1. Congress summary Some thoughts David Jackson (United Nations Capital Development Fund) DJ: UNCDF 2010

2. The big issues More than one debate going on at the same time Cutting across traditional boundaries and discourses DJ: UNCDF 2010

3. Defining adaptation Organic, routine and natural vs. crisis, extra-ordinary and special Project vs. programme Learning to adapt vs. enforced adaption Who is involved? Urban management industry - Development industry - Crisis industry - Climate Change industry DJ: UNCDF 2010

4. Sovereignty Sovereign versus non sovereign financing Ecosystem versus nation state DJ: UNCDF 2010

5. The case of Bengal Dhaka, Kolkata and Howrah – One history, one ecosystem one challenge DJ: UNCDF 2010

6. North vs. South Wealthy nations with poor cities Wealthy cities in poor nations Problems within the city or between cities? Adaptation versus mitigation? DJ: UNCDF 2010

7. Vulnerability Climate vulnerability vs. climate stability Asset and livelihood vulnerability vs. asset and livelihood resilience DJ: UNCDF 2010

8. Local government and quality of life A lot of adaptation and mitigation improves quality of life – a general local government mandate No regret, no harm is a big factor Politicians can use this point (Climate as a vote winner) Dont be afraid to tell: Communities appreciate honesty – no need to wait for the numbers DJ: UNCDF 2010

9. Using adaptation Incorporating adaptation to land use planning brings opportunities for Ho Chi Minh City Adaptation provides an opportunity to address wider issues e.g. informal settlements in Durban Not too much support for using adaptation to relocate assets that still need to be sweated DJ: UNCDF 2010

10. The devil is in the detail The quality of legal and regulatory environment that constrains life is a fundamental and very important issue For example, can you communicate, regulate and enforce run-off control? Goes right down to the household This remains one of the key dividing lines DJ: UNCDF 2010

11. Local financing (1) Project (Maputo) vs. Programme (Durban) Capital vs. recurrent Own revenue (of all kinds) vs. grants DJ: UNCDF 2010

12. Local financing (2) UNFCCC Commits all parties to formulate, implement, publish and update adaptation measures – within which NAPAs are an option for the LDCs to provide a rigorous assessment of adaptation needs. NAPAs Have been designed to access the funds above and are often framed in terms of large projects and national sector ministries (as of May 2009 40 submitted with total 437 projects worth $1.6bn) eg Early Warning, DRR, water management Local Governments Struggle with holistic adaptation needs and tend to be neglected in the debate. Recognise the local and mundane nature of adaptation DJ: UNCDF 2010

13. Local financing (3) UNFCCC Commits all parties to formulate, implement, publish and update adaptation measures – within which NAPAs are an option for the LDCs to provide a rigorous assessment of adaptation needs. NAPAs Are updated and localised to address systematic and incremental adaptation by local governments adaptation Local Governments Are able to use funds obtained through NAPA and other processes to fill the adaptation funding gap, becoming instruments of adaptaton and co financing with their normal revenue sources DJ: UNCDF 2010

14. Local financing (4) CapitalNon - Capital Recurrent (normally incremental changes in resource envelope) Some air conditioners Teachers Salaries Project (fluctuation in resource envelope, specific approval process, activities of finite duration) A new school building A consultancy to install a new software system 14 Will Climate Proofing come from Recurrent or Project? DJ: UNCDF 2010 Understanding the funding gap