Download Method Brief (pdf)

A new EU Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change: Fostering mainstreaming at the EU level

The approach:

The European Union (EU) has developed and adopted an EU Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change in spring 2013. One of its three objectives was to mainstream adaptation into policies, strategies and programmes at the EU level.

 Scope and entry points:

The development process built on the White Paper ‘Adapting to climate change: Towards a European Framework for Action’ (COM(2009) 147 final) adopted on 1 April 2009. This Paper already placed a strong focus on mainstreaming adaptation and forsaw the development of a comprehensive EU Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change by 2013.

 How it works:

The general objective of mainstreaming adaptation into policies at the EU level, including the legislation to include climate adaptation, are operationalized through several mainstreaming strategies. Including:

• Earmarking of 20% of the 2014-2020 budget (Multiannual Financial Framework) for climate-related expenditures.
• Mainstreaming of climate action in the EU’s future Cohesion Policy, Common Agriculture Policy, Research & Innovation (Horizon 2020), Common Fisheries Policy and other sector policies.
• The introduction of a dedicated program for climate action (1/3 of budget) and a funding line for adaptation within the Environment Funding Programme LIFE+.

One approach to support mainstreaming is the online platform Climate-ADAPT, which aims to facilitate exchange and knowledge . For each sector with relevance to adaptation, the platform provides:

• A database comprised of publications, projects, guidance documents and case studies.
• Tools, indicators, and maps for adaptation planning.
• Information on sectoral policies and spatial entities (countries, regions, cities, etc).

New EU strategy on adaptation:

Building on this 2013 EU Adaptation strategy, in February 2021 the EU has proposed its new strategy on adaptation to climate change which increases ambition and expands to cover new areas and priorities.

Recognizing how the EU and the global community are currently underprepared for the increasing intensity, frequency and pervasiveness of climate change impacts, especially as emissions continue to rise, the European Commission reiterates that adaption is a crucial component of the global response to climate change. In this sense, the new EU Adaptation Strategy is supposed to pave the way for a higher ambition on climate resilience.

Aiming for more systematic adaptation, the Commission will thus continue to actively mainstream climate resilience considerations in all relevant policy fields applicable to both the public and the private sectors. Mainstreaming will extend beyond sectors targeted in the 2013 EU Adaptation Strategy, which included agriculture, infrastructure and insurance. It will support the further development and, most importantly, implementation of adaptation strategies and plans at all levels of governance.

Conclusions for future application:

• Outcome and added value
  Since the EU Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change was adopted with a strong mainstreaming approach, it had a significant influence on all relevant EU sector policies.

• Cost-benefit ratio
  The relatively ambitious development process seems appropriate considering the potentially large benefit at the EU level for many different policy fields
• Potential for replication
  The complex development process and amount of input needed present challenges for replication in similar bodies of government. However, different elements of the mainstreaming approach can be of great interest for replication, such as the online platform Climate-ADAPT including sector-wise specifications for mainstreaming as well as the approach to earmark defined amounts for adaptation in relevant financing frameworks.

References:

Web-based information:

European Commission Website on Adaptation to Climate Change

EU White Paper: Adapting to climate change: Towards a European framework for action (COM(2009) 147)
Download PDF

EU knowledge platform Climate-ADAPT

Reference person:

Ms Rosario Bento Pais, Head of Unit, Adaptation to Climate Change, DG CLIMA, European Commission, B-1049 BRUSSELS

Integrating adaptation options into watershed development planning: Employing the climate proofing tool of GIZ

The tool:

‘Climate Proofing for Development’ is a methodological tool to incorporate the concerns surrounding climate change and variability into development planning. It enables planners and decision makers to identify risks posed by current and future climatic changes, to pinpoint opportunities resulting from climate change and to make use of co-benefits of resilience building measures.

Under the Indo-German project ‘Climate Change Adaptation in Rural Areas of India (CCA RAI)’, this tool was applied to the Watershed Development Programmes of the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD). Two pilot projects were conducted in the Dindigul district of Tamil Nadu, and the Udaipur district of Rajasthan.

Scope and entry points:

The Watershed Development Programme involves soil and moisture conservation activities in a drainage basin or catchment area with the aim of improving the standard of living of the people by improving the environment. NABARD manages a vast watershed development portfolio, spread across various states of India .The Watershed Development Fund Programme (WDF) and the Indo-German Watershed Development Programme (IGWDP) are the two main programmes of NABARD which look at conservation, regeneration and judicious utilization of natural resources through incorporating soil and water conservation measures, crop management strategies and other farm and non-farm activities to develop community assets and resources for sustainable rural development.

NABARD requested GIZ to assist them in piloting climate proofing in two watersheds of the Dindigul district in Tamil Nadu under the WDF and two watersheds of the Udaipur district in Rajasthan under the IGWDP.

Through the application of the climate proofing tool, the impacts of climate change on soil, agriculture, forests, pastureland, livestock and communities within the four watersheds were studied. Following this analysis, treatment measures for implementation were identified which can increase the resilience of the watershed and build adaptive capacities of the communities. Where found necessary, typical watershed development measures were customized according to the climate change analysis and incorporated in the final implementation plan. Watersheds thus become resilient to current and future climatic changes.

How it works:

This tool is participatory in nature and involves a combination of top-down and bottom-up approaches. The process can be broadly classified as follows:

1. Data collection: This involves collection of baseline and future climate information and socio-economic data of the watershed and local communities from primary and secondary sources.
2. Climate Analysis: Based on the climate data, actual or potential bio-physical and socio-economic impacts of climate change on the chosen unit of measurement (in this case the natural system of the watersheds and communities living within the watershed), are analyzed.
3. Identification and prioritization of adaptation options: Based on baseline climate conditions and projected climate scenarios, prioritized treatment measures and adaptation options are recommended for implementation.
4. Integration: With the involvement of community members from the watershed, NGOs, NABARD officers and concerned state departments the recommended options are reviewed and prioritized. Selected options are then integrated into the planning documents and implemented. Climate considerations thus become part of the entire development process.

Specifics of application:

• Stakeholders and institutional set-up: In order to integrate adaptation options into the watershed development programmes, NABARD took the lead in implementation, with the technical and financial support of experts from GIZ. Scientific experts from the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University and a private consultancy firm were responsible for climate and agriculture data collection and analysis. Community data collection, community mobilization and facilitation of the projects’ implementation in the field was carried out by the project implementing agencies which are generally NGOs.

• Input: Besides the expertise of different stakeholders, effective application of this tool requires reliable weather data for baseline climate assessment and expertise to assess future climate projections.

• Output: The integration of the adaptation options is done employing the climate proofing table which helps in arriving at the recommended adaptation options by taking into consideration the exposure unit, climatic stress, non-climatic stresses, sensitivities and the existing adaptive capacities.

• Capacity required and ease of use: An in-depth understanding of the change in the climatic components over the years, e.g. rainfall, temperature, as well as an understanding the development programme under review is a prerequisite for carrying out a climate proofing exercise. It also requires the ability to distinguish concrete adaptation activities from the business as usual development programmes. Expertise to work on climate models, and perform scientific data analysis is beneficial for scientifically sound adaptation recommendations.

Conclusions for future application:

• Outcome and added value: The Climate proofing tool was used to identify and prioritize adaptation options and also to customize the treatment measures according to the climate change analysis. These recommended adaptation options have been integrated in the planning process of WDF and IGWDP programmes.

• Cost-benefit ratio: The climate change adaptation interventions which are additional to the normal watershed treatments are budgeted separately based on the concrete adaptation role. This will ensure that there is reduction in risk for the watershed development investments made by NABARD.

• Potential for replication: Climate proofing for development (GTZ, 2010) is a tool which involves a generic sequential process which, with slight customization, can be applied to a variety of different schemes.
• This, along with the required capacities makes it a highly potential tool for replication to mainstream adaptation into development planning. The possible next step of this intervention will be to mainstream integrate adaptation measures into the national watershed management programme of the Ministry of Rural Development.

References:

• GIZ, 2012. ‘Climate Proofing for Implementing Watershed Development Programmes in Appeampatti and Poosaripatti Watersheds Of Dindigul District’, Deutsche Gesellschaft für internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH.
• Fröde, A., and Hahn, M., 2010. ‘Climate Proofing for Development: adapting to climate change, reducing risk’, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit GTZ), Eschborn.

Resource person:

• Ms. Anna Kalisch, Advisor, Project Climate Change Adaptation in Rural Areas of India (CCA RAI), GIZ. Anna.Kalisch@giz.de
• Mr. Unnikrishnan Divakaran Nair, Senior Advisor, Umbrella Programme on Natural Resource Management (UPNRM), GIZ. Unnikrishnan.divakaran@giz.de
• Ms. Saumya Mathur, Junior Project Officer, Natural Resource Management, GIZ. Saumya.mathur@giz.de

Download Method Brief (pdf)

The approach:

The Centre for Climate Risk and Opportunity Management (CCROM) introduced a comprehensive approach for mainstreaming Climate Change Adaptation (CCA) and Climate Change Mitigation (CCM) within the framework of Water Resources Management at catchment level. It was piloted for the Citarum River watershed in West Java, Indonesia.

Scope and entry points:

The core of the whole process is to integrate CCA and CCM options into catchment management and local development planning. In doing so, the approach supports a resilient and less carbon intensive development strategy in the catchment area. It was conducted as part of the Integrated Citarum Water Resources Management Investment Programme (supported by the Asian Development Bank, ADB) that began in 2010 and is projected for 15 years.

How it works:

The approach can be divided into three parts (Figure 1). Part 1 covers the identification of adaptation options based on vulnerability and risk analyses. Part 2 focuses on the integration of adaptation and mitigation options into regional water resources management development plans, followed by the process of Part 3 for monitoring and evaluating implementation. Part 1 starts with projections/scenarios for future development of climate parameters, water resources availability and land-use patterns. The latter influence future water availability. Risk analysis considers the probability and impacts of harmful events such as floods, drought/water scarcity and hydro-power scarcity. The impacts of these events are represented by vulnerability indices, determined using a vulnerability assessment that is conducted at the village and household levels. The combination of vulnerability and risk analyses allows for the identification of areas to be prioritized for adaptation actions. Part 1 results in a strategic framework of CCA and CCM options.

Part 2 connects adaptation options as defined in Part 1 with inputs from local stakeholders within a multi-party process. It includes exploration of actions already pursued by local communities and might result in the re-orientation and prioritization of actions. Final results will be synergized with and integrated into local development policies and the local medium-term development plan (RPJMP).

Part 3 organizes the implementation and assesses whether the actions reduce vulnerability and carbon intensity of the societal system in the catchment area as intended. The evaluation of vulnerability changes (vulnerability index) might require new vulnerability assessments.

Specifics of application:

• Stakeholders and institutional set-up: The main stakeholders of this approach are provincial government and local water resources boards/offices. The multi-stakeholder processes are organized by the Ministry of Environment with support from provincial government

• Input: The approach requires a team including experts such as a climatologist or meteorologist, hydro-climatologist or water resource management expert, and social scientists focusing on institutional development and vulnerability assessment. The team also requires 3-4 junior scientists to support data collection and assessment. Required data includes climate data for climate analysis, socio-economic data for vulnerability assessment, and standard topography maps for spatial risk analysis. Land-use maps and satellite photos are useful for land-use analysis and projections. Observed climate data can be obtained from local meteorological offices or local climate stations and the National Agency for Meteorology, Climatology and Geophysics BMKG. Global Climate Model (GCM) data are available at the IPCC Data Distribution Centre, while socio-economic data are available at government offices or the Bureau of Statistics. In addition, a regional climate model for GCM down-scaling and a Geographical Information System (GIS) are necessary. The implementation of this approach may require 10-12 months to complete the conceptual framework and reporting. This includes climate change projections that take around 3-6 months, as well as risk analysis and vulnerability assessments that take 3 months.

• Output: The main output is a contribution framework to the local development plan.

• Capacity required and ease of use: The approach requires a large amount of data, which may not always be available or accessible. It is necessary to have support from institutions that possess data. Experts and resources for projections and analyses may be a bottleneck when replicating the approach beyond a well-supported pilot.

Conclusions for future application:

• Outcome and added value: The approach has been successful in supporting adaptation-related decisions in the pilot area, and in determining pilot sites for prioritized CCA and CCM actions.

• Cost-benefit ratio: The cost-benefit ratio seems to be acceptable only in cases of exceptional benefit, for example in the case of watersheds of high importance for water supply, biodiversity or flood protection.
• Potential for replication: The approach is relevant and transferable to river basins of similar importance as the Citarum River with its relevance to Jakarta’s water supply. Funds may be made available from the central government and other institutions for such priority catchments, expertise from university and other institutions of excellence.

Reference persons for further information:

Mr Haneda Sri Mulyanto, Climate Change Vulnerability Division, Ministry of Environment. Jl. D.I. Panjaitan Kav. 24 Building A, 6th Floor, Jakarta Timur 13140, Indonesia. Email: haneda.moei@gmail.com

Prof. Rizaldi Boer, Head of Centre for Climate Risk and Opportunity Management, Bogor Agricultural University (CCROM-IPB), Kampus IPB Baranangsiang, Jl. Raya Padjajaran Bogor 16143, Indonesia. Email: rizaldiboer@gmail.com

For more information please see the website of the programme “Institutional Strengthening for Integrated Water Resources Management”.

Download Method Brief (pdf)

The approach:

Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) is a tool for comparing the costs and benefits of a project or measure in monetary terms and so help improve the allocation of public resources. This is relevant for decision-making, since budget constraints do not allow all institutions or individuals to implement all actions proposed. In the past few years CBA has been increasingly discussed as a tool for evaluating adaptation projects and measures.

Scope and entry points:

In its recent climate change law as well as its National Climate Change Strategy, the Mexican Government expressed the need to mitigate and adapt to climate change. As adaptation is identified as a priority at the national and subnational levels, there is a need to develop tools to assist in decision-making processes. As the lead organization in the sector, the Mexican Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources (SEMARNAT) is working together with the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) in developing and piloting a methodology for prioritizing climate change adaptation measures using multi-criteria analyses (MCAs) and CBAs within three pilot sectors: irrigated agriculture, water, and forests within natural protected areas. The MCA is used for a pre-selection of adaptation measures. Measures that are deemed suitable based on the MCA are scrutinized in more detail in the CBA (see this method brief on the MCA methodology used in Mexico).

How it works:

CBA compares the costs and benefits of an adaptation measure or project expressed in monetary terms. This comparison can demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of an adaptation investment for decision-makers.

When conducting a CBA, one must first agree on the adaptation objective and establish whether it can be quantified in monetary terms (e.g. reduced rehabilitation costs in case of flooding). Defining an adaptation objective helps determine what exactly is being evaluated and the information needed to obtain the results. This adaptation objective cannot be determined decoupled from its context; it should be defined based on the relevant climate change impacts identified as well as the vulnerability in the region under study, which form the basis of the design of an adaptation measure.

After defining the objective, it is essential to define the baseline scenario that will help to evaluate the costs and benefits of adaptation without taking action compared to the costs and benefits of implementing an adaptation project or action. Both costs and benefits should be assessed as being either direct or indirect. Benefits should also include avoided damages and co-benefits of the actions to be evaluated. One of the most important challenges of CBAs is obtaining a quantifiable measure of intangible costs and benefits. These can be evaluated and quantified through non-market-based approaches (e.g. contingent valuation, etc.).

Aggregating costs and benefits allows computing the net present value (NPV), which is the difference between costs and benefits considering the present value of money to be determined. The final NPV gives decision-makers an indicator as to which project(s) can be more effective for each dollar invested. A higher NPV indicates a more effective project, while a negative NPV suggests ineffectiveness and should lead to the project being rejected based on economic valuation. For more details on the CBA methodology see Economic approaches for assessing climate change adaptation options under uncertainty.

In the described application of the CBA in Mexico, the benefits and costs were listed and systematized, while simultaneously selecting a baseline scenario (i.e. the costs and benefits of not adapting to climate change). The data was validated by the experts at the respective ministries. All of the assumptions on, for instance, discount rates, time horizons, investments, taxes, etc. are also stated in a final document, so as to make the analysis clear and transparent.

All data was collected in an Excel-tool showing the NPV and other results clearly arranged for the decision makers. The tool allows carrying out a sensitivity analysis by changing the parameters (interest rate, estimated costs, estimated benefits, etc.). Finally, the final worksheet will contain an application to perform a Monte Carlo analysis to assess risk and estimate intervals for different scenarios.

Specifics of application:

• Stakeholders and institutional set-up: Several stakeholders, including the Ministry of Environment (SEMARNAT) and its independent bodies the National Forestry Commission (CONAFOR) and the National Commission for Natural Protected Areas (CONANP), as well as government and academic consultants were involved in preparing steps 1 to 3. In May 2013 a workshop was held for implementing steps 4 to 7. Representatives from CONANP, CONAFOR, the National Institute for the Environment and Climate Change (INECC), the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM), the National Commission for Knowledge and Use of Biodiversity (CONABIO) and SEMARNAT participated in the workshop. With support from GIZ, CONANP and CONAFOR are leading the process of developing the tool.

• Input: Conducting a CBA is a complex process and requires several types of resources. First of all, considerable time is needed to gather the data for analyzing the costs and benefits. In the case of unreliable data on the costs or benefits of an adaptation measure, extra time is spent on analyzing additional sources or even computing the missing values. If an institution is not familiar with using CBA, it might be necessary to hire an external expert to do the initial analysis. The budget for conducting a CBA will vary according to the number of measures for which the CBA has been developed. Furthermore, it is necessary to conduct several workshops. For instance, to reach agreements on the assumptions and the selection of adaptation measures to be analyzed, among other topics. Methodology trainings need to be developed and conducted together with the relevant institutions in order to institutionalize the CBA. Such a process can take several months. In the case of Mexico, it took four months to complete the methodology and apply it on the three pilot sectors.

• Output: The final product is an Excel sheet, which serves as the main tool in carrying out the CBA for the selected measures in the three pilot sectors. It can be adapted for additional measures in the future and in other sectors. The tool is accompanied by a how-to manual, including tips for interpreting the results.

• Capacity required and ease of use: In general, those conducting a CBA need to have knowledge or training in economics or finance since they need to understand the logic behind the analysis and the data and information requested. They also need to be capable of interpreting the following components of the results: NPV, internal rate of return (IRR), cost-benefit index and cost-effectiveness index. Some familiarity with the Monte Carlo analysis is needed to interpret the results of that analysis, which is also included in the Excel tool used for the CBA. Even though the Excel tool looks simple and a manual was developed on how to use it, the person conducting the analysis needs to have intermediate knowledge of Excel.

• Conclusions for future application: Outcome, added value and cost-benefit ratio are to be assessed at a later stage.

Potential for replication:

The challenges identified in performing a CBA for climate change adaptation are:

• Uncertainty of future impacts: the potential impacts of climate hazards are uncertain, and the benefits of adaptation actions are therefore also uncertain. Additionally, the limited information that exists on climate change and appropriate adaptation actions hinders the ability to correctly account for the costs and benefits.

• Taking account of benefits: Although it can be assumed that the benefits of climate change adaptation actions are tangible and measurable, not all of them are obvious and their true benefits might be difficult to quantify in monetary terms.

• Temporal effects: While a project has a specific time frame for its implementation, the effects (which can be measured in costs and benefits in the future) are not always evident and easy to assess, especially at the beginning of a project that is yet to be implemented.

• Expert knowledge and/or support: Although the Excel tool that was developed for this CBA is straightforward and accessible, it is recommended that those who apply the analysis are familiar with CBA.

Sources:

GIZ (2007): Economic Approaches to Climate Change Adaptation and their Role in Project Prioritisation and Appraisal. Eschborn.

Contacts:

For additional information or material: Camilo de la Garza, Advisor, Environment and Climate Change Policy, camilo.dlgarza@giz.de

Gloria Cuevas, Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources (SEMARNAT), gloria.cuevas@semarnat.gob.mx

José Alberto Lara, consultant in developing the methodology, jose.lara@uia.mx

Supporting the National Adaptation Plan (NAP) process in Tanzania.

Tanzania is highly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. Important sectors of the economy including agriculture and energy are already affected by, amongst others, increasing droughts, changing precipitation patterns and flooding. One of the steps taken by the government of Tanzania to prepare for these climate impacts is the National Climate Adaptation Plan (NAP) process. The NAP process was introduced through the UN climate change negotiations with the objectives to reduce vulnerability to climate change and facilitate the integration of adaptation into policies, programs and development planning. Tanzania is being supported by GIZ on behalf of the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) and co-funded by USAID, to implement a participatory NAP process. The main partner is the Vice President’s Office – Division of Environment, which is coordinating the topic of climate change.

Download Method Brief (pdf)

Climate Proofing of the Agriculture, Forestry and Livestock Production System at the Saouef Farm.

The method:

The Climate Proofing (CP) methodology used for the Saouef farm in Zaghouan, Tunisia, is adapted from the Climate Proofing approach developed by GIZ. It is a systematic analysis of risks caused by climate change and for suggesting appropriate adaptation measures. It was implemented in 2011 in order to take account of the climate change dimension when planning farm activities (dedicated to sheep breeding and to fodder seed production).

Scope and entry points:

The overall aim was to apply the method at local level (project, action plan). The entry point for integrating adaptation measures into the farm management plan was the revision of the farm management plan that mainly focuses on agriculture, forestry and livestock production systems. The method was implemented at the request of the Office de l’Elevage et des Pâturages (OEP) in October 2011. The resulting model can be replicated in similar regions.

How it works:

The method was implemented with OEP officials and farm managers within a training/action workshop, during which the methodology and tools were presented and practically applied to the situation of the farm. This covered the first two stages of CP (see figure below), which were simplified in order to facilitate their use. The process has been partly completed for a limited number of exposure units.

Step 1: Superficial screening/filtering

The screening involved the two following sub-steps:

1. Identification of the plan components and expected targets of these components (in the case of the farm, this refers to production/development components).
2. Identification of activities and exposure units (EU). EU refer to anything that can be assessed through a climate stimulus, e.g. a target group, a productive activity, a geographic entity, natural resource or ecosystem linked to the climate stimulus. Every activity is checked against the degree of exposure (scoring from 0 to +++) by answering the following four questions:

• Does the Saouef farm plan include measures in the following fields: rural economy, rural development, forest, natural resources, water, and disaster prevention?
• Does the Saouef farm plan include measures in one of the following natural areas: coastal, flood prone, mountain zones, areas often devastated by cyclones, arid zones?
• Are the planned expected development outcomes dependent upon important climate factors: temperature, rainfall, wind, extreme events?
• Would it be possible, within the framework of the plan, to improve the adaptation capacity of target groups or eco- (agro-) systems?

Step 2: Detailed analysis

The analysis of biophysical and socioeconomic impacts of climate trends was carried out for three priority EUs with regards to farm productions (stock breeding and production of fodder, cactus and alfalfa).

Climate stimulus:

• Decrease in rainfall and increase in variability combined with more frequent drought
• +2°C
• Floods

Biophysical impacts:

• Drop in yields
• Variability in production
• Development of weeds
• Biomass degradation

Socioeconomic impacts:

• Instability of the farm income
• Drop in investment capacities
• Loss of occasional employment
• Reduction in performance bonus
• Resorting to imports (outflow of currency)
• Reduction of EU inputs on the national level

Risk analysis:

• High risk with regard to achievement of targets established in the field of seed production

Current capacities to manage risks:

• Conservation farming
• Development of phytosanitary treatments
• Data sheet by species (requirements)

(Additional) CCA alternatives:

• Irrigation possibilities improving the level of organic material in the soil
• Developing the modification and seed collection program
• Follow-up system for production/yield in relation to climate conditions
• Consolidation of CES work

Source: Preliminary analysis for the exposure units: alfalfa seeds production (extracts)

The relevance of these effects on planning has been assessed while taking into account the probability that such effects would occur and the importance of their impacts on EU targets.

Step 3 and 4: adaptation alternatives and integration into the plan

Steps 3 (analysis of adaptation options) and 4 (integration in the management plan) were only carried out for the most relevant effects. An action plan was developed within the context of the workshop so as to finalize the CP application, while proceeding with training/action.

Specifics of application:

• Stakeholders and institutional set-up: The method was implemented as part of a workshop designed to introduce the actors to the use of the CP method. The workshop was facilitated by experts from the CCC/GIZ project, who had already experimented with CP within the framework of other initiatives (see ‘Sources’ below). The OEP was represented by central level representatives, in addition to farm management officers. Representatives of general departments in charge of farm production and development/conservation of agricultural lands (Ministry of Agriculture) also took part in the works. This enabled the project, on one hand, to take advantage of the technical-economic knowledge that needed to be fed into the analyses, and on the other hand to facilitate the integration of the CC dimension into the management planning of the OEP farms.

• Input: The most important input is current land data of this state-owned farm, which needed to be collected, and which benefits from the presence of experienced technicians. The need for technical expertise could be met thanks to the participation of OEP staff and of the Ministry of Agriculture. The duration required to apply the approach is difficult to estimate, as the process is still on-going. Approximately 6 months will be required in order to obtain a validated update of the management plan and to achieve internal agreement on its implementation.

• Output: At this stage the results can be summarized in a preliminary sensitivity analysis of the 3 EU (stock breeding, cactus fodder production, alfalfa) with an initial identification of adaptation alternatives. The final product would be a restructured management plan integrating adaptation measures to CC.

• Capacities required and ease of use: The application of the method requires:

1. The availability of basic and reliable data over a sufficient period. At local level, this often represents a challenge, especially in terms of continuity in recording and storing the data.
2. An initial training, involving the concerned actors, who are able to work in teams and to take charge of this task.
3. The existence of a planning system that is sufficiently developed to allow for an easy identification of the CCA entry points.
4. In addition, the management plan implementation system must be consolidated in order to ensure CCA follow-up, in particular the impact of adaptation alternatives to be applied.

Conclusions for future applications:

• Outcome and added value: The process is still on-going but the initial outcomes demonstrate the integration of CCA in the management of state farms under the responsibility of OEP.

1. The training/action, although short, will continue throughout the stages of CP and the OEP will therefore have access to a pool of resources capable of carrying out this diagnosis.
2. Analysis tools have been made available to participants to proceed with the exercise on other EU.

• Cost-benefit ratio: Assessment is not yet possible as the method has only been partly tested. We can assume a positive ratio, since the establishment of CCA measures in the management plan could ensure greater sustainable productivity among the various speculations, while avoiding the degradation of soil and water resources in particular.

• Potential for replication: The underlying approach of this CP method is relatively simple and could easily be adapted by actors on the ground. Furthermore, the OEP is operational throughout the regions of Tunisia thanks to a well-developed structure. The coaching activities for farmers (through awareness-raising and grouping professionals) and the support for research and development (hosting and tutoring of students in agronomy studies) in the field of stock breeding and grazing make for a good replication method and for a CCA integration method.

Reference persons and further information:

Documents:

• Report of the CP workshop – Saouef farm – Zaghouan – July 2012 (CCC/GIZ project, PIK, OEP)
• Other previous experiences of the method testing (PNO4, PGRN)
• Climate Proofing for Development (GIZ publication) – March 2011
• Climate Proofing for Development: a Training Toolkit
• Report of the CP workshop – ODEPSYPANO – Béja – December 2010 (CCC/GIZ project, MEDD, MARH)
• Presentations of a CP application example (CCC/GIZ project)
• Documenting the application of the CP tools in the regional plan of Jendouba, the PGRNII project, the PNO4 project, for various exposure units, dry grain farming, forests, cattle breeding, underground water, irrigated farming.

Reference persons:

• Fethi Gohis director – Office de l’Elevage et des Pâturages (OEP) (fethioep07@yahoo.fr)
• Ghazi Gader, Programmes and Projects Coordinator at OSS 
• Abdelmajid Jemai, Expert Advisor, CCC/GIZ project (abdelmajid.jemai@giz.de)