Capacity Building for Climate Change Adaptation

Understanding the Paris Agreement in the Pacific, Part 4

Our fourth and final installment of the Paris Agreement ‘explained’ in the Pacific context examines the focus on capacity building. Given that the agreement puts emphasis on local government and civil society in Paris Agreement implementation, it is unsurprising that capacity building gets its own mention. While capacity building is referenced throughout the document, it has specific mention in Article 11: “Capacity building should be country-driven, based on and responsive to national needs and foster country ownership, including at national, subnational and local levels.”

This is important because the sustainability of climate change mitigation and adaptation initiatives needs to be based on local knowledge, particularly in countries like the Pacific where geography limits the quantity and type of interventions which can be undertaken, and the frequency with which outside expertise can be reasonably accessed. Which turns our attention to ‘capacity building for what’ exactly?

We need to break down what capacities are needed at the local level, and what are needed at the national level when it comes to implementing climate adaptation initiatives. (We can limit ourselves to adaptation because, with the exception of drastic deforestation in some Pacific countries, mitigation is not an issue given that Pacific island countries collectively contributed 0.02% of Greenhouse Gas emissions.) With adaptation, as with most government programmes, activities will be carried out at the local level. As such, they should be undertaken by local communities for local communities. This is where traditional and local knowledge and experience factor in. Local communities - whether they be on remote islands or form a part of the nation’s capital - are not without experience - recent and historical - when it comes to adapting to ‘shocks’ in the form of economic crises, environmental disasters, health epidemics, and so forth. Climate change adaptation will be no different - except that it will be viewed as ‘slow onset’ with more frequent and intense ‘shocks.’

So, what capacities do we need? First, we need to take stock of the capacities that DO exist at the local level, within local government and the community at large. We need to understand what needs to be adapted, noting that adaption is not a finite process and we will constantly need to review our adaptation needs and capacities. Second, identify major capacity gaps that can filled with help from the national level. We need our adaptation capacities to be not only ‘owned’ but ‘grown’ by the country, which means relying as little as possible on adaptation methods and knowledge imported from abroad (you can read more here). Some examples of capacity support may include planning and budgeting for emergency response, undertaking regular risk and vulnerability assessments, and transforming traditional or historical knowledge into regular actions that can leverage modern - available - technologies. This can include environmentally-sensitive storm surge barriers, incorporating new crops (such as salt water resistant vegetables) into household and kitchen gardens, and ‘climate-proofing’ essential infrastructure (see here for examples from Cook Islands).

Third, money. Although financing for climate change adaptation is in the increase, particularly for Small Island States and least developed countries, that money rarely reaches the local level where it is needed the most, and unlike climate change, the money won't be around forever. Local governments, and central governments as well, need to build their capacities to ensure that climate adaptation activities are viewed as ‘investments’ and can result in returns on those investments which can be used to build the resilience of the community over time… again and again. The primary focus of this will be how to ensure climate adaptation finance can serve two purposes: help the community adapt to climate change while developing the local economy… taxes and levies from which can later be reinvested in ongoing adaptation and further growth and improved services, including community insurance schemes, health care and infrastructure. We’ll have to put more thought into this one… suggestions and ideas most welcome.

Finally, we have to focus on a major risk to the capacity building process - the constant changes in elected leadership at the national and local levels, and with it the changes in political appointments and civil servant positions. One might ask how this affects climate adaptation at the local level, and we can answer that it is critical. Policy and regulatory decisions made during one administration can be reversed or down-graded during the next. Efforts to build capacities of local government can be undone overnight when civil servant changes/rotation take place at whim. When it comes to the implementation of the Paris Agreement and climate change adaptation at the local level, leadership is critical. Without it, adaptation won’t happen fast enough to ensure the survival of some communities. So we need to build the capacity of communities to ensure that their priorities (ie: adaptation) are respected and policies adhered to no matter how many times leadership changes. It’s part and parcel of resilience and survival.