Reflections on Day 1 parallel sessions

Moderators of yesterday’s parallel sessions presented reflections to the plenary first thing this morning.

The session on data and information requirements for adaptation led by UNESCO yielded three key messages: that national data planners still face data gaps and a lack of access and availability to data; that scenarios should be developed for user groups (e.g., different sectors for health, user sectors for local fisheries and different ecosystems); there are key data and knowledge gaps, for example, integrating ecosystem-based approaches; and how a global framework for climate services can deliver adaptation options can be further explored. 

 The representative from FAO summed up discussions on the Agriculture sector in the process to formulate and implement NAPs, presented by FAO and WFP. Key concerns revolved around the agriculture-food security-water nexus. How to transition from analysing and assessing to moving towards implementation was another concern, with one observation being that it was crucial for everyone working on NAPs to identify and understand triggers that made things move. A concern in terms of current medium and longer-term adaptation in terms of climate modelling and sufficient data was the need for an adequate level of information that forms the baseline for adaptation (that is, to adapt against what? To adapt in terms of what?), including how to ensure more comprehensive and accurate baselines for informed decision-making. 

 GIZ’s representative reported back on discussions under the topic of Support Monitoring and Evaluation of adaptation at the national level. Participants addressed questions on M&E of the NAP process and M&E of adaptation. The key messages that emerged were:

  • That there is a difference between M&E of the NAP process and M&E of adaptation, that is, the achieved outcomes and reductions in vulnerability;
  • When developing a national adaptation M&E system, start with defining its purpose (what is it done for?), who is supposed to use the information (user focus) and how the system can facilitate learning; and
  • National adaptation M&E systems need to be tailored to the national context and link to existing data and monitoring systems. Learning from other countries’ experiences is very useful.

A participant from a development bank commented that it was important to ensure that having separate M&E for NAPs did not create the silos that the NAP process itself is meant to avoid, the whole point of them being integration. 

 Participants at the session Enhancing coordinated bilateral support for undertaking NAPs discussed existing bilateral support for the NAP process and possible role of NAP Global Network in enhancing support. These reflections emerged:

  • Mandate. Robust mandate as a basis for improved coordination;
  • Communication. Clearly articulating support needs appreciated and helpful;
  • In-house mainstreaming: Field missions need more information on NAP process (this included ensuring coordination between field offices);
  • Timing: Information on planning and budgeting cycles important; and
  • Matchmaking: Matching support needs with agency mandates very useful.

Southern Voices led a session on Civil society expectations on the NAP process, and presented the outcomes of that discussion. The key messages were:

  • National adaptation plans need to be participatory and bring out the concerns of those most affected;
  • NAPs need to be pro-poor, pro-vulnerable, and its preparation and implementation need to be participatory; and
  • Civil society needs to play a key role in the preparation of the NAPs as well as their implementation.

The technical working group on supplements saw six hours of productive and constructive discussions. It was formed to address the question of how to encourage integrated cross-sectoral approaches in the NAPs. They provided an overview of their work.

  • Discussed how to best encourage coherence in the NAP process through integrated approaches across the various sectoral issues, recognising that NAPs are inherently cross-sectoral but are often dealt with in silos.
  • Participants agreed to establish a NAP Technical Working Group to consider an integrating framework for the NAP process, which would elaborate key avenues for the integrated approaches for the formulation and implementation of the NAPs.
  • The group would conduct and document key case studies at the national level, to elaborate how the integrating framework can be applied.