Mainstreaming (Integrating) Adaptation: Identifying Early Low
Regrets Options & Iterative Management for Value-for-Money
KEY MESSAGES

Mainstreaming requires the integration of climate change adaptation into existing plans, policies
and decision-making. In this context, adaptation will be one of many objectives, and not
necessarily the dominant one.

Mainstreaming requires the identification of suitable ‘entry points’ in the policy or decision
process for, noting these will differ across sectors and national contexts.

Mainstreaming is not just good development: it involves doing something different, recognising
that the historic climate is not a good predictor of the future (because of climate change) and
that different types of actions are needed to build resilience.

For DFID (and the ICF) there are two relevant areas for advancing mainstreaming, which involve
different types of interventions and support.
1. To support country Governments with climate mainstreaming, particularly as part of the
shift towards national adaptation planning. This may include support to the central national
climate process, national development planning, or for sectors, especially for capacity
building, technical assistance and institutional strengthening.
2. To mainstream climate change into DFID office programmes, e.g. into existing programmes
such as social protection, infrastructure, sector budget support, etc.

There are many choices on what options to introduce when mainstreaming. A key challenge is
to identify effective mainstreaming options that deliver value-for-money. However, this is made
more challenging by the uncertainty involved in future climate change.

The early value for money guidance on adaptation can help to address this challenge. It uses an
iterative climate risk management approach, as recommended in the recent IPCC 5th
Assessment Report. This starts with current climate variability and extremes, and then considers
future climate change and uncertainty.

The approach helps to identify early low regret options for mainstreaming that align with sector
development and to highlight those areas where near-term action is needed to address longerterm challenges, particularly due to the overlap with sector planning and development.

In practical terms, there is a need for pragmatism when mainstreaming. Success will often be
contingent on the timing of activities, and the extent they take advantage of opportunities and
intervention points.

A series of case studies are included: these include mainstreaming assistance to government and
a review of DFID office practice.
Introduction
While there is still no formal definition of mainstreaming (in the IPCC), the term is broadly used
interchangeably with ‘integration’. Mainstreaming is therefore the integration of adaptation into
existing policies, plans and decision-making, rather than the implementation of standalone
adaptation policies, plans or measures.
Mainstreaming has been the main focus of national adaptation in OECD countries (see OECD, 2015),
but is also now starting to dominate the discussion in developing countries. Indeed, the recent
National Adaptation Plan (NAPs) guidance recommends the mainstream of adaptation (LDC expert
group, 2012). It is also emerging as a critical issue with respect to overseas development assistance,
and there is therefore a focus from organisation such as DFID, to mainstreaming climate into their
existing regional and country office portfolios.
The concept of mainstreaming – of incorporating an additional factor to existing policies and plans is not new to adaptation. It has been applied across a range of policy areas to address cross-cutting
issues such as gender, health and environment and these provide useful lessons (see OECD, 2015)1.
These previous examples highlight that mainstreaming is strongly process driven, requiring the
integration into existing policy and project cycles and decision-making. A key element of this is the
identification of entry points and the integration into the decision-support process and tools. In the
DFID context, this is particularly important for new programme development and appraisal, first at
the concept note stage, and then for the full business case. However, while there are other areas to
draw on, it is stressed that the mainstreaming of adaptation presents some additional challenges,
because of the timing and uncertainty of future climate change.
First, integration complicates the appraisal process – compared to a stand-alone climate project or
programme – because it requires the analysis of multi-sectoral characteristics. This requires the
consideration of multiple objectives and ancillary costs and benefits that are material to the overall
choice of the measures. It is therefore important to understand the context for an intervention,
including the existing policy and objectives, non-climatic drivers, and the current decision-making
process, as well as the analysis of climate risks and uncertainty. Critically, all of these will differ with
the specific mainstreaming application.
Second, there is a particular challenge for adaptation mainstreaming relates to the profile of costs
and benefits over time for adaptation decisions (see the value for money note, DFID, 2014). In many
cases, the most significant impacts of climate change are likely to arise in the future, around 2030
and beyond. Within economic analysis, the benefits of adapting to these changes accumulate over
long time horizons, while the costs may be incurred now. Using the public discount rates
conventionally used in LDC countries, typically being between 10% and 12%, future adaptation
1
For example, the OECD (2012) study on greening development highlighted specific interventions for
mainstreaming including: using multi-year development planning processes, develop key actors technical skills,
encourage the participation of non-government actors, build functional and technical skills, and plan and
target efforts carefully. It also provided some recommendations on how development support can deliver
better capacity, highlighting: view capacity support for the environment as underpinning all development
support, collaborate across domestic agencies, harmonise approaches among development support providers,
nurture local ownership, focus on results, implement best practice guidelines, and reflect and learn.
benefits, arising from climate change in the medium term and beyond are likely to be very small in
current terms and thus alone would rarely justify early intervention. This also has implications for
the political economy of adaptation decision-making, as these timescales do not always fit with
political cycles or institutional time horizons. However, as noted in the VfM guidance (DFID, 2014),
resilience to current climate variability offers a good place to start from an economic perspective.
Third, these issues are compounded by uncertainty, which makes it more challenging to assess the
cost-benefit profile of adaptation options. In some instances, it is unclear whether warming will lead
to increased or decreased precipitation. An early adaptation response to address a long-term risk
(even without discounting) has the potential to misallocate resources by over-investing in risks that
do not emerge, or implementing measures that are insufficient to cope with more extreme
outcomes. However, inaction as a result of uncertainties could likewise lead to much greater costs in
the future.
To address these challenges, new frameworks have emerged. These recognise that climate change
involves a set of dynamic risks, which require a set of (complementary) responses. This has been
captured in the literature through frameworks or principles for early and long-term adaptation.
Examples include Ranger et al., 2010 and Watkiss and Hunt (2011). This change was reported in the
IPCC 5th Assessment Report, where the term ‘iterative climate risk management’ was used (IPCC,
2014). In general terms, these frameworks follow the concepts of adaptive management, and
encourage a focus on immediate low-regret actions, combined with an evaluation and learning
process to improve future strategies and decisions.
An example of such a decision-led framework is summarised below, from the DFID Value for Money
framework and tools (DFID, 2014), adapted to the context of mainstreaming. This frames climate
change risks by starting with current climate variability (the adaptation deficit) and then looks to
future climate change, including uncertainty. The focus is on policy relevant decisions, i.e. those
which are needed and justified (in economic terms) in the next decade for climate resilient
development. Three types of adaptation decisions are identified for early adaptation, each with
different needs in terms of economic analysis and decision-support.

First, immediate actions that address the current adaptation deficit and also build resilience for
the future. This involves early capacity-building and the introduction of low- and no-regret
actions, as these provide immediate economic benefits: such actions are usually grounded in
current (development) policy and can often use existing decision support tools. They are
therefore the main area of focus for integration, and may align with existing interventions.
However, a key issue is that this will often involve doing something slightly different to current,
as integration takes places in a situation where the historical climate is no longer a good
predictor of the future. This may mean that the nature or emphasis of an intervention may need
to change.

Second, the integration of adaptation into immediate decisions or activities with long life-times,
such as infrastructure or planning. This requires different tools and methods to the low-regret
actions above, because of future climate change uncertainty. It involves a greater focus on
climate risk screening, identification of the risks of lock-in, and for appraisal, a shift away from
standard appraisal to methods that consider flexibility or robustness.

Finally, there is an immediate need to start planning for the future impacts of climate change,
noting the high uncertainty. This includes a focus on adaptive management, the value of
information and future options/ learning, especially when decision life-times are long or future
risks are very large or irreversible.
The three categories can be considered together in an integrated adaptation strategy or an
adaptation pathway.
Critically, this means that when designing a mainstreaming or integration initiative, it will be
important to consider all three elements, i.e. to consider current and future risks and interventions.
Source: Watkiss, 2014.
It also means that mainstreaming is not just business-as-usual, it will involve doing something that is
different to current development programmes.
As an example, for an existing (DFID) social protection programme a number of ‘stretch’ components
would be needed to justify mainstreaming. This might include, for example:




Risk targeted direct payments (climate vulnerable social transfers), targeting to climate
vulnerable areas.
Flexible cash transfers (shock-response contingency fund) to address potential increases in
extreme events.
Changing the balance of public works components, to provide a greater focus on resilience
building interventions.
Investing in enhanced monitoring and information, and introducing learning and evaluation
components, to allow adjustment of the programme as information emerges.
Similar stretch components are relevant for other programme intervention. However, there is also
a broader need for mainstreaming in DFID support to government, whether this be through sector
budget support or programmes. This requires additional considerations, outlined below.
Entry Points
An important component of the mainstreaming process is to find relevant entry points (UNDP,
2011), that is, to identify opportunities in the national, sector or project planning process where
climate risk considerations can best be integrated. This requires an understanding of the linkages
between climate change adaptation and national or sector development priorities.
It is also important to consider how these linkages cascade through to implementation, and how
they are situated within the institutional and political contexts. The figure below outlines the main
levels at which adaptation can be integrated into decision-making in development planning.
Relevant activities are shown on the left side, with decision-making steps on the right. For each level,
there will be an entry point for mainstreaming adaptation, i.e. the point for the initial screening and
prioritisation of policies or projects. A critical part of the integration process is therefore to identify
these entry points and to look for opportunities on how best to include adaptation.
Source: OECD, 2015.
National sector planning
In a developing country context, mainstreaming activities usually follow national sector development
planning, using defined entry points, reflecting national strategic planning. In this context, there are
a set of entry points for mainstreaming, outlined in the table below (UNDP/UNEP, 2011) that often
operate through different organisational leads. This structure closely parallels that outlined for
environmental mainstreaming more generally.
Many developing countries are producing National Adaptation Plans (NAP). The UN guidance for the
development of NAPs outlines the need for mainstreaming in developing such plans - critical
because of the strong overlap with existing development activities (LDC Expert Group, 2012).
Similar approaches have been used for mainstreaming environment, which is often including” as a
cross-cutting theme in their national development vision, national development plans (e.g. mediumterm plans, five year plans or poverty reduction strategies), and sector development plans. In a few
countries, these activities are being integrated, or at least tracked, in the national budget allocation
process and in sector budget activities. Such initiatives can be extended to include climate. An
example is the Government of Rwanda, which has integrated climate change (with environment) as
one of seven cross-cutting issues in national development and sector development planning
(Republic of Rwanda, 2012).
Further, mainstreaming will need to align to the policy and institutional landscape, and consider
existing processes or guidance, such as project cycle steps and appraisal documentation already in
place. Since mainstreaming will be country, sector and even organisation specific, this cautions
against the development of generic tools for mainstreaming.
Possible entry points for mainstreaming in national strategic planning policy (UNDP, 2011)
Planning level
National government and
cross sector ministries
Sector ministries
Subnational authorities
Entry point
 National development vision (long-term)
 Poverty reduction strategy
 National development plan (e.g. 5 year )
 National budget allocation process or review
 Sector development plans
 Sector master plans
 Sector budgets
 Decentralisation plans
 District plans
 Subnational budgets
Environmental and other safeguards
Existing safeguard mechanisms, such as environmental impact assessment (EIA), provide a natural
entry-point for considering whether projects are vulnerable to climate change or could exacerbate
climate risks elsewhere, i.e. for the mainstreaming process. Although originally designed to prevent
negative impacts on the environment, the EIA process has the benefit of being a familiar and wellestablished part of the policy-making process. It will, however, only capture those policies that are
subject to environmental impact assessments, such as infrastructure. Moreover, it may require
revision of the legal framework to include climate risks. Recent analysis has also identified that EIA is
probably too late in the process to be influential (OECD, 2015), as it follows after the main design
phase where the opportunity for mainstreaming is greatest (or even the Strategic Environmental
Assessment Phase, which allows mainstreaming at the programmatic level).
More generally, climate risk screening can be applied as a step in the policy-making process to
identify where policies, programmes or projects may be particularly vulnerable to climate change.
This has emerged strongly in relation to investment projects funded by the international finance
institutions and multilateral development banks. For example, the African Development Bank (AfDB,
2011) has introduced a Climate Safeguard System that includes a traffic light system or scorecard to
identify which projects may be highly vulnerable to climate risk and require a more detailed
evaluation to consider integration of climate aspects into design and implementation. These tend to
have a strong focus on enhancing the climate resilience of infrastructure or major investments.
Mainstreaming Lessons
Recent review and analysis (Watkiss, 2015: OECD, 2015) provides some key lessons for climate
mainstreaming.
The stage at the decision-making process when adaptation is considered is critical. It is important to
ensure that the mainstreaming activities come early enough in the process to influence the decision,
or are targeted at key windows or “intervention opportunities”. This is particularly important when
there are long-lived decisions or defined policy opportunities for change.
In practical terms, the path from identifying potential entry points and providing tools through to
implementing mainstreaming processes is often challenging. It requires a diversity of users and
stakeholders, finding relevant champions, building partnerships and providing support networks.
Such support networks will be particularly important as mainstreaming moves from a central unit
(e.g. in the Ministry of Environment) out to other ministries.
The complexity of decision support tools needs to be aligned to the capacity, time availability,
capability and interest of sectors in switching from other tasks to climate mainstreaming. It is also
critical to complement tool development with capacity development. This support must be
complemented by good co-ordination and assistance.
It is also often useful for decision-makers to identify opportunities that can be created by
implementing adaptation, rather than focusing only on the risks and amelioration actions. For
example, establishing development zones connected may incentivise infrastructure development in
areas away from the high risk areas.
Enhancing the understanding of the barriers or constraints to adaptation can help to recognise the
disconnect between an idealised model of adaptation planning and the reality of how it plays out in
practice. The UK experience provides some useful lessons (Cimato and Mullan, 2010; HMG, 2013).
These include the need to identify key barriers to effective adaptation (including market, policy,
behavioural and governance failures), to build organisational adaptive capacity, and to introduce
enabling actions that are likely to lead to more effective adaptation.
Appraisal of Mainstreaming
In terms of the design of an integration programme, there are two points where mainstreaming is
particularly important;
i)
ii)
for shortlisting options at the concept stage and
for prioritising and appraising the shortlisted options for a business case or appraisal.
The process of identifying a short-list of options (e.g. scoping or feasibility) includes, for instance,
identifying focus areas for a national plan or strategy, or a broad list of options for an individual
policy or project.
There are standard methods for shortlisting options, which may take the form of scoping economic
analysis, simple attribute analysis and ranking, or stakeholder consultation and expert elicitation.
These are common to most policy or project cycles, and can thus be included within a
mainstreaming perspective.
The aim of these processes is to filter options down to a manageable short-list of priorities, which
can then be appraised. However, a key innovation for mainstreaming is to ensure that future
climate change is included.
A good way to do this is use the framework above, i.e. to use iterative climate risk management in
the scoping and initial prioritisation (concept) phase. This has the advantage that identifies options
with different time-scales and uncertainty elements, which can help with the phasing and timing of
integration activities.
Iterative approaches identify a range of activities, but importantly they are likely to include a greater
focus on capacity building and enabling steps, as well as information, monitoring and learning. The
use of such approaches can also provide a strong economic justification for early intervention and
longer-term action (post 2030), noting the latter is often missed in more traditional sector
mainstreaming. As an example, the use of an iterative approach identified the long-term risks of
climate change for the Ethiopian coffee industry, even though this was not a short-term focus for
vulnerability (FDRE, 2014). Iterative approaches also provide a framework for review and evaluation.
However, these approaches do require more detailed analysis and capacity to implement.
As the process moves to the detailed business case, or appraisal stage, then there is a greater focus
on how to include climate change within decision support analysis, and in the case of DFID, Valuefor-Money. These are discussed in the separate note on business case design.
Country vs DFID Mainstreaming
For DFID (and the ICF) there are two key areas for advancing mainstreaming
1.
To support country Governments with climate mainstreaming, particularly as part of the
shift towards national adaptation planning. This may include support to the central national climate
process, national development planning, or for sectors.
2.
To mainstream climate change into DFID office programmes, e.g. into existing programmes
such as social protection, infrastructure, sector budget support, etc.
These involve different types of applications, and support. Some case studies are presented below
Case Study 1: Mainstreaming in Agriculture Development Plans in Rwanda
Rwanda is one of a number of countries that is advancing early mainstreaming. A cross cutting
theme of ‘environment and climate change’ has been included in the national development plan
(Economic Development and Poverty Reduction Strategy II) and in sector development plans.
However, moving to implementation raises some challenges, because it requires the identification
and prioritisation of actions.
This case study explored a practical example of mainstreaming for the agriculture sector in Rwanda,
aligning to Rwanda’s Agriculture Sector Investment Plan II (ASIP), which sets out the planned
activities and investments over the next 5 years.
DFID provided some early technical support to the Government (MINIAGRI) to build a tool for
mainstreaming climate and environment. The case study therefore applied the value-for-money
framework to advance sector mainstreaming.
The first stage was to prioritise and map the current and future climate risks for the agricultural
sector in Rwanda using an iterative risk framework. This identified the risks of current climate
variability, including heavy precipitation (soil erosion), climate variability (rain-fed agriculture), and
extremes (floods and droughts). It also identified a number of longer-term risks, related to water
resource availability and shifting bio-climatic and agro-ecological zones, which are important in
sector planning (e.g. for irrigation) and land-use development policy for long-lived activities (e.g.
forestry management).
The case study used this information to undertake a high-level risk screening of the ASIP, mapping
existing and future risks against the 24 programmatic and 300 sub-programme activities in the plan.
This identified the actions and investment most at risk, i.e. early priorities, in terms of the existing
adaptation deficit, long-lived activities (risks of lock-in) or long-term challenges.
The study then focused down on a case study for the tea and coffee, looking at mainstreaming
climate change into the activities included in the ASIP.
In Rwanda, tea and coffee are grown only in certain areas of the country, where the soil,
temperature and rainfall are suitable. The main production areas correspond to certain
temperatures zones, which are at elevation (height above sea level) where it is slightly cooler. The
ideal growing conditions for tea are at the height of 1600 to 2200 metres above sea level. These high
area teas have more desirable characteristics (which arise because the tea tips grow more slowly)
and these fetch a higher price than lower-altitude production. In Rwanda, tea is able to be harvested
year round due to the lack of a cold season with peak tea production coinciding with rainy seasons.
However, tea also requires a certain rainfall level distributed evenly throughout the year. High
season variability can lead to problems for the tea growing and production dips in dry years. For
example, this can affect new tree planting or fertiliser application – noting interestingly that if there
is too much rain this is also a problem. Coffee is also a highly climate sensitive crop, especially
Arabica which is the dominant variety in Rwanda. Again there is a temperature suitability range for
this cash crop, but this is lower than tea, and most production is between 1000 and 1700 metres
above sea level. Coffee is also vulnerable to rainfall variability, and too little, or too much rain,
especially in key phases of crop and berry maturation. There are also important effects of the
climate on pests and diseases, many of which are also temperature sensitive, including recent
changes: coffee (leaf) rust is found in Rwanda, and while this used to be constrained to the drier,
lower areas, it has been spreading, outwards and upwards. There are observations of increasing
temperature over recent decades in Rwanda, though changes in average precipitation are more
uncertain. However, there are indications of increasing rainfall variability.
The analysis then looked at the risks of future climate change. These effects are particularly
important because tea and coffee are long lived crops. Tea plants take several years before they are
ready for harvesting, and the pay-back period for a new plantation is around 15 years, although the
bushes will be typically grown for many decades. Coffee trees also take time to mature (e.g. 3 to 5
years before they bear fruit) and are typically harvested for decades (the average lifespan of a coffee
plantation is about 30 years). Given the long life-times, and the high climate sensitivity, future
climate change is a real risk to tea and coffee production in Rwanda, from shifting climate suitability
zones and changes in pests and diseases. Importantly, the climate of Rwanda is changing already.
This highlights that climate change will alter the areas currently suitable for tea and coffee in
Rwanda. For example, with the increase in temperatures projected over the next few decades, the
low lying areas of current production of tea (around 1700 metres) will become less suitable for
optimal production of high quality tea. At the same time, areas towards the higher end of the
current growing range will become more optimal, and new areas for cultivation (that are currently
too cold) will open up. These provide opportunities for Rwanda. A review of the literature found
similar projections and issues from existing studies in other countries, whether the shift in suitable
areas of tea in Kenya, or coffee in Ethiopia, as well as assessments that show shifting pest and
disease prevalence, especially for coffee. These impacts could impact exports but also the numerous
people who rely on these sectors for their livelihood, potentially increasing poverty. Addressing
these risks is therefore an early priority. These risks provide a key justification for the project.
This issue is particularly critical for tea, because Rwanda is currently expanding the area under tea
cultivation. A further 10 new tea production zones are planned, doubling the area of production.
However, the location of these areas has been based on the suitability of soil and the current
climate, and not the future one under climate change. A new analysis was made, using the climate
projections, and overlaying this with elevation maps of current production areas, using this as a
proxy for current climate and therefore the level of future risk. This was used to look at the risks of
expansion areas, identifying high risk areas (at lower elevation), as well as areas that are more
suitable for the future (especially useful given the phased nature of the tea expansion plan).
As a consequence, a set of early interventions was identified through this process, for each of the
three sets of types of adaptation activities (outlined earlier).
i) Low-regret options. This included opportunities for improving the productivity for tea and coffee
today in Rwanda, by focusing on helping farmers cope with current climate variability and the nearterm impacts of climate change, especially targeting these interventions based on risk (i.e. for the
lower lying areas, and areas of the country with higher rainfall variability). As an example, for coffee
this included shade trees, which provide cooler temperatures that increase quality as well as cobenefits including additional income or livelihood streams, and reduced GHG emissions. A cost-
benefit analysis was undertaken, looking at different sub-options, and building on existing pilot work
in the country. A key issue is that this analysis requires good information on the current climate, and
thus there was a linkage to existing meteorological information and climate services.
ii) Climate smart planning. The second area focused on the short-term decisions on land-use
planning, notably on the tea expansion areas. This identified geographical and climate information
to look at the siting of new industrial areas for tea, and especially which surrounding areas should be
encouraged to enter into production (small-holders), using elevation and risk mapping data to
ensure that low lying areas are avoided. More detailed analysis of exactly how far upwards (towards
cooler climates) is being undertaken, considering the use of portfolio analysis and robustness to look
at informing future expansion priorities. This is particularly important to advance now, as decisions
are being made over the next few years that will last decades, thus there is a critical window of
opportunity, and a risk of lock-in. A key issue here is that a range of climate information is needed,
to capture the range and envelope of future change, and some specific outputs from the models to
allow certain decision techniques to be run.
iii) Early planning for the future. The final element is looking at some of the future risks, and starting
initiatives today. An example is for pests and diseases, which could start to significantly affect coffee
under a changing climate. However, there is a lack of information on which areas of Rwanda might
be affected by changing pests and disease, and a lack of monitoring information to enable effective
responses. Better information provides the early steps to understand changing patterns, and to
respond with early pest management strategies, and thus the project identified a coffee pest
monitoring programme and future risk mapping exercise, as well as a planning assessment to start
thinking about how to develop future scale-up and control (as well as information and
dissemination). A key issue here is to identify key climatic thresholds, as well as economic threshold
levels on impacts – related to pest range – and use the climate models to provide information on
possible changes in these for the future. These can then align back to monitoring and learning, and
to the development of the response plan. This requires information on bespoke climate parameters
that may not be routinely generated in standard model projection outputs, and thus a greater
interaction with the modelling teams.
Case Study 2: Supporting national mainstreaming in Bangladesh
Bangladesh has been one of the early leaders in climate change action planning and implementation,
with the Bangladesh Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan (BCCSAP). However, there is now a
move towards climate mainstreaming, which is a key theme in the development of Bangladesh’s
National Adaptation Plan (NAP). This is seeking to build climate change into the national planning
process (and five year plans). This process moves away from a stand-alone adaptation plan, and
instead is developing a set of actions that align with sector plans and objectives.
An analysis was undertaken to identify potential VfM adaptation for this mainstreaming process.
This identified a key low-regret option -for possible support from DFID in a new programme - would
be for capacity building and technical assistance, i.e. to support the institutional capacity and
strengthening needed for mainstreaming into national development and budgeting. This is
particularly important because of the need to build central technical co-ordination and support
capacity, for example in the planning commission, which leads on the national planning process.
Alongside this, the development of mainstreaming in ministries (e.g. ministry of agriculture, water,
etc.) is very challenging due to the lower knowledge base and resource constraints in sectors. A
critical area identified was to enhance capacity and to provide technical assistance to support these
sectors, particularly in sectors where DID is currently engaged, i.e. disaster risk management, health
and education, social protection and urban.
An analysis of the VfM tools and inventory provided a justification for this enhanced capacity
building, through the value of information, but also the enhanced effectiveness of adaptation
outcomes that would result. However, an additional priority was identified to encourage iterative
risk management and phasing as part of this process, to enhance low-regret options in these sector
or thematic areas.
Examples of VFM options for Mainstreaming
The DFID Early Low Regret Framework for Iterative Management has assessed potential adaptation
interventions, to build up an analysis of what represents Value-for-Money. This has included a
review of the literature, and an inventory of relevant studies. This has identified a list of priority
areas for adaptation VFM, which can be applied to help the selection – and the phasing and timing –
for adaptation mainstreaming. These are categorised into:
•
Immediate risks (current climate variability and extremes, i.e. the adaptation deficit),
•
Immediate decisions which have a long life time (e.g. infrastructure, planning) and
•
Future long-term risks, where some early action is warranted.
Immediate low regret opportunities
For those options that address the immediate risks, i.e. the current (economic) adaptation deficit ,
an important differentiation is made between options that have a strong overlap with current
development (good development), which may be more appropriate for implementation through
existing country programmes, and options that directly address climate variability (addressing
climate variability). Both these are associated with concrete early actions (e.g. technical
implementation, major investment, scale-up and roll out). These options can often be assessed with
traditional economic appraisal tools. They typically have high benefit to cost ratios and deliver
immediate economic benefits, as well as helping build resilience.
Alongside this, there is also a separate early category of capacity building, reflecting the need for
non-technical options to help deliver adaptation. These activities are likely to be associated with
institutional strengthening and awareness-raising, but also information provision that will support
early actions, e.g. seasonal forecasting for agriculture, improved forecasting for early warning for
disaster risks reduction (DFID, 2014). Often these measures are highly synergistic to the low-regret
options above, creating the enabling environment or increasing the effectiveness of delivery. They
can therefore be introduced as complementary packages of options, e.g. as portfolios rather than
single technical solutions. However, these non-technical options have very different characteristics
to the more outcome based options (above) and have benefits that are more difficult to assess
quantitatively.
Early actions with long life-times
For the second set of options, i.e. those that focus on immediate decisions with a long-life time, a
differentiation is made between resilience building (building resilience into infrastructure or
planning) using low-cost options / climate risk screening / reducing lock-in/ including robustness and
flexibility and non-technical options, such as information and capacity, that enable or enhance these
activities.
This group of interventions focus on early decisions that will be influenced by climate change in the
future. This may be associated with climate sensitive infrastructure (e.g. hydro-plants or critical
infrastructure) that could be affected by changing trends (e.g. river flows) or extremes (e.g. floods)
from future climate change. It also includes the analysis of early decisions to minimise the risk of
lock-in for the future, e.g. using urban or land-use planning decisions to avoid areas at possible
increased future risk. Much of this centres on using climate risk screening, to avoid or minimise
future risks at the outset (e.g. AfdB, 2011), due to the general assumption that it is more expensive
(and sometime impossible) to retrofit later. It also can include changes in design, whether this is by
simple over-design (low cost) or upgrading of design standards, a consideration of future robustness
(against many futures, rather than optimised to one future), or building infrastructure with the
potential to be upgraded easily in the future (flexibility). However, there is an important trade-off
between early action – and the associated early costs – versus future longer-term benefits, due to
the importance of discounting (DFID, 2014). In the developing country context, this is a particularly
issue, due to high discount rates (or the rates of return on investment) and it means that the choice
of these future orientated options has to be made carefully, to avoid misallocation of resources,
whether this be due to the high costs of additional up-front capital investment, or the early
opportunity costs from actions that prevent short-term economic benefits (e.g. land planning
constraints).
Early planning for the future
Finally, there is a separate set of longer-term (future-orientated) interventions associated with early
decisions for addressing future climate challenges. This is where early action may be needed for
long-term risks, either because a decision time-scale takes a long-time (e.g. decades) and thus some
early steps are warranted to start planning for the future now, or because there are major (even
irreversible) long-term risks –with high uncertainty – and early information can help inform future
decisions and can help keep future options open. This includes the application of iterative adaptive
management, and usually focuses on early research and monitoring (the value of information) to
inform future decisions.
The various interventions are summarised in the figure over the page.
References
AfDB (African Development Bank Group) (2011). Climate Screening and Adaptation Review & Evaluation Procedures, AfDB, Tunis.
Cimato, F. and M. Mullan, 2010: Adapting to Climate Change: Analysing the Role of Government. DEFRA Evidence and
Analysis Series Paper 1, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), London, UK, 79 pp.
DFID, 2014, Early Value-for-Money Adaptation: Delivering VfM Adaptation using Iterative Frameworks and Low-Regret
Options, DFID, London.
FDRE. Ethiopia’s Climate-Resilient Green Economy: Climate Resilient Strategy for Agriculture. Federal Democratic Republic
of Ethiopia, Environmental Protection Authority, 2014.
HMG (2013). The National Adaptation Programme Report: Analytical Annex: Economics of the National Adaptation
Programme. Publication: 1 July 2013
IPCC, 2014: Summary for policymakers. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and
Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O.
Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L. White (eds.)]. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 1-32.
Least Developed Countries (LDC) Expert Group. 2012. National Adaptation Plans. Technical guidelines for the national
adaptation plan process. Bonn: UNFCCC secretariat. Bonn, Germany. December 2012. Available at: http://unfccc.int/NAP
OECD 2015: ‘Climate Change Risks and Adaptation: Linking Policy and Economics’. OECD Publishing, Paris.
Ranger, N., Millner, A., Dietz, S., Fankhauser, S., Lopez, A and Ruta, G. 2010. Adaptation in the UK: a decision making
process. Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, London, UK.
RoR EDPRS (2013). Economic Development and Poverty Reduction Strategy 2013 – 2018: Shaping Our Development.
Republic of Rwanda.
UNDP /UNEP (2011), Mainstreaming Climate Change Adaptation into Development Planning: A Guide for Practitioners,
UNDP-UNEP Poverty-Environment Initiative, Nairobi.
Watkiss, P. and A. Hunt, 2011: Method for the UK Adaptation Economic Assessment (Economics of Climate Resilience).
Final Report to Defra. May 2011. Deliverable 2.2.1
Watkiss, P (2015). A review of the economics of adaptation and climate-resilient development. Centre for Climate Change
Economics and Policy Working Paper No. 231/ Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment
Working Paper No. 205. Available at http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/WorkingPaper-205-Watkiss.pdf. Accessed October 2015.