 My name is Jay Sova. I work for the International Center for Tropical Agriculture. I'm also a member of the CGIR research program on climate change, agriculture, and food security, CCAFs. So this is really the third of three events happening here in COP 19 and GLF, dealing with national adaptation plans, and really centering around a recent publication from CCAFs. It's called Planning Climate Adaptation in Agriculture, Metasynthesis of National Adaptation Plans in East and West Africa and South Asia. We've been cleaned out of hard copies of the report over the last few days, so we don't have the hard copies available, but we do have USB sticks up front, and you can also grab them from Osana here, who's with the markers right now, and she can get one of those to you. It also has additional CCAFs publications on it as well. The first event that occurred around national adaptation plans and around this new Metasynthesis report was a two-day learning workshop where we brought together about 37 representatives from 10 different countries and tried to look at some lessons learned regarding national adaptation plan development, particularly with regard to the integration of agriculture into the NAP process. That two-day learning workshop was then followed by a side event at COP 19, and that was held just this past Friday a few days ago, where we took some lessons learned from that two-day workshop, presented them to a broader audience through COP 19. This is really an opportunity to continue the discussions that we've been having on those two days, and to also embed our discussions of agriculture and national adaptation plans in a deeper framework, in a landscapes framework, and so I think we've brought together a pretty good panel to do that today. But just for some very brief background, because I am going to pass it over to Gabby here on the end soon, and she'll talk a little more about what is a NAP, what a NAP is not. Lots of puns happening this week, as you can imagine, around NAPing and Power NAPing and kind of never-ending. But the NAP process really started with COP16 and the Cancun adaptation framework, and NAPs are really intended to be medium and long-term planning processes for adaptation in a variety of sectors, but they're designed not necessarily to follow directly off of NAPAs, because you can't have a NAP and not have created a NAPA first. So it really incorporates a planning process for LDCs and non-LDCs, and the process is designed to be iterative, that is, it's not, the development of a NAP is not a one-off process, it's something that needs consistent revisiting. And I think another pillar of the NAP is that it's really aims at embedding adaptation planning into existing development and sector plans as well. So those are the main characteristics, and given those characteristics, really what we want to explore today is what potential does do NAPs and the NAP process have in facilitating some cross-sectoral planning between sectors like agriculture and forestry and energy and water. And so that's what we hope we can accomplish today. By way of brief introduction, I just want to go down the line, I'm going to start with Gabby and come back to me here. But we have with us today Gabby Kissinger, she's from Lexine Consulting, and she's the principal author behind the National Adaptation Plan document, the Metasynthesis document. And so Gabby will kind of take us through that process and her review of countries engaging in the NAP process. And then I think we're really fortunate for the composition of the rest of the panel here because Stephen, who's next here from Kenya's Ministry of Environment, Water and Natural Resources, and Jai Mishra right here, closest to me, and Kofi Dalali in the middle, come from countries that have very different institutional structures, very different planning structures, and different processes for cross-sectoral planning. And so we're fortunate to have all of these individuals here. Jai Mishra is from the National Planning Commission or just the Planning Commission in India, and Kofi Dalali is from Ghana's Ministry of Food and Agriculture. Regarding the format today for the discussion, we're kind of bucking the system a bit and we're going to show a couple of presentations here. The idea is for this to be more of a discussion forum, but I think there is space for some general introductory comments from each of these countries and so the slides will help to facilitate that. So Gabby will go first, we'll have Stephen then talk a little bit about some successes in Kenya and developing NAPs. Jai I think Mishra is going to talk a little bit about two specific programs in India that involve cross-sectoral planning, and then Mr. Dalali is going to talk a bit about Ghana's acropong approach to cross-sectoral planning which was used in the development of their national climate adaptation plan. Really what I wanted to take from this, this is a video that was shown at the end of today's climate smart agriculture sub plenary session, and I think that Andy Jarvis who's going to join us here in a few minutes who's one of the theme leaders for Seacafs and is leader of the decision and policy analysis program at SEAT. To reiterate something that Andy said is that a few years ago Seacafs set out with this hypothesis that when we pursue climate smart agriculture that there's always going to be trade-offs between adaptation, mitigation, and food production. And a few years down the road now we've seen that sometimes it's difficult when we pursue climate smart agriculture to identify those trade-offs. What we're finding really is synergies. And I can't show you the video obviously, but we do have a new publication out that looks at these climate smart practices in about 16 countries. Not trying to hawk any product here, but I think that this is a really great read and it does speak to some of the topics in the landscape issues that we're going to talk about today. But following Andy's comment, Mr. DeBorn Chewbonga of the Malawi Farmers Federation stated something very simply that I think frames our discussion quite well is that farmers don't wake up and say, today I'm going to do mitigation, or today I'm going to do adaptation. But I would extend it a bit further and say, today I'm not going to practice sustainable land management, or I'm not going to practice water management or energy conservation. Real producers don't think in this way. And I think one of the issues that we're going to address today is that how can we as researchers and as governments, as service providers, continue to operate in the silos in the way that we do? And so I think we'll probably touch on some of those issues in the discussion later on. But I'd like to pass it over to Gabby now. And Gabby, I'll run through your slides and you just tell me when to move. Yeah, how about I'll stick my pen up? That's even better, great. Just a few quick photos here from the NAP learning workshop that happened a few days Wednesday and Thursday of this week. And then also from the side event just on Friday. That's great. Is this on? Yeah, I guess it is. So this report is really about what different countries in this process of... See, you've got to be looking at me. So as countries engage in NAPs, which it can take many different shapes and countries might have gone through NAPAs. They might have national climate change action plans. They might have national adaptation plans. They might have sub regional or even local plans. And countries are trying to figure out how do we not reinvent the whole wheel here? We're already down this pathway. So how does a NAP fit with what the national processes are? So when the UNFCCC really identified within the Cancun, the whole 2010 adaptation framework, it was really saying that what a NAP is, is for the least developed nations, it's meant to build off of the NAPA for others. It's a process of simply going through and stock taking, figuring out what vulnerability and risk assessment information you have. How to develop policy frameworks around that. So there are, and with the UNFCCC technical guidelines, I forget exactly when those came out, but they establish really a sort of threshold for those countries that are developing this to assess what the key aspects are they need to pursue. And then the least developed countries expert working group came up with technical guidelines for NAPs as well. That was at the end of 2012. A fantastic document. It really builds upon different, different LDC experiences, developed country experiences. So there's a lot to build on here. The important thing I think for us to keep in mind, let's do a slide switch here as you're drinking, is, you know, really that there's a lot countries can engage. You know, we start with this concept of NAPS, which were focused around, and that's the green dot in the middle there. NAPAs were about short-term immediate adaptation needs. So process was started in 2001, 2002. Countries were really identifying. In fact, it was just a, you know, project list. It was what are your urgent adaptation needs? And as countries proceeded down that pathway, some of the most recent NAPAs, like I think Nepal's came out in 2012, and that NAPA looks very similar to a NAP. Because there was a lot of learning that went on in these processes, the vulnerability and risk assessment processes got better. There was more information to build upon. There was more just identification of mainstreaming, LAPAs, these local efforts to identify adaptation needs and plans. So in any country that you look at, with the LDCs, certainly, you're going to have the NAPA green circle in the middle. For others, you'll have this greener outer circle of, you know, all of the other important adaptation plans, whether they're national climate change plans, local adaptation plans, et cetera. The idea of a NAP here is that it is bringing all of those elements together. And it's really about mainstreaming into development plans, you know, sector plans, figuring out how to embed adaptation in those approaches. And I think what the connection here is to the landscape, to the idea of landscapes, is really that you have multiple sectors that need to figure out adaptation interests and needs over the long term, over the medium to long term. Which is, again, one of these distinguishing aspects of a NAP. It's about long term planning. And as these sectors figure out what their long term adaptation needs are, there's a need to figure out how to do it together. Because agricultural adaptation cannot be planned and discussed and, you know, you can't troubleshoot issues without looking at water and energy and forests. So our challenge in the NAP process is really, how do you bring these different sectors together? In the very beginning process of establishing your initial planning, all the way through to budgeting, figuring out capacity development, stakeholder engagement, and then implementing, this is a really important tool for us to figure out how cross-sectorally this can happen. So one interesting example, the World Bank completed a series of different country assessments looking at economic impacts. So really, you know, what are the economic impacts of climate change? And what adaptation options do countries have? And how do they understand what the cross-sectoral trade-offs and different synergies are based on that economic assessment? Which a lot of developing countries really don't have enough information here. And in their current planning documents really highlight that they need more information to understand what the livelihood trade-offs are, what the economic development trade-offs are. So with the Ethiopian example, I just want to highlight this really quick. There are other countries that they did this in. But really, you know, this was looking at agriculture, hydropower, and roads, and looking at the trade-offs there. And their assessment based on vulnerability and risk assessments over the long term, looking at different climate change scenarios, what parts of the country might be affected, looking at the current development plans and understanding what is the long-term trajectory of that without any adaptation intervention at all versus what if you do intervene, what are the gains to be made from that. And it was very interesting. You don't think you want to take this, you know, simply on the face of it, but it allows you to see that with the agriculture side, it's really at great risk in part because of dry areas that if you pursued the hydropower option and actually pursued the current government development plans to develop hydropower without thinking about agricultural water needs, agriculture would be devastated, incredible yield drops over important areas, 250,000 hectares, where they would actually revert from irrigated conditions to rain-fed. So this is where thinking about, you know, the landscape's framing and how to assess trade-offs is so important. So just touching on a few things here, really it's, you know, when we look at the integration with the sector plans, you know, development plans, how do we actually, you know, how do we make this happen? For a lot of countries, it's just really challenging because government departments are fairly siloed, budget-making decisions are fairly siloed. NAPS really force us to rethink how that can happen. And what the NAPS as well challenge us to do, let's see if I have this slide here. I'm just going to breeze through, actually, let's go to the next one as well. Well, OK, I'll stop on this one for a minute because this is, you know, this is also when you think about bringing different sectors together for planning. What we currently know in the NAP funding process with the multilaterals and international sources of funding for this is that there's money for planning and for the preparatory, the different activities. But no one really knows how we're going to fund the whole implementation side of it, which will be the largest wedge of that circle. So we need to figure that out. And that's also something when countries are in this NAP planning process, the more that they can find, you know, important domestic sources of funding, Kenya has some great examples here, we'll hear more about that. This is a really important way of identifying how to be sustainable in the NAPS process in terms of financing it, but as well as all of the institutional frameworks that are so important to make it last over time. So, and that's really linking to part of this framework that we developed in that NAPS meta analysis report. It's looking at different pillars that actually provide sort of a dashboard of how you can assess NAPS at different national scales over time. And one of the important elements of this framework is for countries to really assess what the political economy is. How can you, when you look at adaptation, it's oftentimes actually implemented at, you know, local scales. And this is also where this landscape approach and the cross-sectoral trade-offs becomes very real and very, and just very tangible. So, how do you have in your national planning process, how do you have downward accountability so that you're actually engaging local scales, you're engaging stakeholders in ways that are really effective, that not only bring them into that process but actually develop capacity at the scales needed to address adaptation? And how do you create institutions that are adaptable? This is one area where, just in terms of governance theory, there's a lot of work to be done here. But NAPS offer us a chance to think about that. And I think that's the last slide. Oh, yeah, so just to wrap up again, you know, so with the workshop in here, we can flip. This is our group that met earlier this week. Ten different countries coming together. And, you know, again, this aspect of, so what does it really take for countries to implement NAPS? How do they get cross-sectoral engagement happening? How do you embed it in your development plans? Our group of ten different, you know, national approaches ranked and tallied the different government agencies that they each have that are either part of this process now or need to be? And so actually, I'm just going to get up so I can read this. So the most important institution is the Climate Change Council. And then the finance agency, very important. So, you know, oftentimes we think about ministries of the environment, ministries of agriculture, very important, but finance is more important. So we've got to get our finance committees on board. Of course, we also have Ministry of Agriculture, Environment, we've got National Planning Commissions, and then below that in terms of ranking, we have the Executive Branch, the, I can't really read that. I think it's a Climate Change Integration Guidelines. I don't even know what that is. Budget Guidelines, Parliamentary Select Committees, Donor Budget Support and Development Partners. So last slide here. Countries also, based on where they are right now, looked at barriers. What are the key barriers that they're facing right now? And the top one is lack of organization in their access to finance. So there was also a lack of dedicated finance instruments for climate change at a national level. And then below that, so we've got finance as the top two, which is really interesting. And then insufficient consideration of climate change issues and national policies and programs, then unclear funding to actually implement, an inadequate appreciation of investments in adaptation. Then we get into the science, a lack of long series climate data, the high cost of international expertise, infrastructure and tools for climate research. And then we come back to the finance piece again, the need for adequate financial planning. And then the last one was a lack of baseline data. So, so finance is a really key piece here. Just want to leave you with, you know, just a, you know, I hope that you'll grab one of these little data sticks, take this report with you. We welcome feedback and look forward to the rest of the comments from the panel. Great, thank you, Gabby. Apologize for the kind of technical issues here that some, I think we're dealing with translation between Mac and old PC software here. So there's been some corruption of files. That's curious. I want to pass over now to Steven and I will have another chance here at the introduction since I screwed them up a little bit when I first started. But Steven Kinguyo is with Kenya's Ministry of Environment, Water and Natural Resources. Also is a coordinator of Kenya's Climate Change Action Plan as well. So we're very lucky to have him here with us today. So Steven, over to you for some comments. Thank you. Thank you, Chase. Let's just move to the next one. Thank you. I'll try as much as possible to share one or two lessons that we have learned along the way in the process of developing first the National Climate Change Action Plan and in particular the National Adaptation Plan that we are just about to complete. And I will address two broad aspects. One, stakeholder involvement or inclusiveness in terms of stakeholder outreach or consultations. And in brief, I've just outlined a mapping of our stakeholders. We have Moana Enchi's Kiswahili for the common man. And it actually means in Kiswahili, it means the owner of the land. So, and it has a lot of connotations because you elect your leaders, the Moana Enchi will elect the leaders. And we want to tell them that because they are the owners of the land, then they have the scope also to decide on the way that the country should undertake certain aspects, especially those impacting on them. And therefore, we think they are an important group. And then we have the private sector because we know a lot of investments, of course, will be done by the private sector to address climate change. And of course, the private sector also, some of the large scale farmers ideally can be categorized as the private sector. Then we have, of course, the academia and the research institutions have grouped them just as academia, but then it's a loaded category. Then on the other side, we have, of course, development partners because we know we'll need the intervention of our partners, of course, to implement many of the aspects of the action plan and also the national adaptation plan. And then I will skip the media, I'll come to the CSOs. And we pick the CSOs deliberately. We had in the process, we have had two CSOs, one co-glamoration of, or consortium, of course, a compost of over 300 local CSOs and NGOs working on climate change-related work. And then we had one representing what we consider to be international CSOs working in climate change. And the reasoning was simple that they have had a way of working with the communities at the very basic level, at the very community level, that perhaps that experience the government might not have had the kind of experience that they may have acquired. And then we have the media. And the media, I used to belong to a committee of the World Metro Organization for Communication, Outreach and Public Education. And out of that experience, then I have learned to value the role of the media. And one time I sat with the media and the media told me they don't see a category that specifically addresses them. And they actually told me that they are called the fourth estate and they are not called the fourth estate for nothing. It's because they can either say what you want to say, if you say it, or decide what you should say and perhaps say it not the way that you want it to be said. And because of that then, in other words, I'm saying they are the tools or the pathways that then many times would use them to reach the communities and other stakeholders and pass many of the important pieces of information. And then at the bottom right, we have the government of Kenya, of course, again as a stakeholder. And I want just to say that, although the government looks like a big giant, we want to look at all those stakeholder categories as people or as categories who have a stake in climate change related work and especially adaptation and resilience building related work. I will tell you one story before I move from that. That one time, my initial chart, I had the Mwana ng at the bottom. This was a difficult process we learned a lot by doing. Sometimes we make a small mistake, you learn from the process. And a stakeholder raised some disappointment and I was wondering what's the problem because from my scientific, my background as a scientist, I thought they would understand this one to be like a radial diagram where you have spokes coming from the set of the action plan and then everybody's equal. But it was a lady high in the presentation was that I'm showing that the government is at the top, the Mwana ng is at the bottom. And I have learned a lot. I don't want to belabor that fact. But what I'm trying to underline is that stakeholders want to be treated as very important people. You catch them at their own terms. You cannot catch fish at the fishers own terms. If fish feeds at 12 o'clock, you cannot go fishing at eight o'clock and expect to find fish. And if fish feeds on worms, you can take the best barbecue for all I care. You are not going to catch them because they are barbecue or they are the most delicious meal is worms. So you have to carry worms with you. And this is the idea because we go out there, we want to go and do stakeholder consultations. But then we go with preconceived ideas. We think we are going to talk to people who have got no information in their heads. So we go out to tell them what they must do. That fails the test of a stakeholder consultation process. The stakeholder consultation process, you go, you listen to the people. You don't go with academic big words because you scare them again. And therefore, that's why I put my two points here. They are like fish. You catch them at their own terms. And then they are like eggs. You must handle them with care. You must speak a language that they identify with. We told the consultants that you are going with to the field that they cannot go and start asking stakeholders, are you talking about adaptation or are you talking about mitigation? That's not their business. They just share with you their issues, their experiences in relation to climate change and what the suffering they are going through and what they are already doing to address that. And then they tell you, this is what we are not able to do and we think it should be done so that you identify the gaps. It is your business as a consultant or as a technocrat to go and sit now on your desk and analyze those issues and then know that this one was talking about mitigation. This was talking about adaptation and so on and so forth. Let me go to the next slide because of time. So the other aspect, I've just put a crazy patchwork of different photos because the idea is you learn then through this experience that through this process, then you start learning that you cannot pick out agriculture as a standalone entity. Agriculture is integrated with the environment, with the water sector, with the energy sector and amongst others that many times you do not think about when you are thinking about climate change related issues like planning because then as you look at issues to do with energy because agriculture will need energy, water of course as you might think that you are going to build dams and then the dams like at the bottom I have a, actually that's one of our hydro power generation dams. But at the same time it's a multi-purpose dam that is also used for agricultural purposes, for irrigation for domestic purposes and also to supply some of the urban senders of course in the neighborhood. And therefore there is no way that you can separate energy and from agriculture because while you tap from the same source, the dam, agriculture will also actually feed from energy because then you need energy to drive agricultural processes. We have realized this in our vision 2030 where of course we have underlined energy as the driver of development. Without addressing energy then you may not talk about much about even developing in the agriculture sector. And another thing that I can mention in relation to energy is we rely so much on hydro energy, it's clean energy fine. But then we also have a very high potential of up to 10,000 megawatts of energy or potential for geothermal development. We have only exploited about 10% of that. The beauty of geothermal compared to hydro of course is that while both of them are clean energy, geothermal is not sensitive to climatic fluctuations. So as we move towards the developing of geothermal enhancing of course, the pace at which we develop our geothermal sector, then we're also enhancing our resilience, the energy sector resilience. And energy sector resilience also means agriculture sector resilience because agriculture will rely on that energy. Then there is also of course the interface between the forestry, the environment and then of course other factors at the top left. I actually have a farmer that we used for research or a research project that we carried out on the benefits of the socioeconomic benefits of climate and weather information. And that's a farmer of course is relying on a totally different sector to build his resilience because then he goes to talk to the weatherman, he goes to talk to the agriculture extension officer and he talks to many other experts of course so that then he can know what he must do, what he should not do in a certain season of course given the prevailing conditions. So I just want to pause to stop at that point then and not forget the bottom left. That's a lady going out to look for water of course with a donkey. And many times we forget also to integrate issues related to gender, gender, gender, parities as we address climate change adaptation are even mitigation for sure. And these are important aspects because every time I see this, where I have my rural home, I'm talking like a Kenyan now because in Kenya you have a town home, you have a rural home. And that's where I keep my goats in the rural home and my small number of sheep. And I see guys passing early in the morning, they are either kids or women. And whenever I see a man driving a donkey to the river, I ask myself, sometimes I ask my own farm boy, I ask him, who's worker is that one? I don't ask who's son, I ask who's worker. Because I know even a man is driving a donkey to the river. He's either a very poor person without a family or he's somebody who is employed. Do you see? And therefore everyone else who you see from the family will either be a child or a woman. That's the African culture of course. And therefore we must address these things that is no way that we can address. So we are talking about the integration of the different sectors as we address adaptation in agriculture and in other sectors. Thank you. Thank you, Steven. The initial plan was to allow each of the speakers to go through and then kind of do some meta comments at the end. But if there's anything targeted to Steven, I think maybe now is the time to open it up so we have some participation in the audience. If there's something that you have for Steven about the national climate change action plan about their process for stakeholder consultation, any direct comments for Steven at the moment? Okay, we'll save them then for the meta commentary at the end. Okay, I'd like to at this point then introduce Mr. Kofi Delali from the Ministry of Food and Agriculture of Ghana. Go ahead. And Kofi here is going to talk a little bit about the Acropong approach, which was a cross sector planning approach used in the development of Ghana's national climate adaptation plan. And so we'll have Delali about five minutes or so to be able to discuss that plan. If you go over that, that's okay as well. Thank you, Chase. Our first of all, I'd like to say that for a subject like climate change, planning to address it, we need to take into consideration the fact that it casts across almost every facet of our livelihoods. Therefore, you cannot be looking at it just from your individual perspective. You must also think about how it affects others, both human beings, institutions and landscapes or what have you. Ghana in the process of developing a national climate change strategy put that into consideration and adopted a cross sectoral approach. But again, for you to be able to do that, you need to base that process on some information. And for our case, the process was started with getting experts to undertake vulnerability assessments of various sectors and came up with proposed adaptation actions for the individual sectors. That formed the basis of the process. By the end of the adaptation vulnerability assessment, we came up with about 75 proposed adaptation actions, 75 across the various sectors. And that was a task for an expert group to work on to bring down as much as possible. The integration of the various sectors, options into the development can be challenging. Looking at the numbers that we have, 75 into a national development plan can be very challenging. And like I said, under the process, we brought in experts from all the sectors to sit together as a group, not individuals. So you have a cultural aspect, you have an energy aspect, you have somebody from health all sitting together and working on these 75 individual sector options. The next one. So as they did that, they tried to scale down the numbers and harmonize them now across the sectors. And they did that and reduced the number. And the next thing they did was to prioritize the process and the harmonized adaptation process using a multi-criteria analysis. And one of the things they were looking at was also to try to reduce conflicts as much as possible and also enhance synergies. So in doing that, they came up with a number of now actions for adaptation. So the results of the expert group was now subjected to a broader cross-citorial stick holder for endorsement. And the stick holders also resubjected the proposed options also to a multi-criteria analysis and validated and endorsed. Now we are talking about cross-citorial adaptation options. So the last time we took, the process took was to use an ecosystem-based and a programmatic-based approach to again bring down these ranked adaptation options into 10 program areas, into 10 program areas. So from 75 individual adaptation options, we ended up with 10 adaptation programs. And when you study these individual program areas carefully, you realize that there might be an emphasis on an area, but you also realize that it creates an opportunity for other sectors to also work within that program. The idea is that the individual sector will then look at these individual adaptation program areas and identify areas of entry into their sector developed by policies and plans. The good thing is that so far we've had two projects that have been developed out of this climate change strategy and it has now formed the basis of the national climate change policy that is just getting to, which development is just getting to conclusion. This is the process that was adopted for, that I've just talked about, this is the process. And I want to mention that the reason why I brought out the people who was responsible for the development of this approach is that to have an effective adaptation plan requires somebody who can apply an approach to facilitate the process, which means that you need some amount of capacity to lead the process. And this particular approach was developed by Benedict and the former climate change for capacity for the country. And those who might be interested in getting to know the details of the approach can go to the website of Science Review. It is there you download it for I think $41 for download. Then now, why are we calling it Acropor Approach? It was developed and for the first time used for this process in one of the towns very close to the city called Acropor. That's why we just named it Acropor, thank you. So that was Acropor Approach for Climate Change Adaptation Planning. Thank you Delali. Are there any specific questions directed towards Delali at this point? Yes, sir. Let's get a roomy mic. Osana, I'll hand you this one or perhaps the one in front of Steven is fine. Thank you. Yes, thank you very much. My name is Patrick, coming from Ghana. But currently I'm in Germany doing a research work on climate change. And my is not a question, it's an appeal to you since we are all coming from the same country. I'm happy to see you here. I want a copy of the Acropor Approach without any $41. And then a copy of the Ghana Climate Change policy because I am doing a thesis, a work on this climate change stuff, but unfortunately when you go to the internet, you don't get, especially the climate change policy is not available on the internet. And it's a big problem for me in my research work. So I'll be very happy to have this document from you to help me with my study in Germany. Thank you very much. OK. For the Acropor Approach, I think Mr. Ajima Bonsu is inborn. Yeah, so you can go to the UNFCC headquarters inborn and talk to him personally. I think you'll be happy to give it to you because some of these things you must be careful. About the national climate change policy, when we, after the meeting, let's meet and discuss. OK. Maybe Delali, you can give us an update as to where that policy is in the policy process. I think that there's a lot of people interested in the Ghana experience. So perhaps just a brief update as to where the national climate change policy is. OK. The Ghana national climate change policy goal is to enhance social development and to make sure that the national climate change policy to enhance social development along a low-carbon growth path. And we have now completed the main policy framework and working on individual set up strategies. Five, I think five priority sectors has been identified, including agriculture, health, I think water, energy, and waste management. I think so, yeah. These are the five sectors that have been identified and the strategies have been developed for each of them. And we are now revising the strategies. The cabinet has given approval to the policy itself. And after the refining of the strategies, the next step will be to subject these strategies to sector stakeholders for validation. And once that is done, then it is expected that the various sectors will start including this in their annual work plans and budgets. Because the thinking is that as far as we are looking for support to implement this project, Ghana now as an economy in transition must also, on its own, show commitment to implementing this as part of the journey towards sustainable development. Thank you, Delali. Any other questions from the audience for Delali? If not, then we'll move on to Jay Mishra here from the Planning Commission of India. And Jay is going to speak about two separate initiatives that are happening in India that have cross-sectoral planning implications. So, Mr. Mishra, it's up to you. Thank you, Jay. As in every country, India is also appreciated the climate change and its impact on agriculture. We have an apex body under the prime minister that is the National Election Plan on climate change. And there is a dedicated climate change secretariat under the prime minister. We have been able to draft the National Election Plan and aid national missions under that NAPCC, which also envisages the main stream, those action plans into the development plans during the 12th plan. Taking leave from that national election plans and the national missions that have been done under national election plan on climate change, there are two major initiatives that has been taken in the beginning of the 12th plan or even one year before the 12th plan that starts from 2000, 1230. One is on the reserve front that is National Initiative on Climate Resilient Agriculture, which basically revolves around strategic research outreaching to the farmers and capacity building, which is very much important and very much lacking at least at the middle and lower level of the rung so far as climate change is concerned. The National Mission on Sustainable Agriculture is another mission which is launched to main stream the learnings of the National Initiative on Climate Resilient Agriculture to scale up those learnings. Apart from that, there are a number of other programs which are already in the operation. And one is the Madhma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, which provides minimum employment guarantee for 150 days to a non-employed person who haven't been to any of the employment. Along with that, the Integrated Waters and Management Program is also there. And both the programs are having a very good component of ecological services. As I told, the National Initiative on Climate Resilient Agriculture has three basic components, strategic research, that is for upstream research and development of new plant types for the climatic change situations and reaching to the farmer with the kind of modules we are having already we are having in the National Agriculture Research System and elsewhere and capacity building of the stakeholders of the institutions as well as the farmers. How we started this, we assess the vulnerability to climatic stresses and extreme events in all the districts of the country. There are around 570 rural districts. And out of that, 100 districts have been taken up in the plant period. And there are specific suite of technology modules which have been already identified and they have been put to the testing in the identified villages. And entire village, not one or two or three form, but entire village of a particular vulnerable district was adopted. And those suitable modules have been showcased to the farmers so that they are well-concept and in the process, in every process, all the stakeholders of that particular districts, right from the development people to farmers, to NGOs, to social groups, have been involved right from planning to implementation of that particular module. And on the basis of that, now 150 climate smart villages are already developed in as many districts. And these have been the climate smart practices under which the entire climate smart villages have been revolving. Basic focus has been because these are the areas where most of the land of the farming falls under rain-fed conditions. And in India, about 56% of agricultural land is under rain-fed condition, only 44% is irrigated. So given those in the background, the most important activity have been revolving around how to conserve this underground water, how to harvest the surface water, and how to increase the efficiency of pumping through better and energy efficient pumps. There are alternate rice practices because in India, rice is the major crop, accounting for about 44 million hectares. And it is almost irrigated by about 56% and in the irrigated areas, mostly it is submerged throughout the season. So alternate betting kind of practices have been advised to the farmers, they have been put in their fields, they have been given the literatures, and they have been also told that even with that practice, you can harvest more. Livestock feeding shelter and manure management is one important aspect which have been tried there because it also emits a lot of methane. Once we are now able to have some climate smart villages, now how to scale up those? To scale up those, we have now in the 12th, five year plan, because in India every five year plan is launched with the approval of the National Development Council, which is chaired by prime minister, and then it is vetted by the parliament. Now this mission has already been approved and vetted by the parliament, and a kind of outlet that we are having for this mission is 2,000 million US dollars. And most important thing would be there to have micro irrigation, efficient use of tools, and capacity building, about 5% of the total allocation is also there for the capacity building of the institutions, because one of the primary and major critical gap, what we experienced in the country is the capacity of the institution. Whether it is for financing finances or whether it is implementing and appreciating the climate change, especially at the middle and lower level is very much lacking, and in India because agriculture is a state subject. So unless you build the capacity of those institutions, something very concrete and climate change and its adaptation is rather difficult. So that we are focusing in the 12th plan and we hope that in those activities we will be able to develop a very good programmatic intervention through all those activities. Thank you, Mishra. Are there any comments directly related to India's cross-sectoral planning processes? We have one up here at the panel from Javi, and you have a microphone right in front of you, so go ahead and jump on in there. So I'm curious on this second to last bullet, integrated farming and watershed plus approach. Can you speak more to what exactly that is? Because we have two programs. One is integrated watershed development program, already being implemented by Ministry of Rural Development in the country, and the other is that national mission on sustainable agriculture, which is being implemented by Ministry of Agriculture. So integrated watershed plus means those areas which are not within that particular micro-waterset. So beyond that, and the farmers are given even more, are facilitated even more in terms of tea plantation, livestock and all those things. Rather from only cropping, they are even given with other activities and other assistance for, or you can say, the technological support for the other activities of the agriculture as a whole. Because in India, livestock, cropping, and also research is part of agriculture and fisheries also. It is not in a different domain, it is in a single domain of agriculture. Thank you. At this point, I think we'll, we have a few targeted questions up here. At least I have a list of kind of running questions that I had for the panelists. So it will take a couple of minutes. I'll ask a few questions here and direct them towards the panelists. But then I'd like to open it up to the floor. In particular, we're interested in hearing other countries' experiences in cross-sectoral planning. We've had an opportunity to explore some cases from Kenya and Ghana and India, which is already quite a diverse lot. So while we're having this next little moderated bit, I'm hoping that you'll be able to bring up some of your own experiences and then we'll come to that just next, okay? There was a few statements and a few side events that I went to yesterday and some of the technical and networking sessions. And I think, Seth, this may have happened in your session, Seth from Eco-Egriculture Partners, is that when we think of landscapes, a landscape isn't only an ecological concept, it's a socio-ecological concept. And so there are very much implications, that very many implications that institutional design can have in particular processes of institutions like land tenure, for example, have pretty serious implications for the way that we go about landscape planning. And so I'm wondering if any of the panelists, if you can speak to the importance of those higher level institutional processes like land tenure or like administrative design and maybe some implications for your own country context. And Stephen, I see you writing right now. I'm wondering if you've had any insight into the implications of those things. Notes, but fine. So first I think something that perhaps I need to share with the participants about the importance of the baseline information because then there is no, I think times have changed and we need also to be able to measure the benefits and the performance of our systems and then the benefits of course are coming from certain new ideas. And therefore when we look at the, many times when we are looking at say mitigation actions, it's very easy because there is some direction in terms of the MRRV of mitigation actions. But then we also need to be able to measure the socioeconomic benefits accruing from adaptation actions. We need to measure the, to be able to estimate the performance of whatever initiatives that we have put in place. And here then I would want to underline the importance of developing a system of baseline information. And I'll just throw one to the participants because in our experience we had a case where we realized that the prison's department and you know in the world would think that anything has to do with adaptation from the prison's department. But we realized the prison's department was actually harvesting rainwater to plant plant vegetables and at least the seasonal crops for their own sustenance. And you see it doesn't look like it has a lot because when you are building your baseline data then you want to put in place at least you want to account for all actions that are related to adaptation. And here is one that is actually not labeled as an adaptation program. It's not even labeled as a climate change program. And so I just want to throw to the participants to think about the kind of difficulties that the one would go through or the kind of process one would go through to come up with a comprehensive baseline information. And then again in terms of the institutional setup I would want to talk about from our own experience the importance of putting in place, okay, roping in all the categories of stakeholders. I think I want to address it from a stakeholder perspective because we looked at all the government entities as the sub-components of one stakeholder category called the government. And we looked at the minister of planning because if we do not look at ourselves as stakeholders then everyone else outside the government would say this is a government program, this is a government program. Therefore they step out. They develop code fit because there is not a single entity that would want to commit with the government. But then we also want to come down to the level of the other stakeholders so that they start looking at us as peers so that then we exchange ideas on how to take the development agenda of the country forward, including adaptation and sustainable development. And then we brought in our minister of planning. And the minister of planning to us was important and the national treasure, the current is the national treasury. When we started it was simply called the minister of finance. It is important because if you read our older government documents they don't, they refer to involving line ministries. Planning is not one of them. And yet it is actually planning that will mainstream that will help us or facilitate the mainstreaming of climate change concerns including adaptation aspects into the national development process. And without that being done then we can keep on handing outside without looking at the wealth that is within. Because that's how we have managed at least to have within our national development process to have a climate change adaptation and mitigation aspects integrated within our planning process. And that's how in the next because we implement our vision 23rd which is the blueprint for King's development up to 2030 implemented using five year medium term plans. And the first medium term plan lapsed in the end of June this year. It did not address climate change. Of course there are climate change relevant relevant initiatives but there is no mention of an initiative that is specifically targeted to address climate change. But for the first time when we started working with needs of planning we sensitized them on the needs to integrate climate change in national planning. We talked that because the planning process is designed in such a way that you have a sector working groups representing the different sectors of the economy. We worked with them, we sensitized them we had a sensation workshop actually for the sector working group of secretarians and we sensitized them on the reality of climate change in their own sectors the issues that they need to address and the danger of not all the risk of that they stand if they do not address those issues and how to go about it. And then we were open to receive to intervene where they required our help. And we as a process also as part of the process we also prepared the sector briefing notes for the different sector working groups. This helped because we are talking about institutions because then at the end of the day we have for the first time a medium time plan a five year medium time plan that reads like a climate change document. You read in the narrative almost a few every few paragraphs you find something relevant to climate change. And then when you go to the implementation matrix that ideally list or say enumerate the proposed initiatives and the proposed budgets you find climate relevant packets you say you find there is need blah blah blah to address say to increase the percentage of the agricultural operations that are based so that to depend on the irrigation because the current situation was that we had over 90% of our agricultural operations which were in fact and therefore because we had the tropics again in a semi-arid area you find then our agriculture is so sensitive or so vulnerable to climatic fluctuations but now we underline that fact and then you find in the current medium time plan there are aspects of increased rainwater harvesting to be used to provide water for irrigation and all sorts of other things. So I'm underlining the issue of integrating the sectors but then to inform a national planning process because we have a separate national adaptation plan but then already even before we published that national adaptation plan it has already the issues coming from all the outputs of the national adaptation plan are already informing our national planning so that as you go out to look for funding from our development partners then already we are addressing the most urgent issues and what we can easily address within from using funding from our extent and that's what we are doing and we have programmed that for the next five years and we think in the next five year phase it will even be better because then the level of awareness in the different sectors and the top political level will have increased so I think that's a Kenyan experience. And Delali you have a very different institutional structure to that of Kenya even and so I wonder if Kenya of course are the kind of federal and county-based administration and Ghana with more of a unitary structure so I'll leave it up to you to Delali. Yeah, I was just, thank you. I was only going to address the question of integrating cultural issues within this landscape approach. As you rightly said, Ghana is a unitary state so most of the national level plans and programs set a framework within which the decentralized structures which we call the district assemblies must position their development plans and in Ghana taking land tenure as an example land ownership control and management structures and governance structures vary across the country and therefore it is an issue that can be realized at the national level but to tackle it in the planning process will be better handled at the lower level that is at the decentralized level where the issues will be a little bit more uniform. If you don't address this within that development plan at the district level before moving into the field to implement you will be faced with a lot of difficulties. We've had samples of chieftains mobilizing their people against implementation of development plans and this is not just to show power but it has also been based on experience since the colonial times. Therefore it is very important in the planning at that level to recognize the power and the influence of these traditional authorities in the control and use of the resources and involve them as important stakeholders at that level. Thank you, Dalali. Mishra, any insights from the India experience? In India the planning is the most decentralized. Most decentralized in the sense there is district planning committees which have representation of all the stakeholders farmers group, NGOs, lead banking systems, even elected representatives of the Anchati Raj institutions and in the long process over the years now all the plans emanate from the district level itself. They are planned and made by the district level DPCs and then the state plans are removed and the national plan is rather indicative. It is not forcing someone on the states or on the districts. It is a kind of broader outlays that provide for a given kind of activity but the actual planning and implementation rests with the districts and that's the way of the functioning take place. Right, thank you very much. Stephen, you brought up the point of the importance of baseline assessments when we start thinking about national adaptation plans. The other end of that is how we monitor success, how we measure success and against what indicators we do that. And I think one of the major challenges in addressing landscape approaches is that we can come in and we can clean out an entire forest and we can cut down an entire forest and that reflects quite positively on our national GDP perhaps for about a year and a half or two years. But in the long run we clearly know the challenges that will arise. How important are indicators and the reassessment of how we measure success as we move forward and how can we incorporate some of these things into national adaptation plans? I think this is probably a question that could be fielded by any of the panelists. But Stephen, since you brought up baseline maybe you can have a first go at it. Thank you Chase, I think in brief if you do not then think of what indicators that would be necessary of course to inform the process and especially at the implementation level. You may actually end up thinking that you are adapting and then end up actually causing a lot of mal-adaptation in the long run where you might find you are taking one action here that looks good in the short run and then in the long run you find it causes a more costly outcome and there is a danger. One of the processes we went through during the development of the broader climate change action plan and now of course in the upgrading of the adaptation aspects to our national adaptation plan is to first sit with our national integrated monitoring and evaluation system. It's called NIMES, that's how we pronounce it because they don't want to be called names. We wanted first to go through with them to see what indicators exist in the system to inform climate change and especially in the broader view environmental aspects there were almost no indicators actually. And we sat with them, we sat with the other stakeholders and we tried to come up with indicators that would link one action in agriculture with the outcomes perhaps in other sectors including socio-economic benefits like job creation or perhaps the reduction of the jobs because then the indicator can either go up or down and therefore those are some of the indicators like the well-being of the people in terms of health benefits in terms of perhaps the cleanness of the jobs or the greenness of the jobs so that then if you are creating jobs you also don't want to say we have created 10 new jobs without looking at the quality of the jobs are they exposing the people more they can get 10 more jobs or 50% more jobs but then you find actually these jobs these new jobs are exposing them to more health-related problems than the old jobs that they were crying about and therefore these are some of the things that we have thought about we don't have a foolproof system but at least we have tried to come up with certain indicators so that then an action in one sector does not end up causing a negative outcome in a different sector because we are working for the same economy for the same communities for the same systems if we do not adapt well in one sector we will end up actually causing a bigger national problem in the long run and that's what we are trying to avoid thank you Yes thank you I just want to say first of all that NAPs as a process are meant to support sustainable development and not individual sector groups it is very very important so with that thinking behind the indicators for any NAP need to emphasise synergies within the visual sectors and not and minimising the trade-offs so that should be the basis upon which indicators must be identified and baselines established in the case of Ghana we are saying that our national climate change policy has a goal of sustainable socio-economic growth what are the indicators of socio-economic growth if we establish those indicators at the higher level then we can now look at the individual sectors what indicators under agriculture for example will contribute to the attainment of the higher goals what indicators under energy will contribute what indicators under waste management will contribute but if we don't do that then we continue to look at the individual sectors as separate as you put the siloed sectors then we will not be achieving the nexus that we are thinking of I wanted to give us a chance to open up to the floor but I'm wondering first if Gaby you have any other comments or questions to direct Yes so the one thing to add to this concept of how you measure and monitor and really evaluate change is that when we think about doing this in the adaptation space and you look at different countries and what they are doing to assess what their vulnerability and risks are and actually creating baselines there a lot of countries do not have confidence in the sort of data that they have they are trying to go from a course understanding of risk to a finer understanding of risk so just this concept of baselines in the adaptation space is really complicated and what baseline are you assessing is it rainfall patterns over the last 20 years how do you really understand what an appropriate baseline is and then what are you measuring change from and what is that how do you attribute change properly how do you attribute if you when you look at just the confluence of different issues that can affect outcomes how do you actually attribute something to a climate change in some sort of action or engagement that has occurred versus market forces or other things that are really complicated and these are costly processes and they take a lot of time so one needs to establish at the outset a strong understanding of what the measuring monitoring reporting system should be 10 years out or 20 years out and think about how to iteratively change it over time to really reflect changing information and changing reporting requirements and a changing sense of how you are actually understanding what attributes come into play We have a few hands going up here now Let's take about three at a time here now and then when you get the microphone just state who you are and which organization you're from and then please also direct the question to one of the panelists My question will go to Kenya The problem we have in most developing countries especially in Africa is that politicians always want to implement party manifestos instead of plans, development plans and stuff like that I want to find out from Kenya since you mentioned that your five-year development plan your medium-term plans initially did not include climate change considerations but now you want to include it in the future medium-term plans What has been the success in terms of implementation of previous plans that you are sure that this time round with the climate changes in the next plans they are going to be implemented because if you don't take care of what has been done already if the previous plans were not implemented where politicians are implementing their party manifestos at the end of the day if you put very good climate change strategies in your next medium-term plans they are not going to be implemented Thank you very much Great Let's go in front here Asana, you can make your way here We'll take two more questions and then we'll leave it up to the panelists Back one more row Maybe I have one comment and then one question following up his question actually I think it's a little bit worrying that under the adaptation the Cancun adaptation framework the adaptation fund is practically empty and that's why you have to go through these whole processes financing to get these naps going on but I wonder if you have had any chance to engage under that level trying to push for more adaptation funds to actually enter the Cancun adaptation framework that is just maybe one reflection out of this but my question probably is very much similar to what he has said already because I understand that you have this is an amazing plan to adapt to climate change specifically but at the same time these vulnerable communities are also trying to adapt to market forces to the world trade in terms of agricultural commodities and I wonder if you have considered those other challenges that seriously pose a threat in the viability and in the progression of these adaptation plans because at the end of the road if farmers can't make a living out of these adaptations then it's kind of hard to balance out what to do great thank you and then in the back right corner thank you very much I'm Richard from Uganda I work for Uganda Wildlife Authority and my question goes to all of you three one of the biggest drivers of the forestation in our country is agriculture because almost 60% of the forests in our country are private land and right from the policy level it says that you have right over your land and therefore you can use the way you want and there are one of those other policies that we want to produce for exports that means you can cut all the trees and plant maize as much as you can that is the forestation I'm wondering how these cross-sector synergies are working in your countries because that's a very big area where you have the foresters and agriculture conflicting and it is a big problem in our country thank you great let's try to field some of these questions up front and I think the first one was directed directly at Stephen I apologize Stephen you've been going first a few times in a row here but why don't you give that one a shot on party manifestos and plans I'll start from the difficult question that was posed by Patrick I can still remember his name from the first question round of questions and the danger I think he wants to know perhaps what kind of the degree of certainty that we have perhaps in that our initiatives or proposed interventions will be implemented these are the political interference through party manifestos let me just paint the background of perhaps just as a way of trying to answer that question how we do our national planning we do our national planning every five years by some good coincidence actually the planning phase just ends before the elections and what we do we complete the drafts the draft medium term plan and after that we keep it in abeyance until the elections and the thinking is because there are some the winning party manifestos you might find very good initiatives that can be integrated in the medium term plan and that's exactly what we did this year and we had the winning party manifesto by some good coincidence we had many of the issues that they were taking as flagship projects actually close because we talked to them when you go out to talk to stakeholders again we tend to forget the politicians and yet these are the guys who are going to vote for money either in parliament or in county assemblies and we talk to them at the county level we talk to them at the national level we have actually had meetings and we are planning even now after launching now the action plan and now we are actually planning this year to have another round of sensitization of members of parliament and the thinking is because every time you have elections some of them come back some of them do not come back and therefore you lose part of the group that already had ownership in the processes and initiatives that you have proposed so we have done that but what we need to understand we said because we were in a very tricky position or in terms of time or epoch the political timeliness because we were in a transition governance phase where we had because after our 2007 elections we had a small misunderstanding here and there and therefore we went for a coalition government where we had two broad sites coming together of course with their small party members of course to smaller parties that were aligned to both sides to form a coalition government so we had the president coming from one side and we had the prime minister which was a transitional post our constitution does not have the post of a prime minister but we created one as a transition for the last five years we have hired a prime minister and a president if you look at our action plan and I can give you the address where the website address where you can download it because it's free to download it's actually signed by both the president and the prime minister the thinking was because you cannot say this side looks stronger it's likely to win and therefore you want ownership from both sides because we have seen from other countries experiences where they have leaned so much toward one side and that by some bad coins in that side which they thought would win loses and everything no matter how good it is no matter how helpful it can be for the country goes under the it's thrown into the dustbin we did not want to go that way and therefore we wanted to show that our stakeholders are stakeholders whether they come from the opposition or they come from the government because they are Kenyans like another Kenyan and that's what we have done so we do not see the possibility and again now the new government after the elections now the government actually has warmed up to the action plan and we have seen and again I want to correct the impression that it's in the future medium term plans the current medium term plan that actually from 1st of July this year it will go up to end of June 2018 already is the one that we are saying already has climate change, adaptation and mitigation being streamed and therefore already those are national initiatives the constitution again binds the political powers they can only do small shift here and there they cannot just come and change that has gone through a full national stakeholder consultation process and therefore we think we have a very high degree that many of the initiatives will be will be implemented. Number three then we also have the ownership from the sectors and that you remember in my two slides I started by talking about stakeholder involvement and the mode sector or integrated approach we went through to every we talked with every sector working group in the different sectors of our economy and therefore they own those issues the prioritization of the initiatives all the proposed actions they are the ones who actually we give them the opportunity we only facilitated so that then when we prioritize then there is ownership from those sector stakeholders so that then it does not look like it's minister of environment which is imposing ideas or thinking on them I think that one I can leave it at that point and then I think the question from our colleague I don't know I didn't get the name how we have taken I will leave the first part was a comment that was a remark and then I will just comment about I will give an example of how we have tried to address vulnerable groups and I will not look at groups I will just look at 80% of Kenya is arid or semi-arid and from analysis from a lot of studies that is the most fragile in terms of climate change related shocks that is the most fragile part of the country and what we have done I will give you just one initiative we already have an ending throat emergency strategy integrated within the action plan and now integrated within the medium-term plan part of the plan is to actually to give them alternative sources of livelihood and also to give them alternative ways of of course there is the part of public awareness because most of them are livestock keepers so that then they learn they start appreciating the need to cut it down or to sell their livestock early enough before they are emaciated by by throat related so that then they lose most of their livelihood that's one. Number two we have actually tried to help them diversify their livelihood so that they don't just depend on work alone and it's the water table in those areas by some good coincidence is not very far from the surface and therefore many of the initiatives that are helping that we have put in place are to help them access that water so that they do irrigation and already that is happening if you go to some of the places it's happening some of them of course we have learned from because part of the process was also learning from good practices of course that have worked in some of the areas and the potential to replicate them in other areas with similar ecological zones we have had a few projects of course in those areas pilot projects where irrigation has been tried and it has worked very well the good thing is that it's a very hot area and therefore you find that you plan today in three months the crop is ready for harvest I'm talking about maize because it's a step of food and that helps us because then you don't have to irrigate the whole here only we have to reinforce seasons and when the reinforcement is not so good they can irrigate their crops of course it's not already so widespread but we have targeted areas where we of course we have got those initiatives amongst many others so we have thought seriously about vulnerable groups and we have involved them we went to them we had their ideas we had what issues they were going through in relation to climate change then lastly there was the issue of from a friend Richard from Uganda what we are doing to address agriculture, vis-a-vis environmental degradation forest and environmental degradation I will just talk very briefly we looked part of our baseline building process was also to look at what policies exist in the different sectors that have got some aspects of climate change oh that would be contradictory or that would contradict what we want to do or what we are proposing to do to address the climate change adaptation and mitigation and by some coincidence we have I will just refer to two documents we have our Kenya constitution 2010 that we promulgated in 2010 it prescribes a minimum forest cover of 10% for the whole country and every arm of the government every sector of the economy must of course show what measures they are putting in place to address that it's part of addressing of course forest degradation and why forest degradation the forests are actually integrated with our water towers so if we do not address the forest degradation then we are going to lose all our water towers and therefore Kenya will be a very crazy area in terms of water sufficient and then in the agriculture sector itself we have a under the agriculture act we have a farm forest rules that were launched in 2009 and that's part of it we exploited that because already that was in place the farm forest rules prescribe 10% forest 10% tree cover for every agricultural land and therefore it's something that we can because my friend from Ghana talked about synthesizing or say finding synthesis between the different the thinking all the approaches of course in the different sectors and therefore from a climate change perspective we think we can work with the agriculture people to exploit already a policy that exists of the 10% tree cover for farm lands so that then it helps us to of course and of course there will be other aspects of course other policies from other different sectors that will be that needs to be synthesized of course with the farm forest rules that prescribe 10% tree cover for farm land sorry great thank you Stephen anyone else here up on the panel want to respond to any number of those Dalali you look like you're about ready but Mishra you have the mic in your hand why don't you jump in the question about the political party is taking the agenda and doing in case of Kenya in fact in democracy some deviation is always there whenever the change of God takes place that is driven by the political parties but if you have drawn your plan through the stakeholder consultations like the Kenya has done and you have kept everybody and all the key players involved I don't feel any political party will have that much courage to completely throw out that plan in case of our country in India we also adopt the five year planning for different sectors and elections take place in mid course I mean next year there will be election in India but the over our policy kind of activities will remain the same government new government may come they may give it a new name but all the activities will remain the same so if you have a long persuasion based on the concrete facts and also with the involvement of stakeholders it is very difficult to change the policy and another thing in case of India because almost 60% is dependent on agriculture which have the larger representation in the electorates so it is very difficult to deny the kind of importance the agriculture has in the country just very quick one to a friend from Uganda in the case of Ghana the picture you have painted is very very true the recent rough gas inventory that has been conducted in Ghana clearly shows that about 50% of the emissions are from the agriculture and forest interface and as a single sector agriculture is the leading emitter now in Ghana and if you add lause change factor then it is going to about 50% and this is one of the major reasons why you cannot only looking at the individual sectors this is the reason why in planning for adaptation you need to plan to integrate the activities for example between 2003 and 2008 in Ghana we have had a lot of increment in production of a cereal but that was at the expense of forest cover that was at the expense of forest cover so the idea now is to see how to increase and sustain agricultural productivity with minimum or no impact on the existing forest cover while the forestry sector is looking at rehabilitating and increasing the existing forest cover and for us to achieve that there is a need for a close collaboration between these two sectors so that there will be a win-win situation if we take it on individual sector basis then there will always be a conflict and therefore there need for planning there were some hands up that we didn't get a chance to get some questions to you right next to Osana there, go ahead okay for me, I'm Simon Yocabi I'm Kenyan but I'm actually studying in Germany so my question goes to my friend also from Kenya because I wanted to ask like right now we are moving from a more centralized government to a more decentralized units and I think if you look then there is a conflict that some of these things policies may be replicated and you have like dual or competing entities trying to implement the same so how have these issues been factored into the whole implementation of climate change and then the other one comes from the diagram you had in your presentation like you have the one inch being on top but in reality most of the time people tend to think I'm saying it as being a Kenyan also like rarely do people rarely do people get to participate in the development of these policies and initiatives and from what I know a lot of projects have failed because people tend to think like these people are trying to impose something on us instead of like making us develop something that we think is good for us and also like to add a point that you never put in your replay to when you are answering to my friend from Ghana was that Vision 20 that is part of our constitution and so it binds every government that comes into into power and I guess this may be one reason that my friend was so much like nearly sure that some of these programs may succeed because it's part of the constitution and it binds everyone. Okay thank you. Anything else from the floor Steven why don't you have a stab at that one then for the moment and then again we'd really want to set a some time aside to share some other country experiences in cross sector planning so I really encourage us during the answering of this next question to be thinking in that way and I hope that we can share some experiences then at that point. Thank you Simon for that question and thank you for helping me answer the question from Ghana and you said the truth so I think I would rather answer your question the other way what are we doing to ensure that climate change concerns or adaptation in our case because that's what we are addressing today is integrated in county development plans or in county thinking one we have planned I'll tell you we went through a rigorous process I don't know when you last talked to your county governor or something went through a very rigorous and very inclusive process of consultations and we did not go out as government went out as a task force where we had the government that presented we had the CSOs represented by mentions who represented local and national NGOs and we had the private sector represented in the task force and therefore when we went out we said and we had consultants of course and we said we are not going out as individuals or as individual institutions we must go out as a national task force to address climate change we went to all the counties and we called we had meetings with the community people the community leaders we had local CSOs we had every that you can imagine or that you could imagine anyway this process you cannot be you cannot say it's certain that it was a totally exhausting because it's not possible anyway so we went to all the counties we got the issues from the counties themselves I can share many examples but I cannot because of time I can share many examples of how I was thinking or what we thought would come out from the counties or from the communities changed as we talked with the counties and they gave us their issues and they told us the experiences with climate change they are understanding and then in this aspect we also need to realize that although we told our consultants that they need to listen to the stakeholders we also gave them a heavier responsibility to analyze to come up with an analysis or with a way of determining perception because sometimes when you listen to the community sometimes it's a perception when you do a scientific analysis you might find actually what they are telling you is a signal of climate change that they have experienced you might find actually there is no trend at all from the data and information that you have so there are all those issues there is the misconception that everybody is talking about climate change and blaming climate change for everything there was a good case I read one time of Malawi where it looked like the productivity of the agricultural sector went down from some years and everybody was saying climate change climate change only for somebody to realize actually that's when the structural adjustment programs were were introduced and the government removed all the subsidies on the farm inputs and therefore the productivity went down and everybody thought it's climate change therefore we also need to delineate the reality from all those misconceptions let me not say misconceptions from all those perceptions and then so after we collected our information we sat down with the consultants we analyzed the issues and we proposed ways of addressing the issues of course we synthesized and harmonized the issues and we proposed ways of addressing the issues and at the end of the day we went back at technical level we did validation for every segment of the action plan we did a validation just looking at the technical issues the reality where is the evidence what are the issues how do we address them how do we propose to address them and after that now we went to a higher level a national stakeholder validation where we had two representatives from every single county of the 47 and we said these two representatives must not be government workers why because we can get the government from Nairobi that's where the ministers are that's where the permanent sector is directors many of the directors can be from there for they can represent the government because there is no point of bringing a government officer from a county which is far-fetched to come and talk for the community the communities can talk for the ministers so we asked for two representatives and we said to take care of gender one must be a lady one must be a man 47 counties all of them were represented including Nairobi and we looked through the action plan we looked through every item item by item because then we are dealing with a large crowd one and then there is of course the time the time constraint and the in that validation action the stakeholders proposed some areas to be they said no no this perhaps needs to be changed to ABC like that and we had to do it because we went through that process to get their thinking to get their ideas to get their experiences with climate change my assessment I think there is a lot of stakeholder ownership addressing the issues as they affect the stakeholder because why did we go out then you cannot go out to to sound stakeholders then you come and start thinking the stakeholders do not say the right thing you can only see try to delineate what is reality from perception but then you must address those issues as they affect the stakeholders that's the purpose ideally of a stakeholder consultation process in a national adaptation planning process and therefore according to me Manaji still remains at the top and we told them what we were telling them at the grassroot level is that it is you it is your issues it is your county it is your sub-count or whatever you can actually we told them because part of it is also to educate them on their rights and we told them it is you to talk to your county governments and make sure that these things are addressed in the county government planning process we heard from the top now we address it from the bottom bottom up and then from the top we prepared because the county governments were not in place when we were doing that process and therefore what we prepared with the minister of planning county planning draft county plans we made sure that we have a chapter addressing climate change for each of the 47 counties so that by the time they are adopted by the county government at least there is some starting point that addresses climate change adaptation climate change mitigation issues in that particular county now every county assembly is in the process of producing a county integrated development plan but what draft are they using they are using the same draft at a certain point where we influence the inclusion of a climate change chapter and we think that is the best that we could do because we could not produce a fully fledged county plan when the county governments were not in place so this is the process and one of the advantages that I have been telling people we have is because these county governments are new they are still thinking of the priorities to propagate all the what to take on as the priorities we think we have an opportunity to influence them some more so that then the address climate change with the seriousness that it deserves thank you thank you Stephen I'm wondering if we have in the audience any other country experiences that could be shared and it doesn't even necessarily have to be at the country level if there are some experiences that you have within your own institutions I think that there is a lot of development practitioners non-governmental organizations represented here these cross sectoral challenges we face not only at the government level but within our own institutions we continue to operate in silo structures there is not a lot of communication between various disciplines so I guess I ask for experiences not only at the country level but if you have something within your own institution where you have been able to facilitate that we would be very interested to hear that I should mention Andy is not going to like me for this but Andy Jarvis has stepped in here and Andy when you were gone I used some of your words and your absence from this morning and I talked a little bit about climate smart agriculture and how when we came into this venture a few years ago we were expecting, we were looking for trade-offs and we were expecting so many trade-offs in between adaptation and mitigation and development and I used your same words this morning and saying that there have been some difficulties in finding trade-offs and then what we've been finding is synergies and we've had an opportunity over the last few days to engage with these stakeholders here in our workshop what lessons do you think regarding synergies most come to mind based on those experiences that we've had, the shared learning that we've had I'll get a bit politically provocative on it so we are finding it difficult to see trade-offs, a lot of these things are synergistic but also I think the whole point of NAPS is moving towards a medium to a long-term vision forwards and I think maybe today we have the argument about whether we should be held accountable to mitigate or not maybe that is still on the agenda now but when you're looking over long-time periods, 20 years I think it's going to be very clear that everybody needs to move towards low-carbon economies and so while it's now a very politically sensitive issue I think in the long term there's no getting around it we need as a society and this is not specifying any particular country but as a society we need to explore the means of growth under low-carbon scenarios and so I think for me I think NAPS are a fantastic opportunity for being forward-looking in setting the development space that you're moving towards to be synergistic so you are adapting but you're also looking for these opportunities these co-benefits I don't think it requires at least from our evidence it's not requiring massive amounts of trade-offs the mitigation aspect is not an additionality in terms of cost that holds economic growth back and so whilst in the negotiations you have to do NAPS and then some countries are thinking about NAMAS but it's not obligatory whilst in the negotiations I think those two are at least now 20 years to come going to be separate I think in development strategies there is a fantastic opportunity to put those two together and so examples I'll go Latin America and you have a number of countries in Latin America who are actually developing low-emissions development strategies before they're doing adaptation plans so Columbia for example has a low-carbon development strategy now you have Costa Rica who are now implementing a mitigation action in coffee so I think NAPS in being cross sectoral should also be thinking about those co-benefits and those synergies and I think we need to stop talking about trade-offs I think at least from what we really find really synergistic adaptation and mitigation and it's linked to development I wonder if there's any comment from the panel on Andy's statement particularly your experiences with integration of mitigation and adaptation and some of the forces that are pushing you in any of those directions anything from the panel on that go ahead to Lali I think that the question our friend from Uganda actually brings this issue to perspective agriculture expanding into forest area causing forest degradation and how do we address that we want to address that by limiting the expansion of the agriculture landscape into the forest area if you are able to achieve that we are indirectly mitigating but how are we going to do the agriculture in the agriculture landscape in such a way that the productivity does not dip because one reason why farmers continue extending into the forest landscape is they are chasing fertility they are chasing fertility to the existing agriculture landscape to enable the farmers continue to produce on sustainable basis without significantly reducing their productivity or even increasing their productivity and that is where the issue of adaptation comes in so in one breath you are re-adaptation in the other breath the same action that you are taking is contributing to what mitigation so through one action you are achieving two things that is where Ghana is looking at the low carbon growth but without sacrificing socioeconomic development any institutional stories from the audience at this point if not there is one thing that we haven't really done to yet which is engagement of the private sector in this whole debate and I think in a lot of the other side events and some of the events the technical and networking sessions that we have seen over the last few days the private sector has really been at the center of discussion and I think that the NAP process and this is coming out of our workshop as well but I think that the NAP process offers some platforms for engagement and often times we associate that with a pathway towards sustainability of funding for NAPs so I'm wondering if the panelists can comment briefly on the role of the private sector in developing their NAP because I think that the private sector and the government is really still trying to understand how they are interacting with a landscape approach and so some examples of private sector engagement and good simply because having looked at 12 different countries and their approaches here and stakeholder engagement and how the private sector is engaged, what is notable is that the private sector is often lacking and yet at the same time countries identify huge financing needs and implementation often times involves private sector small scale land holders to large agribusiness to forestry countries different scale companies the whole infrastructure aspect when you look at where the costs are going to rest and what sort of finance decisions will be made in the future private sector actors are really important so one of the most important things that I think we have to encourage governments to do here in their NAP process is to look at the private sector actors that need to be engaged bring them into the planning process into the vulnerability and risk assessment process as early as you possibly can because that's where private sector actors will understand what their risks are and a lot of private sector actors don't understand those risks aren't doing the sort of planning to really understand what the long term risks are so that's the first point to engage and then the other is really again in thinking about your question actually about finance and when you look at climate finance and you look at the adaptation stream and what that looks like right now and these are very conceptual it's just a very conceptual sense of what that stream is right now and what it can be looking five years out or ten years out the role of the private sector in that stream is actually huge and so we need to we need to really figure out how private sector actors in the LDCF and the different funding sources that we currently have how those funds can specifically leverage private sector finance so I'll leave it there for our country points of view I think briefly briefly I think one change I think we need to know what is the definition of private sector here because let me tell you I think this my opinion I think many of those pieces of literature that allude to the fact that the private sector in adaptation should be written one, we are talking about farmers are some of the farmers not private sector the large scale farmers they are doing it as a commercial enterprise and we cannot say we are not addressing when we are talking about farmers we are not picking only the small scale farmers and leaving out the private sector leaving out the commercial farmers two I think even in terms of generating information that will actually inform our baseline many of the large scale farmers especially in Kenya already have a fully fledged weather and climate stations where they collect rain for the collect temperature and all that and they actually are part and part of the system and then thirdly many of the private sector actors are already actually contributing to adaptation initiatives even if it is just through the corporate social responsibility the CSR and I think we need perhaps to start thinking broadly as we think about the private sector then from the Kenyan experience we had two levels of course of involvement perhaps three levels because even when we went to the local communities the private sector was there and in many cases some of them would introduce themselves they say you know I am so and so I am doing agribusiness or something because again the private sector are the suppliers of the farm inputs and therefore we cannot when we are addressing adaptation along the whole value chain of the agriculture production systems we cannot say the private sector is out but then that said let me give you the two levels how the other two levels where we involve the private sector we had I talked about the national task force for climate change action plan process we actually had the CEO of the Kenya's private sector alliance sitting in that task force and whenever we want the lower level slightly lower we had thematic working groups we had thematic areas of the climate change action plan and again we would write to the private sector although the CEO was a member of our task force then we would write to them officially we say we need a private sector representative in this thematic working group and I will give you one example because then this also touches on finance we had actually the CEO of the Kenya Bangas Association chairing the finance thematic working group for the climate change action plan and we think this is good inclusiveness and I remember one of the remarks he made when he came for the very first few meetings and said one other private sector players might be seeing a challenge in climate change it is an investment opportunity in the very near future and I was very encouraged these were the words of us the CEO of the Kenya Bangas Association so I will give you just an example of some of the proposals that we have already been integrated in our medium-term plan to address farmers resilience we have talked of the government putting in place initiatives to revive some of the farmers cooperatives that have died because then to give them bargaining power when they have numbers then they can arrange their own supply arrangements at least even if it is importing farm inputs or buying in bulk so that then the prices come down because then they will not be it's not like one farmer just going to buy one farm implement or something like that and so these are some of the issues and then also making sure I alluded to the issue of reviving some of the dying water dams so that then the farming communities can have and some of these of course are initiatives that are going to be implemented by the private sector definitely and they are also going to benefit the private sector of course indirectly of course through because they will be the suppliers of many of the of the inputs like I've said but then perhaps that's enough so that I leave the chance to others to speak their experiences from the Ganyan perspective I will say that the role of the private sector has been recognized especially during the preparation of the national climate change policy but the level of influence has rather been low and I think that going forward it is something that must be critically looked at because already there are indications on the ground as some of them on their own are undertaking activities that can feed into the implementation of this policy for example a private sector a big fertilizer distribution company on its own has gone to do special survey to identify areas for construction of water storage facilities to support farmers to do off-season agriculture to serve as an outlet for the sale of their inputs so such a thing for me is a very good area that could be looked at going into the future in case of our country in India there is a body of industries that is federation of industries of chamber of commerce in India and their representative at national level as well as they are represented at the state levels also they are the part of these climate change committees another thing what a major initiative during this plan period we have taken up is that we are now supporting the custom hiring hubs for the climate smart farm implements and they are operated invariably by the private partners with the lead banks in the rope the third thing as Stephen told there are a number of large farmers and they are doing the kind of business which is as good as a small entrepreneur in a town or a county they are very much part of the stakeholder consultations and other things I mean the scale may vary but the private is already involved in all these consultations of the adaptation process I'm getting the card outside that we have just a few moments left I wanted to give the panel 30 seconds each and a true 30 seconds each to give their key takeaway message I think it's been a marathon session so I'm happy to see everyone stuck around for the majority of the talk Gabby I'd love for you to start us 30 seconds set the tone key messages take away at the nexus of agriculture food security water and energy it's difficult to do so I have to say again really just what we've heard here is that NAPS offer a really important tool to when we think about medium to long term adaptation planning to really think about how mainstreaming occurs what are some of the tangible ways in which some of these synergies can really be not only assessed but put into like practice funded made real how to bring in different stakeholders some very different models here for how to do it different governance structures every country will have their own approach here but there's a lot to learn from and thank all of you for coming I think I will start with a simple message that all of us can attest to the fact that climate change is real and it's already impacting in different ways so we need to focus upon our farming communities amongst other sectors and therefore we need to put in place mechanisms or proposals to address the suffering of the people and looking of course knowing that of course that we are addressing like a moving target because then you are not just addressing the variability today you're also addressing the variability of course in the coming years of course as an impact of climate change then as we put these mechanisms in place or as we propose good ways to address the climate change related issues we need to pose and ask ourselves whether we are really addressing the area where the shoe pinches so to speak because in English we say it's the wearer who knows where the shoe pinches and if we are not going to listen to our communities, our stakeholders we are going to prescribe solutions that we think are very good from our desktops but then they are not actually going to be addressing the real issues on the ground and that's the most I imagine that's the most important consideration as we make national adaptation plans thank you I would just want to say that we must remember that every engagement that we undertake or plan to undertake will take place within or takes place within a landscape and within that landscape are other competing engagements therefore in planning for our activity or engagement we must take into consideration the other engagements to ensure that we create a win-win situation within that landscape thank you these announcements usually come in two's but try to sneak it in in between okay Mishra you have now the final word the NAPS has a very unique has provided a very unique platform okay there can't possibly be a fourth so go ahead I will say that the NAPS has given a very unique platform and the win-win situation will only be when these are the adaptation plans are mainstream in the development plans we have taken initiative in India but I have also learned a lot of things from Ghana where they are doing the the kind of activity that's really how to involve all these stakeholders and go for a plan and implementation for the management of the resources of the commons that would be the lead I wanted to give a final thanks and if we can have a quick round of applause here as well that would be great just one last reminder that we do have some flash drives up here with the publications on them again we don't have any hard copies of the national adaptation plan but please grab one of these discs on your way out thank you again you're going to hear this a fourth time from me ladies and gentlemen after coffee break we will proceed to the closing plenary session at the the major hall in this building which will start at 6pm please take your coffee and tea from the catering stations outside of the auditoria maximum so that you can proceed directly to the closing plenary room there will be a closing remark that will be delivered in polish we've heard this four times okay and then there's a cocktail reception outside after the closing session and the support staff will help you get there