted through key informant surveys and focus group discussions, aimed

to address the effects of climate change and identify adaptation strategies not only at the

policy level, but down through the community level as well.

4. Climate-sensitive land use: This step involved mainstreaming the climate change

mitigation and adaptation plans in the LGU’s comprehensive land-use plan. This is to ensure

that future plans of the city take into consideration risks and vulnerabilities associated with

climate change as well as to ensure that the city keeps sufficient green spaces in the midst

of development. Further, this also called for the harmonization of the land-use within the

subwatershed to come up with more effective integration of climate change responses.

Lastly, the climate sensitive land-use data were also used in formulating the Local Climate

Change Action Plan.

In updating the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP), the following lessons were documented:

Designing policies and strategies related to climate change

The need to regulate future development activities particularly in high risk areas with

certain types of land use and physical structure

The need to develop and to strengthen design standards imposed on infrastructure

Adaptation and application of green technology in building government and private

buildings

Formulating and implementing a sustainable watershed development plan to address

the city’s vulnerability to flooding and to protect the water recharge areas. This could

be further achieved through an integrated and coordinated approach especially with

neighboring LGUs.

Meanwhile, to ensure the implementation of the Local Climate Change Action Plan, the LGUs

are mandated to integrate the said document into the 10-Year City Development Program,

programs and projects identified in the plan should be included in the Annual Investment


Program, to use the climate expenditure tagging mechanism, and to submit the plans for budget

allocation.

Other initiatives of Santa Rosa include tree planting activities, centralized composting facilities,

charcoal briquetting program, material recovery facilities, monthly multi-sectoral cleanup

activities, the Urban Agriculture Demo Farm, and advocacy campaigns, among others. On the

other hand, proposed projects include the design and formulation of the City Green Building

Code, approval and adoption of the Local Climate Change Action Plan with the Climate Risk

Reduction Assessment, formulation of policies governing groundwater extraction, and

establishment of small water impounding systems in various barangay.

”Building Urban Climate Change Resilience in the Philippines and Indonesia”

Mr. Victorino Aquitania ǀ Philippines

Regional Director, ICLEI Southeast Asia Secretariat

Mr. Aquitania of ICLEI Southeast Asia Secretariat opened his presentation with a quick overview

of the organization and its activities. As an organization, ICLEI is dedicated to working with LGUs,

as it recognizes LGUs as a “complex system of systems”. Mr. Aquitania noted that LGUs have

quite a lot in their hands, having to juggle issues such as population growth, rapid urbanization,

unsustainable use of resources, and the changing global environment. ICLEI dedicates itself to

working with LGUs to bridge the gap between being at risk to the effects of climate change and

creating strong and solid adaptation strategies.

Projects highlighted in the presentation are the AsianCitiesAdapt Project and the Asian Cities

Climate Change Resilience Network (ACCCRN). The project works with four cities in India and

the Philippines. The ACCCRN project, on the other hand, works with 10 cities in India, 10 cities

in Bangladesh, 10 cities in Indonesia and a total of 15 cities in the Philippines. Participating LGUs

in the Philippines are: Quezon City, Marikina City, Makati City, Baguio City, Tublay, La Trinidad,

San Fernando, La Union, Bacnotan, Tuguegarao City, Batangas City, Naga City, Catbalogan City,

Borongan City, Sta. Rosa City, and Bohol Province.


To provide details on the ICLEI ACCCRN process, Mr. Aquitania showed the ICLEI ACCCRN

Process: Building Urban Climate Change Resilience (A Toolkit for Local Governments). The toolkit

helps local governments to do their own climate risk assessments considering factors such as

urbanization, poverty and vulnerability. The resulting assessment would then be used as a basis

for formulating resilience strategies. On top of that, the ACCCRN process gives a streamlined

process which is simple but rigorous enough to come up with data-driven analyses. The process

enables cities to generate awareness about their risks and vulnerabilities, better management

of climate change impacts, knowledge exchange with other technical partners, development of

local climate resilience strategy, and integration of resilience strategy to urban planning.

In implementing the UCCR process in the Philippines, the following steps were undertaken:

1. Clustered adjacent local governments and invited them to participate and observe in

workshops of the ACCCRN process

2. Coordinated with other offices and agencies working on resilience (assistance from the

Local Government Academy in identifying ACCCRN cities and partnership with University of

the Philippines-Los Banos in conducting GIS training for ACCCRN cities).

3. Integrated existing initiatives and tools in the UCCR, examples of which include climate

budget tagging, asset management, and CDIA Prioritization Toolkit.

On top of these activities, a shared learning dialogue process was also conducted. This activity

was done to engage various departments and the community stakeholders in the process, to

facilitate dynamic and interactive information sharing, and to help work around traditional

boundaries of government agencies. The process was iterative to enable the stakeholders to

meet more than once and follow up on initial discussions.

In his presentation, Mr. Aquitania also identified potential bottlenecks which include a strong

political dimension, lack of stakeholder or public consultation, and limited sources of climate

funding. To provide details, some of the challenges were also tackled which include: difficulty in

accessing updated and reliable data, high awareness of LGU about resilience but strategies

identified were more focused on DRR, difficulty in vertical and horizontal integration, willingness

to co-fun and allocate funding for resiliency strategies, and LGUs who protect their image which

negatively affects risk assessment.


To address these challenges, Mr. Aquitania noted the importance of establishing linkages with

concerned agencies, routine updating of maps and other climate-related data, provision of

communication facilities, thorough and continuous capacity building of government staff

working on resilience, mainstreaming adaptation in local governance, and understanding the

value of adaptation in local planning. To back these up, he also reiterated the need for a strong

research and development program at the city level. Partners, on the other hand, can work with

cities by providing them with technical assistance, sharing of recent and updated technologies,

assisting the city in coordinating with national agencies, and providing assistance in accessing

available and updated maps.

Giving further detail on the ACCCRN Small Grants Engagement Building, Mr. Aquitania explained

that this project aims to provide financial support for cities and to encourage local stakeholders

to become fully involved in the urban climate change resilience process. On top of that, this also

aims to establish genuine partnerships between ACCCRN participating cities and relevant

organizations and agencies. Under the Small Grants project, completed initiatives include

Engaging Communities and the City Government in Addressing Water Security, Sanitation, and

Urban Resilience Challenges in Baguio City and Building Capacity for Urban Agriculture in CCA in

Santa Rosa City, in partnership with UPLB School of Environmental Science and Management.

One of the highlights of this project is the Urban Agriculture Demo Farm in Santa Rosa. Ongoing

projects, on the other hand, include resilient danggit-farming in Catbalogan; Installation of

Hybrid Solar Power Integrated with Water Harvesting Facility in Tuguegarao (in partnership with

Cagayan State University); Climate-Associated Risk Assessment for CCA and DRRM in Naga City,

Camarines Sur: Validating a Space-Based Decision Support System for Urban Resilience (in

partnership with the Manila Observatory); and the Young, Empowered, and Service-Oriented

Filipinos towards Climate Leadership, Disaster Resilience, and Responsible Citizen Participation

(in partnership with Yes Pinoy Foundation).

In the project with Tuguegarao City, one of the intended project outcomes is the installation of

crystalline silicon PV system into the People’s Gymnasium.


”How to Understand and Monitor Disaster Risk Reduction in locality under the Global Climate

Change”

Mr. Osamu Itagaki ǀ Philippnes

JICA Expert, Policy Advisor on DRRM, Office of the Civil Defense

Mr. Itagaki opened his presentation with the main issues and comments on DRR in the

Philippines. As detailed in his presentation, one of the main issue of DRR in the country is the

lack of systematic frameworks for understanding and monitoring DRR from the point of view of

implementation. To elaborate, he noted the less incentive for data archiving, sharing, and

analyzing in particular to the DRR, lack of general framework for integrating DRR measures

among various stakeholders, and the weak implementation of systematic DRR measures backed

by scientific data.

To overcome these challenges, he suggested creating a new and systematic framework or

method which would be used in understanding and monitoring DRR in the locality. The

nationwide mechanism will make use of a particular set of hazard maps which shows multiple

scales of predominant disaster. Further, a disaster graph would also be utilized to reduce

economic damage in the long run.

To understand disaster risks in the locality, Mr. Itagaki suggested coming up with a set of hazard

maps which shows multiple scales of predominant types of disasters. To illustrate this, he took

the case of Palo, Leyte to show the return period of disasters affecting the municipality. The

maps are envisioned to show which cases are rare events and which are fairly frequent ones.

This information, according to Mr. Itagaki, is beneficial for disaster planning such as evacuation

planning and as a basis for conducting an elevation study to come up with the annual average

damage reduction. To further explain, he then introduced the disaster maps which could be used

to monitor DRR in the locality. In the case of flooding, the disaster risk graph (DRG) would show

factors such as scale or return period of the flood and levels by which prevention and mitigation

could be introduced.

Mr. Itagaki explained how DRG maps are developed using limited data. In his example, hazard

maps of the target area (Palo, Leyte) were provided. Then, he proceeded onto counting the


number of houses reflected in the inundation area of the hazard map. Then, relying on past

experiences or engineering background, the intersection of these data were identified. By

connecting the points, one has come up with the curve to illustrate the limits of the DRG. The

curve would change its position if there are adaptation strategies introduced to the community

i.e., relocation activities and coastal embankment projects. Just the same, the curve would also

reflect negative changes such as increase of the number of households in the risk areas and the

adverse effects of climate change.

As such, the DRG could be used not only to show possible scenarios but to monitor the risk in

that area as well. The graph could also be utilized to share the effect of a proposed project to

the risk of that particular area. Aside from these, the DRG could also be a basis in discussing

adaptation measures against GCC. The graph could also be used to monitor the effectiveness of

ongoing or completed projects related to DRR.

As a way forward, Mr. Itagaki is planning to implement this model to various areas of the

Philippines. He also clarified that the model and the subsequent application is not limited to the

OCD only, but could be utilized by other agencies such as PAGASA, NEDA, DILG, and DPWH,

among others. After testing the model, Mr. Itakagi would provide a report summarizing test

results to the NDRRMC TMG for further discussion. After that, a guideline would be develop to

explain how the new method is to be used.

Session VI Question and Answer

Dr. Cabrido of SEARCA asked about the variables that were considered in designing the climate

risk information matrix. Ms. Cinco explained that in generating the matrix, they have considered

factors such as impacts and solutions which were contributed by different sectors. In terms of

scientific data, they have considered factors such as temperature increases, and precipitation,

among others. She further clarified that the model can process data which are needed by the

users. Mr. Itagaki, on the other hand, suggested that the matrix could be developed to show

information such as the return period of a disaster, its frequency, and intensity. The agency used

PRECIS in coming up with regional climate models and focused on data within the 12km

resolution. They also used CCRAM in 25km resolution.


Ms. Dator-Bercilla of Christian Aid asked for concrete measures in considering vulnerability. Mr.

Itagaki clarified that in his graph, vulnerability could be minimized through factoring in

preparation and mitigation. It was noted that exposure is not the same as vulnerability and it is

not always enough that people understand that they are at risk. Mr. Itagaki explained that

communities should include individual vulnerability in risk estimation. He further clarified that

the graphs that he showed are readily adjustable based on projection data to account changes

in climatic and weather patterns.

Risk, as a statistical probability, could be computed by considering the intensity of the impact

and the return period of the disaster. Further, through the use of hydrological modeling and

graphs, predicting vulnerability could also be done, following the IPCC’s formula (sensitivity

+exposure +adaptive capacity). Lastly, it was noted that scaling methods adapting parametric

model should also be used for other occurrences such as earthquakes, and sea level rise, among

others.

Ms. Cea, on the other hand, stated that there is no single approach in expecting the effects of

climate change. In terms of vulnerability, LGUs would discuss certain factors such as

infrastructure, relocation, population control, and other social factors that could feed into risk

and vulnerability assessment. At the same time, peoples’ vulnerability, even if they are in the

same place could still differ due to factors of income, family size, and others. LGUs can feedback

their experience to help the national government to design concrete solutions and directions.

Vulnerability assessment should also take into consideration social factors as well as

environmental factors. Ms. Cinco shared that the tools they have used in their final report would

also be made available online.

Ms. Cea of UN Habitat asked if anyone has designed an adaptation strategy based on the positive

effects of the changing climate, i.e., having more water supply. Ms. Creencia of Santa Rosa noted

that flooding usually means more water and based on this, the LGU of Santa Rosa planned on

establishing small water impounding system in partnership with the local water concessionaire,

Laguna Water. On top of that, they are also exploring a technology that will enable them to

inject the excess water back into the ground.


Session VII

National approaches for local implementation and vertical integration

This session was chaired by Ms. Laids Cea, Regional Coordinator, Cities and Climate Change

Initiative (CCCI) in the Asia-Pacific Region, UN Habitat.

”Malaysia’s Adaptation of Climate Change through Integrated Water Resources Management”

Mr. Baharudin Bin Ahmad ǀ Malaysia

Principal Assistant Director, Department of Irrigation and Drainage

Mr. Ahmad started his presentation with an overview of Malaysia and some observed climatic

change over the recent years. These changes include shift in temperature, increased rainfall

intensity, and sea level rise. He also presented details on the drought experienced in his country

as well as the 2014 flood which affected lives and properties.

As one of the main strategies, Malaysia started the Integrated Water Resource Management. To

come up with this, they have revised and updated their hydrological procedure and created

clusters among the country’s regions. They have also documented the rainfall design per station,

accounting the return period of each occurrence.

As part of the Integrated Water Resource Management, they have also launched the Blue Ocean

Strategies. The strategy aimed to break down silos among agencies and ministries and to

encourage coordination and cooperation among these offices. Through this initiative, Malaysia

planned to save costs through sharing project expenses and expertise. The National Blue Ocean

Strategy involved both the federal government and the state government in activities such as

data collection, policy design, regulation, and project implementation.

The National Water Balance System also looked at developing water balance model

management tool which will be applied to key river basins. This system should be able to provide

and improve the seasonal forecast of 3 months, gathering data from Met Malaysia. On top of

that, it could also be used as a drought warning system for catchment and would be linked to


other drought-related strategies. In addition, they also have the Urban Stormwater

Management Master Plan (PISMA) which looks into stormwater management to encourage

economic development which is pro-people and sustainable. Malaysia also launched the

Integrated Shoreline Management Plan which aims to develop a Decision Support System for

the government as well as a part on Coastal Zone Management which considers user needs, and

natural coastal processes. He also mentioned the rebranding of the Department of Irrigation and

Drainage to the Department of Water Resources.

”Climate Change Legislation, Frameworks, and Action Plans in the Philippines”

Ms. Cari Espenesin ǀ Philippines

Development Manager Officer II, Strategic Partnership Division, Climate Change Commission

Located in the Pacific Ring of Fire, the Philippines is one of the most vulnerable countries to

climate change. Recognizing the country’s vulnerability against the changing climate is the

opening theme of Ms. Cari’s presentation. She then proceeded to give a brief overview of

relevant legislatures such as the Republic Act 9729, Climate Change Act of 2009, National

Framework Strategy on CC 2010, People’s Survival Fund of 2012, and the Republic Act 10174.

She especially highlighted the Climate Change Act of 2009 which also created the Climate

Change Commission of the Philippines.

Ms. Espenesin also discussed the National Framework Strategy on Climate Change and the

National Climate Change Adaptation Plan (NCCAP). According to her presentation, the ultimate

goal of the plan is to help build capacities of community members and increase their resilience

to climate change. The plan also envisions to identify and optimize mitigation opportunities to

veer towards rights-based and gender-responsive adaptation strategies.

Intermediate outcomes of the plan include food security, water security, ecological and

environmental stability, human security, climate smart industries and services, sustainable

energy, and knowledge and capacity development. Ultimate outcomes, on the other hand, are

enhanced adaptive capacity, resilience of natural ecosystems, and sustainability of the

environment to climate change and successful transition towards climate smart development.


In CC Adaptation, Ms. Espenesin shared that LGU mandates show that LGUs should be in the

frontline of formulation, planning, and implementation of climate change action plans. On top

of that, LGUs should also ensure integration of DRR and CCA into their local development plans,

budget, and activities. The Commission created guidebooks on the formulation of the Local

Climate Change Action Plan (LCCAP) to further help LGUs in crafting their respective LCCAPs.

Ms. Espenesin also talked about the People’s Survival Fund, which is a special fund allocated for

financing adaptation programs and projects. Each year, the PSF has Php 1 billion to fund

adaptation strategies. The fund is managed by the PSF Board which consists of representatives

from the Department of Finance, CCC, NEDA, DILG, and others. A technical secretariat

committee reviews the project proposals and recommends qualified projects for funding. LGUs

who meet the criteria may access the fund. The criteria include: presence of multiple hazards,

poverty incidence, and presence of key biodiversity areas.

To further explain, the PSF can fund projects such as water and land resources management,

agriculture and fisheries, health, infrastructure development, and natural ecosystems. The fund

may also be used to establish early warning systems. Further, the PSF can be used to monitor

and control vector-borne diseases, to support institutional development for LGUs, to establish

or strengthen regional centers and information networks, and to serve as a guarantee for risk

insurance for farmers and agricultural workers.

”National Approaches for Supporting Local Implementation and Vertical Integration of CCA”

Ms. Ruth Ueselani ǀ Samoa

Sector Coordinator, Water and Sanitation Sector Division, Ministry of Resources and

Environment

Ms. Ueselani of Samoa gave a brief background of her country to start her presentation. She

noted some of the extreme events that Samoa has experienced specifically the cyclones and the

projected temperature rise and increase in rainfall. She then proceeded to discuss the efforts

and initiatives of their government through the assistance of donors. These initiatives include

the Post Disaster Recovery Plan and the LDCF-financed projects which are: Integrating Climate


Change Risks into the Agriculture, Health Sectors and Integration of Climate Change Risk and

Resilience into Forestry Management, Adaptation Fund, Strengthening Multisectoral

Management of Critical Landscape, and Economy Wide Adaptation to Climate Change. Other

efforts are Pacific Adaptation to Climate Change (PACC) and GCCA.

In the implementation phase of these projects, the representative from Samoa highlighted the

following concepts:

Strong political will and advocacy

Resource availability

Proper institutional arrangements

Robust coordination frameworks

Effective and efficient communication channels

Involvement of all relevant stakeholders in planning and implementation

Capacity building and professional development

Monitoring, evaluation, and reporting framework

Assessment mechanisms on the effectiveness of CCA were also enumerated. In terms of climate

financing, Samoa usually gets funding from grants and loans and these usually support project-

based initiatives. Disbursement of funds is also connected to performance-based indicators

which are set before the projects starts.

Ms. Ueselani reported that one of the main challenges of CCA in Samoa is the limited funding

opportunities which made them dependent on fragmented external support. This blocks the

move to transition towards a more programmatic approach rather than a project-based way of

doing things. Further, she also shared that there are limited capacity in planning and

implementing CCA. Coordination among different sectors and agencies is also a problem and

cooperation should always be encouraged to ensure a holistic and inclusive planning and

implementation of strategies.

In the future, Ms. Ueselani hopes to shift from a project-based point of view to that of a more

programmatic approach to ensure continuity and sustainability. She also plans to help build

capacities of local officers to plan and implement adaptation strategies. She also highlighted the


need of a transparent and effective communication channels to ensure proper coordination and

cooperation.

Session VII Question and Answer

The first question of this session came from Dr. Cabrido. He asked about the role of the private

sector as the main driver of the economy in local planning processes related to CCA. He

reiterated the private sector’s role in climate change education and suggested that future

workshops should also take this topic into consideration. Ms. Cea of UN Habitat responded that

although horizontal integration was not directly discussed, most presentations talked about the

consolidated efforts of the ministries. Inter-LGU cooperation is also an example of horizontal

integration. Further, she agreed that future discussions should also talk about the role of the

private sector in the issue of climate change.

Mr. Itagaki raised the question on how the Malaysian government decided to introduce climate

change vector for information dissemination. Mr. Ahmad responded that they have conducted

studies to come up with the climate change vector. The mitigation plan is usually designed for

100 years but its actual implementation is only up to 50 years.

Dr. Vy of Vietnam asked Ms. Ueselani of Samoa how they use traditional or indigenous

knowledge in coming up with local adaptation strategies. Ms. Uesalani responded that the

current status quo is putting premium on the technical and scientific knowledge. However, there

is a need to communicate this knowledge to the grassroots levels. Consequently, we should also

take into consideration their indigenous knowledge since these societies have been living in their

localities for so many years. It is unwise to impose technical knowledge and governments should

always get the people involved and integrate indigenous knowledge in planning and

implementation.

CLOSING SESSION

For the closing of the workshop, Dr. Didham invited the participants to share their suggestions,

reflections, and proposals regarding the way forward of the workshop and other capacity


building strategies with regards to the planning process of climate change adaptation strategies.

First to speak is Ms. Ueselani, noting that maybe for the next workshop, more Pacific Island

nations could be invited. Mr. Itagaki, for his part, noted that everyone should stand on the same

ground on DRR, share relevant data with each other, and encourage further cooperatiton among

agencies.

Mr. Ahmad also shared that countries should identify common topics among themselves to

establish common ground. This will facilitate better sharing of knowledge and experiences. Mr.

Itagaki also went back to his presentation of the disaster risk graphs clarifying that one cannot

really separate vulnerability, hazards, and exposure. He also explained that definitions might be

different which may cause confusion.

Dr. Cabrido stated that collectively, the plenary should follow the format of the previous

workshops. He also suggested that a workshop on defining resiliency indicators and green

growth indicators might be helpful.

Mr. Choida of Bhutan shared that understanding why climate change happens could also provide

a strong foundation regarding the discussion about CCA planning and processes. He suggested

conducting a cost-benefit analysis to see how industries affect GHG emissions which in turn

aggravates the effects of climate change.

Ms. Creencia of Santa Rosa reiterated the need to cluster LGU to promote harmonization not

only of activities but of plans including the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Research or assistance

on how these plans could be harmonized would be very helpful.

Dr. Kumamaru of MOEJ thanked everyone for their participation in the workshop. He assured

the Ministry’s commitment to support countries in developing their local adaptation plans and

to advocate for a more integrated effort and coordination among countries.

For the final remarks, Dr. Tanaka expressed gratitude to all the participants once more and to

partner organizations such as MOEJ and ICLEI. He shared that Japan is a small nation as well but

they are committed to protecting their environment and minimizing the harmful effects of

climate change, as all nations have committed to do. Dr. Tanaka stated that it is important for

countries to continue sharing insights and experience and to learn from each other’s initiatives

and strategies.


ANNEX I: AGENDA

Day I: 1 February 2016

Title: National-level Mainstreaming, Integration and Coordination

MC/Facilitator: Dr. Robert Didham, Senior Coordinator, Institute for Global Environmental

Studies [IGES]

Time Session details Goal/Objective

8:30-9:00 Registration

9:00-9:30 Opening session: Open remarks (15 min.) Dr. Koji Kumamaru, Ministry of the Environment,

Japan [MOEJ] Workshop overview (15 min.) Dr. Robert Didham [IGES]

9:30-10:00 Coffee break [and Picture]

10:00-11:15 Session I: Current status of national-level mainstreaming, integration and coordination Chair: Ms. Rohini Kohli, Lead Technical Specialist, National Adaptation Plan - Global Support Programme (NAP-GSP), Green Low Emission Climate Resilient Development Strategies [UNDP-GEP] Presentations (15 min. for each): Dr. Heng Chanthoeun, Ministry of Environment

[Cambodia] Ms. Syamsidar Thamrin, Deputy Director of

Climate Policy, Environment Department, Ministry of National Development Planning [Indonesia]

Mr. Ranga Pallawala, National Expert Committee on Climate Change Adaptation [Sri Lanka]

Dr. Ngan Ngoc Vy, Head of Climate Change and International Affairs, Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment [Vietnam]

Speakers are requested to make a presentation about current status, best practices and challenges on: (i) policy integration approaches of CCA into different national planning and agendas (e.g., development plan); (ii) coordination mechanism across ministries; and (iii) budgetary alignment mechanism. Q&A (15 min.)

Knowledge exchange at countries’ current situation



11:15-12:15 Session II: Roundtable discussion Chair: Dr. Monthip Sriratana Tabucanon, Director, Climate Change Research Strategy Center, National Research Council of Thailand (NRCT) [Thailand] This session provides participants with an opportunity to identify existing strengths and weaknesses on mainstreaming, integration and coordination across countries.

Identify existing strengths and weakness

12:15-13:30 Lunch

13:30-14:30 Session III: Expert panel on mainstreaming and integration approaches Chair: Mr. Satoshi Tanaka, Principal Fellow, Programme Management Office [IGES] Panelists: Ms. Laids Cea, Regional Coordinator, Cities and

Climate Change Initiative (CCCI) in the Asia-Pacific Region [UN-Habitat]

Ms. Rohini Kohli, Lead Technical Specialist, NAP-GSP, Green Low Emission Climate Resilient Development Strategies [UNDP-GEP]

Dr. Monthip Sriratana Tabucanon, Director, Climate Change Research Strategy Center [NRCT]

Mr. Osamu Itagaki, Expert assigned at OCD on Disaster Policy and Management, Japan International Cooperation Agency [JICA]

Mr. Rey Guarin, Climate Finance Consultant, Green Climate Fund Readiness Programme [Philippines]

Panelists are first requested to make a brief presentation about their specific mainstreaming and integration approaches to support countries, if any. Main focus will be set into questions.

Capacity development to share expert approaches and experiences with countries

14:30-15:00 Coffee break

15:00-16:30 Session IV: Group activity Facilitator: Dr. Robert Didham [IGES] This session provides participants with an opportunity to: (i) map out necessary systems and functions and identify key aspects /factors for effective national-level mainstreaming; and (ii) draw future scenarios on improved mainstreaming considering how to enhance overall coordination and integration. A

Mapping /scoping of key features for mainstreaming from inputs in consensus style



rapporteur/note-taker is elected in each group and requested to summarize and present the results from discussions.

16:30-17:00 Session V: Summary and presentation Facilitator: Dr. Robert Didham [IGES] Presentations will be made by rapporteurs to inform the meeting on results of the group discussion. Preliminary key findings from the group discussion are summarized by the facilitator.

Day II: 2 February 2016

Title: Local-level implementation and vertical integration

Facilitated by IGES


9:00-9:30 Recap of Day 1 and Overview of Day 2 Dr. Robert Didham [IGES]

9:30-10:45 Session VI: Local-level real world case experiences on implementation Chair: Dr. Paulo Pasicolan, Capacity Building Specialist, Southeast Asian Regional Center for Graduate Study and Research in Agriculture [SEARCA] Presentations (15 min. for each): Ms. Thelma Cinco, Assistant Weather Services

Chief, Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical Services Administration [PAGASA]

Ms. Erlinda C. Creencia, City-ENRO, City of Santa Rosa, Laguna [Philippines]

Mr. Victorino Aquitania, Regional Director, ICLEI Southeast Asia Secretariat

Mr. Osamu Itagaki, Expert assigned at OCD on Disaster Policy and Management, Japan International Cooperation Agency [JICA]

Speakers are requested to make a presentation about experiences, best practices and challenges on local-level implementation of adaptation planning and/or the CCA background assessments. Q&A (15 min.)

Sharing of good practices from local-level /real world case experiences

10:45-11:15 Coffee break

11:15:12:30 Session VII: National approaches for supporting local implementation and vertical integration Chair: Ms. Laids Cea, Regional Coordinator, Cities and Climate Change Initiative (CCCI) in the Asia-Pacific Region [UN-Habitat] Presentations (15 min. for each): Mr. Baharudin Ahmad, Principal Assistant Director,

Facility Management and GIS Division, Department of Irrigation and Drainage [Malaysia]

Ms. Cari Espenesin, Development Management Officer II, The Climate Change Commission [Philippines]

Ms. Ruth Ueselani, Sector Coordinator, Water and Sanitation Sector Division, Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment [Samoa]

Understanding on how to strengthen vertical integration in national-level action to support local implementation



Speakers are requested to make a presentation about current status, best practices and challenges on vertical integration in national-level action to support local implementation (e.g., human, technical and financial supports, accountability, etc.). Q&A (15 min.)

12:30-12:55 Summary Dr. Robert Didham [IGES]

12:55-13:00 Closing session Closing remarks (5 min.) Mr. Satoshi Tanaka, Principal Fellow, Programme

Management Office [IGES]

13:00-14:00 Lunch

ANNEX II: LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

Country Name Institution

Bangladesh Mr. Md. Mamunur Rashid Department of Environment, Ministry of Environment & Forests, Bangladesh

(MOECAF)

Bhutan Mr. Tenzin Choida National Environment Commission

Cambodia Dr. Heng Chanthoeun Ministry of Environment

Indonesia Ms. Syamsidar Thamrin Ministry of National Development Planning, Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan

Nasional (BAPPENAS)

Malaysia Mr. Baharudin Ahmad Department of Irrigation and Drainage

Nepal Mr. Akhanda Sharma Ministry of Population and Environment

Samoa Ms. Ruth Ueselani Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (MNRE)

Sri Lanka Mr. Ranga Pallawala Member, National Expert Committee on Climate Change Adaptation

Thailand Dr. Monthip Sriratana Tabucanon National Research Council of Thailand (NRCT)

Thailand Dr. Kollawat Sakhakara Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (MoNRE)

Thailand Ms. Rohini Kohli National Adaptation Plan - Global Support Programme (NAP-GSP), Green Low

Emission Climate Resilient Development Strategies, UNDP-GEP

Vietnam Dr. Ngan Ngoc Vy Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (MONRE)

Philippines Ms. Letecia R. Maceda Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Region 8


Philippines Ms. Marcelina C. Espos Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Region 8

Philippines Ms. Cari Espenesin The Climate Change Commission (CCC)

Philippines Ms. Erlinda C. Creencia City Government of Santa Rosa, Laguna

Philippines Ms. Lea Nina Veridiano City Government of Santa Rosa, Laguna

Philippines Dr. Damasa Macandog University of the Philippines Los Baños (UPLB)

Philippines Prof. Edwin Abucay University of the Philippines Los Baños (UPLB)

Philippines Ms. Laids Cea UN-Habitat

Philippines Mr. Rey Guarin UNEP Economy Division

Philippines Edita S. Sabas Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG)

Philippines Ms. Floradema Eleazar UNDP Philippines

Philippines Ms. Imee Manal UNDP Philippines

Philippines Ms. Arlene Orencia Association of Development Financing Institutions in Asia & the Pacific (ADFIAP)

Philippines Dr. Paulo Pasicolan Southeast Asian Regional Center for Graduate Study and Research in Agriculture

(SEARCA)

Philippines Dr. Candido Cabrido Jr. Southeast Asian Regional Center for Graduate Study and Research in Agriculture

(SEARCA)

Philippines Dr. Rosalina G. de Guzman Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical Services Administration (PAGASA)


Philippines Ms. Thelma Cinco Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical Services Administration (PAGASA)

Philippines Mr. Victorino Aquitania ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability Southeast Asia Secretariat (ICLEI SEAS)

Philippines Ms. Joy Camille Baldo ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability Southeast Asia Secretariat (ICLEI SEAS)

Philippines Ms. Pamela Cabacungan ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability Southeast Asia Secretariat (ICLEI SEAS)

Philippines Ms. Val Bugnot ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability Southeast Asia Secretariat (ICLEI SEAS)

Philippines Ms. Zeny Tagolino ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability Southeast Asia Secretariat (ICLEI SEAS)

Philippines Mr. Takahiro Morita Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA)Philippines

Philippines Ms. Erika Inoue Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) Philippines

Philippines Mr. Kessy A. Reyes Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) Philippines

Philippines Mr. Osamu Itagaki Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) Philippines

Philippines Ms. Soledad A. Reyes Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA)

Philippines Ms. Priscella Mejillano UN - HABITAT / Independent Consultant

Philippines Ms. Azyleah C. Abino Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA)

Philippines Ms. Jessica Dator-Bercilla Christian Aid / Manila Observatory

Japan Dr. Koji Kumamaru Ministry of the Environment, Japan (MOEJ)

Japan Mr. Shinji Urita Ministry of the Environment, Japan (MOEJ)

Japan Mr. Tsugito Nagano Remote Sensing Technology Center of Japan (RESTEC)


Japan Mr. Akihiko Nonaka Nikken Sekkei Civil Engineering Ltd.

Japan Mr. Satoshi Tanaka Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES)

Japan Mr. Isao Endo Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES)

Japan Dr. Robert J. Didham Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES)

Japan Mr. Yohei Chiba Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES)

Japan Mr. Muneyuki Nakata Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES)

Japan Dr. Brian Johnson Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES)

Japan Ms. Junko Watanabe Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES)

workshop for capacity building on climate change impact … repor… · “the workshop for...

Documents