Climate change affects the whole world, but the negative impacts are most severe for low-income countries and marginalised groups within these countries. The 2015 Paris Agreement therefore emphasises the need to integrate climate change adaptation into international cooperation with these countries. IOB has now assessed to what extent and in what ways the Netherlands is doing this, what the results are and what improvements can be made.
Background
Climate change is threatening the progress made in development efforts in recent decades. This is especially true for water and food security programmes. Changing temperatures, rainfall patterns, rising sea levels and storms are already affecting crop cycles, harvests and the availability of (drinking) water.
This evaluation has therefore looked specifically at water and food security programmes funded by the Netherlands. How is adaptation to climate change integrated into these programmes? And what are the results? To answer these questions, IOB conducted a case study with country visits in Bangladesh and Mozambique, complemented by a document analysis of 19 programmes.
Key research question
How is climate change adaptation being integrated into water and food security programmes, and to what extent has this reduced risks for target groups vulnerable to climate change?
This key question also examines how marginalised groups and governments in recipient countries are involved in the programmes.
Conclusions
The answer to the key research question is that climate change adaptation is not structurally integrated in advance into water and food security programmes, and it is largely unknown to what extent adaptation measures have reduced the risks of climate change for vulnerable target groups. IOB also finds that there is limited inclusion of marginalised groups, but there is often good cooperation with governments.
These aspects are discussed in more detail below.
In half of the programmes evaluated, it cannot be established that climate change adaptation is substantially addressed. This is problematic because these programmes are reported as climate finance by the Netherlands. This situation is partly caused by OECD’s climate-marker allocation system. The criteria for assigning markers are relatively light, as the application of a climate lens is not mandatory, but only recommended as a best practice. This lens involves (1) conducting climate risk analyses, (2) designing adaptation measures based on them, and (3) implementing and monitoring adaptation measures.
Although some programmes integrate climate change adaptation well (e.g. Delta programmes), it is noticeable that in most programmes the analysis of climate change impacts is superficial. In about half of the programmes, this leads to reactive, abstract and in some cases even a lack of adaptation strategies. This is partly due to a lack of time, knowledge and capacity. As a result, climate change adaptation comes late in the decision-making process. However, there is a positive learning curve for some programmes in which adaptation is gradually being better integrated.
Most programmes struggle to reach and engage the most marginalised groups. There is a lack of analysis that clearly identifies climate risks for these groups, and a lack of linkages to gender analysis. In the absence of a participatory approach, adaptation measures are not always well suited to marginalised groups, and solutions are too expensive or complex. Efficiency or the desire for ‘tangible’ results play a role in implementation. It is more expensive and difficult to reach the most marginalised groups. As a result, programmes sometimes target groups that are (slightly) better off, wrongly assuming a trickle-down effect.
The programmes that are successful in promoting climate change adaptation among marginalised groups have the following characteristics:
They take an inclusive and participatory approach.
They address immediate needs.
They address the impacts of climate change, such as floods and droughts, experienced by the target population.
They take into account the specific interests of women and girls.
The evaluation found that national ownership of development programmes is generally good in Mozambique and medium to good in Bangladesh. In many cases, national, regional and/or local government agencies are involved in or are part of the programmes. A demand-driven approach with devolution of responsibilities is important. This creates ownership. At the same time, it has been found that government agencies do not always have the right capacities to exercise ownership. Alignment of programmes with domestic adaptation policy is better in Bangladesh than in Mozambique, partly because policy is better developed in Bangladesh.
It is not easy to determine the effectiveness of climate change adaptation measures. Information on risk reduction through increased resilience and/or reduced exposure is almost universally lacking. Reasons for this include lack of priority, lack of climate change adaptation in monitoring and evaluation systems, difficulty in separating general development outcomes from specific adaptation outcomes, and sometimes simply the fact that programmes have not yet been completed. Although some programmes report positive results, current efforts (in general, not specifically those supported by the Netherlands) are insufficient to adequately prepare vulnerable countries and groups for the impacts of climate change.
Recommendations
The evaluation makes several recommendations, which are described in full in the report. The most important ones are summarised below:
Integrate climate change adaptation structurally and upfront into programmes. To this end, provide insight into climate risks and measures to address them.
Invest in monitoring and evaluation of climate change adaptation to track its implementation and results.
Involve the most marginalised groups in the design and implementation of adaptation measures.
Lobby the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) to make this type of approach mandatory for all programmes with a climate change adaptation label, which are therefore reported as climate financing.
Finally, an ambitious climate policy requires additional resources. Labelling existing development programmes as climate-relevant is not enough to meet the additional needs that climate change will bring.
Activities
On May 30, 2023, IOB organized a productive workshop on the integration of climate change adaptation in collaboration with IGG. This workshop revealed that there are struggles with the complexity of integrating climate change adaptation, and especially with defining and then monitoring the results. The guidelines shared by the ministry were not familiar to all participants. At the same time, the feeling was also expressed that, implicitly, more is already happening on climate adaptation than might appear at first glance. It was also expressed that it is a learning process.
A meeting with NGOs will be organized on December 19, 2023, in collaboration with Partos.
