Despite being one of the most vulnerable countries to effects of climate change (fourth according to Maplecroft rating), Nepal was not among the first countries to take an initiative to address them. Only in the last couple of years has there been some policy initiatives. In this regard, national Climate Change Policy, National Adaptation Program of Action (NAPA) and Local Adaptation Program of Action (LAPA) have set a scene for policy, program and framework that might eventually facilitate ground level intervention.
NAPA draws nine ‘combined profiles’ built around six ‘thematic areas,’ namely, Agriculture and food; Water Resource and Energy; Climate-Induced Disaster; Forests and Biodiversity; Public Health; and Urban Settlements and Infrastructure. LAPA provides a framework to take nationally conceived NAPA activities to the grassroots. It is geared towards community ownership of planning, implementation and monitoring processes.
NAPA rightly conceives climate adaptation as an initiative closely linked to local development. It is evident both in the volume of funds it would like to allocate at the local level and the concomitant institutional structure to that end. It (along with climate change policy) emphasizes spending as much as 80 percent of the planned total budget at the local level; District Coordination Committee (DCC) and Village Coordination Committee (VCC) will be entrusted with coordination at the concerned niches. These ideas are further consolidated by promulgation of Local Adaptation Program of Action (LAPA) and Climate Vulnerability Assessment guidelines. These specific characters of Nepal’s climate adaption framework with structure and process penetrating right down to the community level in fact distinguish themselves from the approaches and philosophies elsewhere which normally tend to see climate adaptation as centrally sponsored move.
The spirit of NAPA that envisages climate adaptation as a local level issue can hardly be questioned. After all, it is the grassroots which faces the first and the worst brunt of climate change. For instance, if climate change takes a toll in local livelihood either due to crop failure or drying up of water sources, the concerned district, village or community will face the biggest problems. Kathmandu (or the yet to be settled federal centers, for that matter) may certainly be concerned about the problem, but only in so far as it is its responsibility to fix the problem as a patron.
It may however be noted that NAPA, despite its philosophical stance, tends to miss the point when it comes to translating the concept into practice. The role of the Ministry of Local Development (MLD)—the ministry with the mandate to empower and support the local level—has remained unacknowledged. NAPA mandates Ministry of Environment to garner funds and play a coordination role, leaving the concerned sectoral ministries to take a lead in facilitating program implementation. The role of MLD in this overall process is rather inconspicuous. It is hard to imagine how an issue that requires intimate involvement of local level can be addressed by putting the MLD out of loop. In fact, one would have assumed that MLD would be given the lead role in NAPA implementation given the nature of adaptation whose thrust remains at local level.
While NAPA overlooks the role of MLD in adaptation intervention, it instead identifies the role of sectoral ministries in implementing envisaged programs. However, given that the required intervention at local level are cross-cutting—embracing all sectors of livelihoods ranging from agriculture through forestry to water security and health—isolated intervention from individual agencies are not likely to serve the purpose. This situation actually calls for a ‘fusion’ of all agencies, both governmental and non-governmental, at the community level.
The question remains: who will ensure this much needed ‘fusion’? Sectoral ministries accustomed to working in tight compartments in specific domains are unlikely to take up this role. The Ministry of Environment, with no structure at the grassroots, spends most of its time and resources in developing national and international policies, and does not have the time and human resources to handle this matter that calls for a close engagement at the grassroots.
If there is one agency that has some scope to ensure this, it is the District Development Committee platform under the Ministry of Local Development. This is not to defend the role of DDC/MLD as proven authorities to handle such a complex process. Experience has, in fact, shown that DDC has several limitations in taking up such multifaceted tasks calling for community organization and empowerment. District Forest Offices under the Ministry of Forest do of course have that sort of experience, as is evident in their successful effort at bringing 15,000-odd forest patches under community management. However, this agency may not be able to bring all relevant sectors on board given its rather restricted professional boundary, which limits its role to forestry and forestry based livelihoods.
NAPA rightly conceives of climate adaptation as an initiative closely linked to local development.
In this backdrop, there is no alternative to bringing the MLD/DDC platform to the forefront of climate adaptation intervention. Some progress in this regard is already being seen. For instance, the DFID/EU supported climate adaptation project in the 14 hill districts of mid- and far- western Nepal is considering launching climate adaptation initiatives under the broad leadership of the MLD—an arrangement not conceived by NAPA. The move, though a deviation from conceived mechanism of NAPA, is innovative, inspired by the idea of identifying workable multistakeholder mechanisms for climate intervention. Bringing all relevant stakeholders in one intervention platform under functional coordination of MLD, however, remains a big challenge. Provided that an answer can be found to this challenging issue, the project could succeed in developing a workable model that can be replicated elsewhere. Only a hands-on approach will make a difference when it comes to handling this rather complex issue of climate change which will remain with us for generations to come.
The author is an independent environment researcher and has worked as Joint Secretary at the Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation
baraljc@yahoo.com
Related story
Bhaktapur introduces local curriculum
