NAPA Nepal: An overview

Nepal is preparing NAPA to propose adaptation plans to address climate change up to 2010. Nepal being a Himalayan mountainous country in between two newly emerged economic powers China and India, geographical diversity, fragile ecosystem etc make the adaptation measures different from others. The snow covered mountains at the northern boarder is said to water towers of Asia. 1 billion people are living using these water resources. Being a LDC infrastructure and structural potential is also weak. Other social systems and interaction are also traditional. In these years this nation has started republican superstructure after 250 years of feudal monarchy. The centralized regime is federalizing. Radical change is in demand on the socio-political system, structure and changing agents even. Although NAPA agreement signed paper can be said as a technical proposal but we shouldn’t exclude these social issues.
Nepal’s concern on the global climate change can be seen simply in water, land, forest, biodiversity and livelihood of people.
Although Nepal has historically low emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from energy and industrial sources, its per capita carbon emissions are high when the emissions from the conversion of forest in to agriculture and other land use change are added in. In Nepal case land use change accounts for 95% of emissions causing its per capita emission in 2000 (6.6Tof CO2 e) to have been four times the level of India (Source: WRI, climate analysis indicator tool). Then also Nepal’s responsibility on global GHG emission is only 0.025%. In developing countries like Nepal, the program of GHG emissions reduction and the adaptation to climate change should be integrated with other national and sectoral development plans and programs for preservation of the environment. Initial national communication (INC, 2004) for the UNFCC mentioned GHG mitigation options as follows
a) Energy sector: by technology reformation, demand side management, renewable energy use, fuel switching etc.
b) Forestry sector: by afforestation and reforestation, expansion of protected area and community forest
c) Agriculture sector: It is estimated that 80% of the population are based in the agriculture, fertilizer use is a huge source of CH4 emission, changing Urea may be a better measure
d) Other sectors: Natural forest sector, water resource sector, health sector
There is growing unanimity amongst scientists and politicians that human-induced climate change is threatening human development, with poor communities in developing countries the most at risk. Nepal geography makes it more vulnerable than most countries to the negative impacts of climate change. Consistent rises in annual mean temperature (at twice the global average rate), less frequent but more intense rainfall events, the increasing frequency and intensity of floods, changes in the start and end of the monsoon, the growing threat from glacial lake outburst floods (GLOFs), longer dry spells and drought events, and increasingly strong storms have all been experienced in Nepal in the past decades. These trends not only damage and cause the loss of human lives, livelihoods and property, but also threaten Nepal’s development progress and put the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals at risk. The effects of climate change in Nepal have far reaching consequences beyond its borders. Nepal’s location in the headwaters of the Ganges Basin means that the impact of increased and catastrophic flooding is already being felt by the 500 million inhabitants of the basin to the south. The melting of glaciers is also reducing the store of water that these huge populations rely on.





Importance of NAPA towards achieving the MDGs:

Climate change is likely to increase hunger and poverty (MDG 1) in developing countries such as Nepal by reducing food production, by causing more natural disasters (to which the poor tend to be most vulnerable) and by causing malaria, Kalajaar (MDG 6) to spread into the hills. On the other hand forest conservation, the appropriate development of Nepal’s water resources, and the development of other sources of clean energy could provide the country with access to international carbon funds for financing new hydropower capacity and other sources of clean energy.
So, NAPA must address the adaptation programs in the circumference of these contents. In this chapter I’m interested to overview the agreement done by Nepal government and UNDP to prepare this NAPA. Later on I would mention my personal idea to be included. I’ve mentioned the summary of the agreement paper. I’d like to extract some principles from the paper mentioned in the name of agreement between GoN and UNDP. These arguments are tried to clear on the basis of contemporary theories and practices.
a) Situation is not analyzed
Although the first section, part I is titled situation analysis it starts link of Nepal with the UNFCCC but lacks on social situation analysis. Nepal is in the process to formulate new constitution by the constitutional assembly for restructuring the regime, devolution of power through federality. So this nation is facing transitional phase after armed struggle. The document mentioned post conflict outcomes but does not entered whether the conflict was social, political or beyond these? Obviously it was socio-economic conflict. The demands were for social justice, complete democracy, equality and economic well being etc. In this paragraph it has to reflect a scenario of Federal Republic of Nepal and consequences on the natural resources, environmental rights of the people, distribution of resources to address population and poverty related issues etc. So the changing context of Nepal was an opportunity for the formulation of NAPA, but looks it has lost the chance.



b) More technical, as traditional

Projects of Nepal are always blamed having more technical isolated from the ground reality. Demographic diversity in Nepal is the most significant figure and central and single attempts can’t handle the reality. Development process also needs continuation of the earlier practices which these types of multilateral or bilateral attempts loose. These types of outsider’s attempts of development loose the continuation of the local people’s assimilation and attempts on development. So the huge probability of mobilization of the local resources is lacked and this NAPA has continued the tradition.
c) Question of stewardship, ownership

Active participation of the stakeholders in all levels is the one of the important indicators of a successful project. It should be started from the very earlier steps of the planning process. The key strategy (see, in box) is only to participate in the implementation process, not in planning or evaluation process. If so, the ownership of the project becomes vacuumed. It has not mentioned participation of the popular forces (Political parties, civil societies, CBOs and different “organic” groups and marginalized segment) during the preparation of the concept paper or proposal. No, one political party has any commitment on it. A project handled by the technocrats won’t win stewardship among the people. Evaluation and monitoring also won’t be effective when it isolates concerned people from the total process.
D) Shadowed by the stereotyping, traditional ideas
Nepal’s political division was to continue the feudal power relations of the king or the local elites. It has no meaning for either economic development or environmental development. The NAPA followed the same again. Experts have reservation on the three eco-regions also. Trans-Himalayan region has different geographical, social and cultural variations. NAPA has entertained the same stereotypic division which has no meaning in the adaptation programs on the GCC. It would be better if it had planned on the basis of watershed regions or eco-regions. Then discussions which are going on would be more specific and operational.

E) Budgetary management: always belief crisis
The signed agreement has submitted a budget sheet for the allocation of US$ 1,325000.0.
Most of the fund goes to the structural arrangements, salaries and allowances in the different names. Within them also a huge amount goes to some international experts (e.g., US$ 315,000 for two staff for 1.5 years), so fund returns in the same direction from which it is come. Some structures are mentioned there as NIM for management arrangements is used which gives no meaning and sense to the stakeholders. So, the information and ideas created here come from their knowledge not from the experiences of the grass root people living in the vulnerable regions. The adverse impacts of the climate change are scattered in the remote, poor, illiterate and underprivileged groups. So, digging the truth form such sections needs allocation of the budget in the same regions but project will move around the center and new elites. Those elites are questioned always to be biased to the needy groups.

F) Escaped from the own issue of CF

Nepal’s issue after Bali Mandate is REDD, because CDM of Kyoto Protocol is not sufficient to address our efforts done in the reduction of carbon emission. Community forestry is Nepal’s endeavor among the third world nations. It is our strong arguments to claim carbon dollar. Our NAPA is silent in this issue. If get that fund also can be mobilized in the adaptation programs of the vulnerable sectors. The project focuses on the donations living our rights due to our own contribution in the global level. This time is to prepare strategies to struggle for our rights after 2012, post KP.
As an essence, in the name of NAPA, a document will be prepared. In this process, ‘experts’ from Kathmandu, international community and some well known universities, technocrats, civil societies will participate , share some data, some workshops, seminars will be organized. A group of elites having same interests will be gathered in the different names of stakeholders. They will prepare national adaptation plan of action as the donors suggest. They won’t have sufficient discussion and exclude different voices, use “data” weapon (license is also within their access not others because they are products of the same elites and interests) to dominate others idea. They will prepare such a document in which they will have a safer role to entertain for some years.

Strategies to be adopted

NAPA is in the documentation process. It is hoped that after submission of it to UNFCCC, Nepal will start to get technical and financial cooperation from various donor agencies as specified in the document. It will be the main stream program for years for the adaptation processes of adverse impacts of climate change. Os, it is a genuine document and every related person should be responsible for this task, because it is not a technical general document or we can easily review it if problem come. It will guide all the programs, funds, procedures etc. For this purpose, I’d like to suggest some statements to revise the core document.
a) Participation of the prioritized stakeholders in the planning preprocess
It is clear that this preparatory process is going to be more technical, it can be corrected by the broad participations of the political, social sectors, indigenous community, conflict affected etc. Technical sector is important in the organization process of the outcomes as required. If we can guarantee that the document is prepared by the broad participation, it will be worthy and other steps of the programs also can be hoped simplified to implement.
b) Redefine the situation analysis
The situation analysis is to be redefined. We have to project what will be the adaptation program’s efficiency when our nation is restructured. The political division remained is difficult to solve the environment related problems. For, if we have to deal with GLOFs, they are divided in two districts because our old division is based on the mountains and rivers. In the devolution process it will be different so, new division in federality has to be addressed with broad participation of the stakeholders.
c) Broad discussion should be welcomed
While the process the information, agenda of discussion, finding etc should be disclosed by the electronic, popular media etc. This makes open for discussion, ownership will be enlarged. It creates positive stewardship later on.


d) Justification of the salary, cost etc should be made transparent
The cost of the projects looks to be tilted in the salary and service sectors. It is most controversial issue related to international sectors assistance. Logics should be cleared. Why a government officer has to pay more in the projects. What is the logic behind it? Other nations have started tender bidding for the human resources, why not in Nepal. Efficient persons with competitive cost should be hired. All the costs should be justifiable. This time is to advocate transparency; some parliamentary or civil society’s public auditing system can be established for such cooperation sectors.
e) Justification of the international human/ and material resources
This is another controversial issue, what is the logic behind hiring specified foreign experts? Logic behind it should be cleared. Human and material resources should be recruited in the reference of efficiency. There may be national sensitivity or interest which is required to be mentioned.
f) Distribution of the service and information centers all over the nation
Nearly our Kathmandu centered cascading practice remained in the institution and structures of development are blamed as one of the causes of backwardness. All the bilateral and multilateral assisting organizations are also agreed on it. But they are also following the same as we did earlier. What are the logics to continue such practices? We are talking about the GLOFs and snow melting related data developed in the middle hills. NAPA must discard these practices. Saving funds of unnecessary sectors information center can be established in proper place where we get quality data.


g) Clearance is required in the outcomes (page one)
We are preparing NAPA for climate change. It must clear on the targeted sector and outputs. In the signed paper the area selected is written “the conflict affected area”. It is murky. Which area in Nepal is conflict affected area particularly? Which conflict? Socially constructed or natural disaster created conflict? NAPA must have some limitations; it must choose the projects which are due to climate change. All conflicts are not climate change related. Then we have to be far from populist jargons. In TYIP conflict affected area, people are in priority. It does not mean that we have to keep every thing in the same periphery.

We know the climate changed vulnerabilities are denser in the Himalayan regions. It is due to the specialties remained their other than in the mid-hilly regions. Maoist conflict was scattered in the western mid-hilly regions, first. Terai has another conflict which spread later on. Terai is also in vulnerable due to floods and depositions caused by the land slides of the hills. Then, how NAPA benefits can be distributed in the western mid-hills leaving mountainous and Terai regions, saying that they are conflict affected area?

Conclusion

NAPA is in the preparation phase. The document which I reviewed is just strategical document which can be modified during operational phase. In the operational stage if we include agreed, authentic and dynamic concepts remained in the ground, then it can be made more valuable and meaningful document.