The State of Ecosystem-based Adaptation (EbA) to Climate Change in EbA Policy Analysis -

The State of Ecosystem-based Adaptation (EbA) to Climate Change in 2015 - EbA Policy Analysis - Prepared by Terry Hills for Conservation International 28 July 2015

1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 3 2 - METHOD 4 2.1 SCOPE OF DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED WITHIN REVIEW 4 2.2 SAMPLE SELECTION 5 2.3 ANALYTICAL APPROACH 6 3 DEFINING REVIEW QUESTIONS FROM EBA LITERATURE 7 3.1 HOW PROMINENTLY DOES THE DOCUMENT REFERENCE EBA PRINCIPLES? 7 3.2 HOW EXPLICIT IS THE REFERENCE TO EBA? 7 3.3 IS THE REFERENCE GENERAL OR SPECIFIC TO AN EBA SERVICE? 8 3.4 DOES THE POLICY ACKNOWLEDGE THE LIMITATIONS OF EBA? 9 3.5 DOES THE POLICY SPECIFY CONSIDERATION OR IMPLEMENTATION OF EBA? 9 3.6 DOES THE POLICY DOCUMENT REFER TO THE CORE PRINCIPLES OF EBA POLICY DEVELOPMENT? 10 4 - RESULTS 12 4.1 HOW PROMINENTLY DOES THE DOCUMENT REFERENCE EBA PRINCIPLES? 12 4.2 HOW EXPLICIT IS THE REFERENCE TO EBA AND DOES IT REFER TO A SPECIFIC EBA SERVICE? 13 4.3 DOES THE DOCUMENT ACKNOWLEDGE THE LIMITATIONS OF EBA? 13 4.4 DOES THE DOCUMENT PROPOSE CONSIDERATION OR IMPLEMENTATION OF EBA? 15 4.5 DOES THE POLICY DOCUMENT REFER TO THE CORE PRINCIPLES OF EBA POLICY DEVELOPMENT? 16 4.6 CONSIDERATION OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE BASELINE STUDY 17 5 CONCLUSIONS 19 6 RECOMMENDATIONS 20 ANNEX 1 POLICY DOCUMENTS REVIEWED 22 2

1 Introduction and Background Adaptation policy has risen rapidly in the international negotiations of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) since 2007, with the cumulative impact of a number of substantive decisions relating to adaptation being given an increasing level of attention by parties and observers since that time 1. There are a wide range of aspects to these decisions, including on the role of the natural environment in the adaptation process. Ecosystem-based adaptation (EbA) has been defined by the Convention for Biological Diversity (CBD) Ad-hoc Technical Working Group (AHTEG) as "the use of biodiversity and ecosystem services as part of an overall adaptation strategy to help people to adapt to the adverse effects of climate change". This is a recognition that healthy ecosystems provide multiple benefits (such as carbon storage and pollination services), in addition to specific adaptation enhancement. Further, at the 10th Conference of the Parties (COP) in October 2010, the CBD stated 2 that ecosystem-based approaches for adaptation (EbA): (j) Recognizes that ecosystems can be managed to limit climate change impacts on biodiversity and to help people adapt to the adverse effects of climate change; implement where appropriate ecosystem based approaches for adaptation, that may include sustainable management, conservation and restoration of ecosystems as part of an overall adaptation strategy that takes into account the multiple social economic and cultural co-benefits for local communities. This New Analysis updates the 2013 report 3 prepared by Conservation International (hereafter referred to as the Baseline Analysis ). Both reports were prepared under the German Government s International Climate Initiative (IKI). In providing an update, it seeks to determine what progress has been made since 2013 on issues relating to the seven core questions of the Baseline Analysis, as follows: 1. What is EbA and what are the main elements (including classification issues, keywords, criteria, and guidelines) that define it? 2. How is EbA being framed in the context of climate change and environmental priorities? 3. Is ecosystem management an add-on to adaptation or is adaptation an add-on to ecosystem management, or have these been integrated? 4. How is EbA included in international policy: As a main primary objective, or as a secondary objective or secondary element in a broader policy? 5. How is EbA included in country level policy? 6. What are the key aspects policy makers should consider when addressing EbA during policy design? 7. Are the unique data, research, and science needs of EbA (e.g. specific modeling or indicators on ecosystem health, services relative to human wellbeing, etc.) addressed in policy documents, and if so, what are those needs? And how can policy makers plan to ensure the collection and availability of data to inform EbA? In addition, the extent to which the recommendations from the Baseline Analysis have seen implementation will also be examined (See Annex 2). 1 Khan, M.R. & Roberts, J.T (2013) Adaptation and international climate policy, Clim Change 2013, 4:171-189. 2 CBD Decision X/33 Par. 8, page 3 3 Conservation International (2013) Inclusion of Ecosystem-based Approaches for Adaptation/Ecosystem-based Adaptation (EbA) to Climate Change in International and National Policy August 2013. 3

2 - Method The methodology of the New Analysis will be broadly consistent with the Baseline Analysis, focusing heavily on a desk review. Rather than including consultation with stakeholders within the report process, this report is complemented by a survey (see separate Survey Report), and consultations that were undertaken as a part of a Workshop on EbA in the margins of the UNFCCC SB52 meetings in June 2015 (see Workshop Report). Findings and recommendations for all three products are included within a Synthesis Report. In comparing the method used within the Baseline Analysis and New Analysis: As with the Baseline Analysis, this study did not explore the distinction between ecosystem-based adaptation and ecosystem-based approaches to adaptation The New Analysis has reduced emphasis on the historical evolution of the EbA (i.e. no additional coverage of Key Question 1, from Section 1) The New Analysis has increased depth of analysis to go beyond an identification of presence of EbA-relevant language in the reference (as in the Baseline Analysis) to an appraisal of the quality of that reference (i.e. rather than operating on the assumption that all EbA references will deliver the best adaptation outcomes). Compared to the high-volume content analysis methodology used in the Baseline Analysis, the New Analysis will focus on a smaller sample of documents that deal with the principles of EbA more substantively (but not necessarily explicitly or as their primary objective); many of the documents included within the Baseline Analysis had extremely limited relevance to these principles and it is clear that the specification of EbA objectives in all such documents would not necessarily lead to better adaptation outcomes. In contrast with the Baseline Analysis, the inclusion of EbA in country-level policy will not be limited to the three countries examined in the IKI, but include national-level documents that reflect interest and commitment to approaches consistent with EbA. The method can be divided into three elements: scope of review documents, sample selection and analytical approach, as follows in sections 2.1 to 2.3. 2.1 Scope of documents considered within review It is well acknowledged that adaptation efforts must be tailored to local circumstances, and it is important that such efforts are guided by policies that recognize the specific local vulnerabilities and opportunities to address the vulnerabilities. The Baseline Analysis does not define policy explicitly and includes a wide variety of document types 4. The interpretation of a policy document for this study can be derived from a review of the document types considered within the study scope. Based on a review of the Baseline Analysis sample the following document types are considered to be in scope for the New Policy Analysis (for both international and national documents): Planning (i.e. focused on commitment to the consideration and application of EbA principles in a specific planning context). This is focused on national-level governments and global agreements, including under the Rio Conventions. 4 Webster s Dictionary s (2015) definition of policy: (a) a definite course or method of action selected from among alternatives and in light of given conditions to guide and determine present and future decisions (b) a high-level overall plan embracing the general goals and acceptable procedures especially of a governmental body 4

Donor Support (i.e. focused on how EbA principles must be applied to unlock access to funding or technical support). Guidance and Tools (i.e. focused on how EbA principles could be considered by staff and/or partners of the publishing organization). Project (i.e. illustrates how EbA principles have been applied in a specific project context in reviews and evaluations) Note that some documents include elements of more than one of these categories, so will be classified according to the dominant document objective. Essentially, the New Analysis involved a review of grey literature relevant to EbA (i.e. the document sample) against the standards reflected by the peer-reviewed literature on EbA, and this classification is important in terms of understanding the overall objective of the document sample. 2.2 Sample Selection As with the Baseline Analysis, the study focused on internet searches, focusing on detailed searches within convention and organizational web pages. More specifically, the search approach for the policy sample included an initial focus on the following sources: - UNFCCC Adaptation documents published since 2013 under various bodies of the UNFCCC, in particular the COP, the SBSTA, and the SBI (including the Guidelines for National Adaptation Plans, as well as the Nairobi Work Programme on impacts, vulnerability, and adaptation to climate change). Of particular interest within the UNFCCC is the database on ecosystembased approaches to climate change 5. - Under the CBD, the study reviewed Ad hoc working group reports, SBSTTA official and information documents, and COP decisions since 2013; and for UNCCD, COP and information documents since 2013. - Documents for other Conventions (e.g. Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, Convention on Wetlands, Stockholm Convention, Migratory Species, CITES, Millennium Development Goals, ILO, and Geneva Declarations on Human Rights) were reviewed. - Policy documents and strategies for the following intergovernmental organizations: the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), particularly the World Climate Conference Decisions and reports from 2013; the World Bank; United Nations Agencies (United Nations Development Program-UNDP, and United Nations Environmental Program-UNEP); Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD); International Monetary Fund (IMF); World Trade Organization (WTO); and financial mechanisms, such as the Global Environment Facility (GEF) Adaptation Fund. Lastly, this analysis includes policy documents or position papers developed by international NGOs (Birdlife, CI, CARE, IUCN, Oxfam, TNC, and WWF) and included a focus on documents that referenced monitoring and evaluation of adaptation exercises. Unlike the Baseline Analysis, analysis of national-level documents was not separated from the analysis of international documents. Ultimately, effective global policy must influence government decision-makers at the national and sub-national level; a trickle down of concepts would be an important indicator of effectiveness of such global policies. However, it is difficult to attribute a particular national or sub-national policy to global efforts without detailed interviews with policy-makers at the relevant levels to explore motivations. In addition, a focus on the evolution of national policy in the IKI countries of Brazil, Philippines and South Africa could be interpreted as a policy impact evaluation of the IKI program, which is beyond the scope of this report. 5 http://unfccc.int/adaptation/nairobi_work_programme/knowledge_resources_and_publications/items/6227.php 5

Keywords used for the identification of policy documents included: EbA, ecosystem based adaptation; as well as adaptation and ecosystem services, ecosystem goods; ecosystem based management; ecosystem management; ecosystem based approaches; biodiversity; green infrastructure; ecological infrastructure; soft infrastructure; natural infrastructure or ecosystem approach. Unlike the Baseline Analysis, the following search strings were not used as it was considered that the results would be too broad: socio-ecosystems; conservation and restoration of ecosystems; ecosystems and people; wise use; wetlands; social-ecological systems/approaches; sustainable management; interconnectedness; biological diversity; Integr*; Integrated approaches adaptation; Ecological systems; Forest; watershed; wetland; woodland; drylands; grassland; coral reef; coastal; mangrove; tree; agro forestry; resource management; environmental services. Note that the documents within the scope of the Baseline Analysis were from January 2008 to December 2012, while the New Analysis covers the period of January 2013 to May 2015. Care was taken to avoid double-counting (i.e. given that the Baseline Analysis was completed from March April 2013). 2.3 Analytical Approach As mentioned above, the New Analysis creates an opportunity for increased depth of analysis. Clearly some of the core questions specified in Section 1 will see more movement over a two year period than others. For example, the definition and main elements associated with EbA (Question 1) will not likely see much evolution. However, other questions may see significant progress in knowledge and practice over two years such as Questions 4 and 5 on framing within national and international policy. This provides an opportunity to look at the quality of policy references in more depth. In further exploring Question 2 on How is Eba being framed, the New Policy Analysis seeks to characterize EbA policy references against an extended classification framework in order to better describe the quality or appropriateness of that reference against the best practice. Specifically, a 3 rd step has been added to the classification method for the New Policy Analysis, as illustrated in Figure 1. 6

The following section reviews the current literature and establishes a detailed review framework for EbA policy references (i.e. for elaboration of Step 3 in Figure 1). Specifically, the following section unpacks the issues associated with best practice (i.e. as defined by peer-reviewed literature) in order to develop a practical scanning framework for the EbA references in the document sample. 3 Defining Review Questions from EbA Literature This section considers the body of peer-reviewed literature on EbA effectiveness which is relevant to the policy context, essentially answering Core Question 6: What are the key aspects policy makers should consider when addressing EbA during policy design? Evidence from the peer-reviewed literature is translated into questions for the review framework; enabling a review against Core Questions 2-5 and 7 from the Baseline Analysis. Core question 1 is not considered as it relates to definitions and was resolved through the Baseline Analysis. In defining these review questions, it is important to note that there are still divergent views on relative potential of strategies, approaches and actions that best meet adaptation objectives, including for EbA 6. 3.1 How prominently does the document reference EbA principles? As with the Baseline Analysis, whether the document referenced EbA as a main/primary objective, a secondary objective (or element) for policy, or unspecified/general within the document will be examined. Essentially, this can be used as a proxy for prominence of the EbA concept within the policy document. For example, in the Baseline Analysis statements such as 60% of policy documents from (the study sample of) conservation and development organizations reference EbA as a secondary objective was able to be made. Given the primary objective of EbA is to help people adapt to climate change, the specification of EbA as the primary objective is somewhat problematic. In addition, given that one of the key challenges of EbA relates to the complexities of multi-agency management 7, to have an ecosystem-based approach as front and centre may present a barrier to such collaboration, and a focus on sustainable development in the context of climate change may be more galvanizing theme for diverse institutions. 3.2 How explicit is the reference to EbA? The Baseline Analysis also included a characterization of whether EbA was referenced explicitly (i.e. ecosystem-based approaches to adaptation or ecosystem-based adaptation) or implicitly (i.e. within the general concept defined by the CBD as specified in the introduction). This was used to create a narrative on the evolution of the official concept in the Baseline Analysis, for example: implicit references to the concept of EbA appear in the 2003 Ramsar Convention reports and explicit references appear as early as 2005. In the most comprehensive review of EbA evidence to date, Doswald et al (2014) 8 noted that only 22% of the fully analyzed papers were officially labelled as EbA, the rest being 6 Munang et al (2013) Climate Change and Ecosystem-based Adaptation: A new pragmatic approach to buffering climate change impacts, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 5:67-71. 7 Lukasiewicz et al (2015) Institutional challenges of adopting ecosystem-based adaptation to climate change, Regional Environmental Change. 8 Doswald et al (2014) Effectiveness of ecosystem-based approaches for adaptation: review of the evidence base, Climate and Development, 6:2 185-201. 7

categorized as EbA-relevant given their relationship to climate hazards. Similarly, in a systematic review of evidence for a specific EbA service (coastal vegetation and sea-level rise) only 18% of the document sample made an explicit reference to EbA 9. Hence, given that most of the evidence for EbA effectiveness does not explicitly refer to EbA, the lack of an explicit EbA-reference may not be barrier for implementation of EbA-relevant. However, such an absence may make it harder to track the collective evidence-base, connect with an EbA network and access dedicated EbA funding resources. In practice, a better indicator of success may be whether a policy is consistent with the principles of EbA, rather than whether a specific reference is made to EbA as a discrete discipline. 3.3 Is the reference general or specific to an EbA service? There is a rapidly expanding body of peer-reviewed literature on the relative effectiveness of EbA when compared to other conventional approaches. This literature either treats EbA collectively, or according to a specific EbA service. Doswald et al (2014) focused on the systematic mapping of EbA-relevant peer-reviewed literature (n = 81) and a sample (n= 32) of grey literature. The results of this study included a characterization of the services and ecosystem contexts, including the following: Services provided: Major service categories were agriculture (47%), water (15%), forestry(7%), urban(8%), alternative livelihoods(8%) and coastal protection (9%). Ecosystem types: Major ecosystem types were coastal (12%), forest/plantation (14%), wetlands (15%) and arable/agroforestry (31%) This suggests that agriculture is the most common application for EbA, which is consistent with the results of Pramova et al (2012) 10 in which 32% of references within National Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPA) focused on providing food to livelihoods. Clearly, EbA is used in some contexts more than others, and the evidence base in the more common areas would likely be more advanced. Box 1 elaborates on EbA in the context of agricultural production one of the sectors in which people have a direct dependency on ecosystems and where practices which could be considered EbA are commonly part of the mix of management options. Box 1 Examples of EbA in Agriculture 9 Sierra-Correa et al (2015) Ecosystem-based adaptation for improving coastal planning for sea-level rise: A systematic review for mangrove coasts, Marine Policy, 51, 385-393. 10 Pramova et al (2012) Ecosystem services in National Adaptation Programmes of Action, Climate Policy, 12:4, 393-409. 8

A study under CI s Cascade project (also an IKI project) examined three sources of information to establish the top ten most frequently referred management practices for reducing the negative impacts of extreme weather events for coffee and basic grain farmers in Central America see table below. The most cited options for reducing the impact of extreme events are EbA options such as shade management, live barriers and traditional agroforestry systems. Source: http://www.conservation.org/publications/documents/ci_ecosystem-based-adaptation- CASCADE-Bautista-Solis-Wallace-Conference-poster.pdf 3.4 Does the policy acknowledge the limitations of EbA? It is increasingly recognized that EbA has significant potential to reduce human vulnerability, but also that it is not always the best solution to reduce local human vulnerability. While the broad distribution of cost and benefits in EbA are generally difficult to accommodate in engineering or economic assessments 11, even with full accommodation of these benefits in a decision-making process EbA may not be the superior option. Recognition of this possibility is important for full integration of EbA into decision-making. Consideration of the level of commitment to EbA and the rationale for that commitment can be examined, and speaks to the motivation of the policy in relation to the balance of conservation and development objectives. A related concept is effective communication with policy-makers. Those wishing to encourage policymakers to consider the merits of EbA in adaptation planning not only need access to relevant evidence, but also need to communicate this evidence in the language of the decision-maker. This may not be focused on conservation outcomes, but on outcomes with greater political currency, such as poverty reduction, reduced disaster risk, economic benefits or employment. 3.5 Does the policy specify consideration or implementation of EbA? 11 Ojea (2015) Challenges to mainstreaming ecosystem-based adaptation into the international climate agenda, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 14:41-8. 9

EbA represents an opportunity for decision-makers to plan for an uncertain future with new choices and options 12. However, as the number of such options increase, it becomes more difficult to appreciate the applicability, strengths and weaknesses of the full spectrum of options and decision-makers could be captured by special interests through the provision of subsidized information (i.e. a community-focused NGO is more likely to present evidence in favor of community-based solutions to vulnerability). Based on the documents considered within the Baseline Analysis, EbA policy either recommends a process for consideration of EbA as one of the possible solutions (which could conceivably result in the implementation of a non-eba solution), or recommends implementation of activities involving utilization of ecosystem services as the solution to a specific vulnerability. The evidence that is sought in this step are references to assessment processes in which the merits of EbA were compared to non-eba alternatives, or a requirement to do so. One of the key challenges for implementation of this step is lack of evidence of the relative effectiveness of EbA when compared to alternatives. Again, this was part of Doswald s (2014) investigation, noting that: Examination of multiple options: 50% of the peer-reviewed articles examined multiple adaptation options, but only 10% included detailed analyses of these options. 25% of the grey literature considered multiple adaptation options, generally in little detail. Cost-benefit analysis: Most discussion of costs and benefits was fairly superficial rather than in the form of a full analysis. Effectiveness: 63% of studies of peer-reviewed literature included quantifiable measure of success, and only 31% of the grey literature. Limits: 56% of the peer-reviewed literature and 26% of the grey literature discussed thresholds, limits and boundaries to EbA effectiveness. Clearly, this suggests that the evidence base for EbA is still somewhat lacking, but it also suggests elements which would improve the quality of performance information for EbA. In addition, it suggests that the grey literature includes around half of the elements which would be useful to building the evidence base when compared to the peer-reviewed literature. In the absence of such an information base, it could be argued that responsible policy should focus heavily on performance monitoring. 3.6 Does the policy document refer to the core principles of EbA policy development? The consistency of a policy with any or all of the principles as described in IUCN s Guidance on EbA is likely to reduce risk and improve effectiveness. These principles include 13 : 1. EbA promotes multisectoral approaches 2. EbA operates at multiple geographic scales 3. EbA integrates flexible management structures that enable adaptive management 4. EbA minimizes trade-offs and maximizes benefits with development and conservation goals to avoid unintended negative social and environmental impacts 5. EbA is based on the best available science and local knowledge, and should foster knowledge generation and diffusion 6. EbA is about promoting resilient ecosystems and using nature-based solutions to provide benefits to people, especially the most vulnerable 12 Lavorel et al (2015) Ecological mechanisms underpinning climate adaptation services, Global Change Biology, 21, 12-31. 13 Andrade et al (2011) Draft principles and guidelines for integrating ecosystem-based approaches to adaptation in project and policy design A discussion document, CATIE. 10

7. EbA must be participatory, transparent, accountable and culturally appropriate, while actively embracing equity and gender issues. Note that many of these principles are consistent with principles of good development and conservation practice, and while they may not be found to be associated directly with the EbA reference, they may be a part of the broader policy for implementation. As such, absence of such links may not be a critical deficiency in the document, but may warrant closer examination of this aspect in overarching policy documentation. The following section reviews the document sample against the quality-relevant questions and associated criteria from section 3.1 to 3.6. 11

4 - Results The documents that were reviewed as a part of this study are present as Annex 1, linked to the main text through the use of numbers in parentheses. As all documents do not deal with each criteria extensively, quotes for particular case studies are used to illustrate the range of performance against the criteria. 4.1 How prominently does the document reference EbA principles? As noted in the method, explicit presentation of EbA in policy cannot be assumed to be a necessary determinant of success. Indeed, mainstreaming may be more effective if the term is not explicitly used. Hence, while the comparisons between the New Analysis and the Baseline Analysis are presented below, the conclusions that can be drawn from this are limited given both the differences in sampling methodology and also the lack of evidence to correlate the quality of the policy reference with adaptation effectiveness. In the Baseline Analysis, explicitness is described according to organization type, and Table 1 compares the two time periods in this manner: Table 1 Priority and Explicitness of Objective Organisation Type % Primary in Baseline % Primary in New % Explicit in Baseline % Explicit in New Rio convention documents 4 75 60 50 Other conventions 0 0 71 0 Multilateral/Bilateral 29 64 48 73 NGOs 40 78 60 78 There are a range of issues that underpin these figures. For example, NGO s developed position papers on EbA in support of the CBD (COP10) and UNFCCC (COP15) meetings in 2009, so this period represented a peak in explicit references. Another issue in relation to the comparability is the smaller, more targeted sample that was included within the New Analysis, so a higher proportion of explicit EbA documents with a primary objective is expected. Over the time period within the scope of the New Analysis, significant work has been done under the CBD to link the National Adaptation Planning (NAP) process with the National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plan (NBSAP) process. This work has included (but not been limited to) an explicit focus on EbA, and also noted the need for global efforts to gather and disseminate relevant information (8). One of the EbA-relevant fields of work that has received significant attention since the Baseline Analysis has been Ecosystem-based Disaster Risk Reduction or Eco-DRR. A recent UNEP discussion paper (21) has considered the relationship and opportunities for synergy between EbA and Eco-DRR. More recently, the Sendai Framework for DRR was endorsed by the UN General Assembly, and this important document notes the importance of preserving ecosystem functions that reduce risk (24). Clearly, DRR is a particular area of work which would benefit from greater linkages with the conservation-focused work of EbA (21), but there is a risk that such opportunities will continue to be missed because they operate on parallel policy and funding tracks. 12

Another significant opportunity for synergy is the ongoing discussions on REDD+, given the focus on co-benefits. As these discussions are also undertaken within the UNFCCC, linkages should be easier than with Eco-DRR, but no evidence of REDD+ projects that include an EbA component can be found. 4.2 How explicit is the reference to EbA and does it refer to a specific EbA service? One of the challenges of interpretation of results within this category is the range of contexts in which EbA is used. Across the document sample it is variously described as a strategy, a process (8) a holistic approach (2) and a solution to the challenges of vulnerability (12). Within the EbA-explicit documents considered within the Baseline Analysis, there was a strong focus on general EbA guidance (i.e. not focused on a specific geography or sector). Specifically, while there was a recognition within these general documents that there is a need to tailor efforts to local circumstances and consider a range of services, little detail is provided on how this might be possible. Based on the documents considered within the New Analysis, the Tools and Guidance category of EbA-relevant documents is evolving to a greater focus on both specific EbA services and regional applicability. Strong examples of this focus include documents (6) and (2) from the sample. This suggests that efforts to contextualize EbA for local application may have increased since the Baseline Study was completed. Such an increase in focus is consistent with the recommendations of the Baseline Analysis, which proposed the provision of assistance to: National and sub-national decision-makers to incorporate current elements and best available scientific information, guidance and tools and EbA. Based on this trend, it is suggested that international institutions are taking a greater focus on narrowing in their guidance to national and sectoral contexts. In addition, which some of these locally-specific forms of guidance may be applicable to other contexts, it is the collaborative local process in which they were developed that has presumably created a high degree of ownership; i.e. compared to a general, international framework that is imposed externally. Finally, it is clear that the EbA concept is growing in popularity, with a range of predominantly regional networks dedicated to information sharing related to the concept. For example, the EbA Community of Practice includes over 1,800 registered members from more than 50 countries as at February 2015. The ongoing success of these networks will be dependent on their ability to efficiently facilitate the sharing of relevant information across parties, including through south-south exchanges. There will likely be an increasing expectation within such networks that discussions are highly focused on the sectors and ecosystems of most relevance. 4.3 Does the document acknowledge the limitations of EbA? 13

The policy documents reviewed as part of the New Policy Analysis illustrate a strong recognition of the limitations of the EbA (74% of documents), and it is clear from the peerreviewed literature the need to build the evidence base is urgent. This is in contrast to the documents from the Baseline Analysis sample, in which such recognition is rare. Table 2 provides examples of the language used in relation to limitations. Based on the sample, the enthusiasm for EbA is tempered. Table 2 References to Limitations of EbA No acknowledgement of limitations " not only results in increased yields, but also enhances the productivity of ecosystems and consequently builds community resilience against climate change"(2) Acknowledgment of limitations systematic consideration of the applicability, limitations, and risks of EbA options compared to traditional, often hard, infrastructure alternatives (7) In some cases the impacts of climate change may be so large that only engineered solutions will work (5) Almost an assumption that it will be more cost-effective: Better evidence is needed to support and encourage EbA use (12) However, the recognition of this urgency does not translate to a consistent recommendation across policies that strong, long term monitoring and evaluation frameworks are necessary for the upscaling of EbA. Box 2 illustrates instances in which performance requirements are characterized within the document sample. Box 2 References to Monitoring and Evaluation This study notes that only 39% of projects reviewed had some information on monitoring project outcomes, also that outcomes of the interventions are contingent upon multiple factors and project goals tend to be broad and vague (21) The theory of change approach potentially has multiple benefits for application to EbA projects, including helping teams balance multiple objectives, understand relationships between different objectives and interventions, and deal with the time lags required to observe ecological and social change (22) Includes a set of mutually supporting result areas: Eco-DRR mainstreamed into development policies and plans, New partnerships and collaborative initiatives on Eco-DRR established, Strengthened local/national capacities to implement Eco-DRR, Field demonstrations are able demonstrate contribution to Eco-DRR. M&E typically not developed until too late (29) Challenges in monitoring and evaluating ecosystem-based approaches for adaptation with respect to: attribution, time frame, cost, calibration, impact and evidence base and to design and use simple monitoring and indicator systems (local to national levels) will be challenging if simplicity and causality are to be achieved (20) "By demonstrating the long term benefits of this type of adaptation it is possible to build local support" (12) Hence, there is recognition of the need for the improvements in M&E and the barriers to this issue, but no solutions. While a silver bullet should not be expected, there may be opportunities to improve performance of EbA in this area. One opportunity for this may be to focus on the establishment of resources that allow the early designation of detailed 14

objectives, without which M&E would not be possible; ideally this could be linked to the Vulnerability and Adaptation (V&A) process. In projects that do have M&E frameworks, they are often generated too late. Conservation International s work on Theories of Change (22) is relevant here, and could be revisited for application within a V&A framework. One promising development in this area is the new project being developed under IKI: Ecosystem-based approaches to adaptation: strengthening the evidence and informing policy. Only limited details are available on this new project at time of writing, but it is expected to have a strong case-study focus. 4.4 Does the document propose consideration or implementation of EbA? As noted in the method, the documents can be characterized according to whether they require consideration (i.e. comparison of EbA with other solutions) or proposes implementation of a specific EbA solution (i.e. either without such consideration, or referencing prior consideration, such as through a V&A process). Based on the documents considered within the New Analysis, it is suggested that the emphasis within the more recent documents is on the consideration of EbA against other alternatives, rather than the presentation of EbA as the optimal solution in the local context. Specifically, only 10% of the sampled documents appear to involve implementation of EbA solutions without an explicit consideration EbA against alternatives. Table 3 Example of Consideration vs Implementation Examples of consideration "The ability to compare EbA solutions with conventional solutions"(4) "Projects implementing EbA measures should include cost-benefit analyses, comparing EbA in relation to grey measures"(14) Examples of implementation Countries will have submitted specific requests for technical assistance with implementation of EbA" (18) Implementation based on NAPA priorities (17) This represents an important evolution in the thinking about EbA, defining it as a process and a solution to vulnerability: as an option that is relevant to a range of intervention points in a process, but which increasingly, must be guided by a strong evidence base when compared to alternatives. The sample includes various documentation associated with funding arrangements for adaptation: the German Government s International Adaptation Initiative (23), the Global Environment Facility (13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19) and the Green Climate Fund (11). While these are not policy documents, they represent the interpretation of funding organsiations policies relating to EbA and hence are an important element of discussion. In relation to IKI, the 2016 funding window again sees EbA as a priority as one of the priority areas for investment. This includes a focus on interplay among sectors (especially water, energy and food), on maintenance of the functions of the ecosystems linked directly to the hydrological regime (water catchment management), and on strengthening resilience to climate-related extreme events. In addition to EbA, the IKI program also supports work in REDD+ and biodiversity with one of overarching goals to maximise synergies between the fields of climate protection and biodiversity conservation. 15

Over the review period, there have been 6 projects entering the GEF project pipeline that explicitly refer to EbA, currently totaling USD107M in approved projects 14 (13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19). In consideration of the funding documentation, the extent to which a project proposal is based on the National Adaptation Programme of Action (NAPA) is an important consideration. Specifically, priority adaptation under a NAPA which involves the maintenance or improvement of ecosystem services relevant to human resilience (e.g. forest restoration for watershed management) are the typical the foundation for EbA. In this case, as the NAPA s vulnerability assessment has already identified EbA-relevant adaptation solutions as a priority, the consideration stage has been demonstrated upstream. This suggests that the quality of the V&A within the NAPA process may be worth considering, in particular the method used for comparison of the EbA option with alternatives. In contrast, another type of EbA GEF project (18) was not guided by a previous analysis but seeks to find opportunities in the cities where EbA is the most cost-effective option (i.e. rather than identify which adaptation is option most cost-effective in considering the whole of system vulnerability) to grow the evidence base: an example of the implementation type of EbA project. Hence, implicit in such projects is the acknowledgement from the donor that the EbA options are not necessarily the most cost effective ways of reducing human vulnerability or that the decision to focus on EbA has resulted from informed decision of the full spectrum of options. The STAP review documentation for some GEF projects within the sample (16, 17) repeatedly emphasizes the need for cost-effectiveness analysis; a common shortcoming in project documentation under the GEF for EbA. The reluctance of the STAP to allow any GEF project to be approved without consideration of economic analysis is a significant example of a policy which requires consideration or EbA. Currently, based on the STAP review documentation the level of detail on such cost-effectiveness is not significant, but it could be expected to grow in the future. In relation to the GCF, the criteria and process for project approval is still in process at time of writing. However, current drafts (11) note that co-benefits are desirable for adaptation projects. However, it is clear that demonstration of such co-benefits would require a strong evidence base. Hence, activities seeking funding for EbA would generally benefit from: Well articulated description of the capacity of EbA to deliver primary benefits when compared to alternatives AND the co-benefits of EbA to be recieved is clear, so that cost-effectiveness can be undertaken. Indicators that measure ecosystem health and measures that measure the ecosystem services delivered to the communities that strengthen their coping strategies to address climate risk. 4.5 Does the policy document refer to the core principles of EbA policy development? While consistency within the document sample with the principles described by Andrade et al (2011) is not always explicit, it can be assumed that the majority of the international organisations that release these publications have safeguards to ensure their consideration. 14 Includes co-financing. 30.3M without co-financing. Note that this list includes projects that have reached the CEO Approved or the Council Approved Stages. 16

Nevertheless, the explicit description of these principles would improve the quality of these documents. In an opportunity for direct comparison, the UNFCCC offered the following principles underlying ecosystem-based approaches to adaptation (20) 15 : a) Understanding that maintenance of ecosystem services can be achieved by conserving ecosystem structure and function; b) Recognizing that ecosystems are complex, have limits and are interconnected; c) Understanding that ecosystems evolve and change over time and that, until recently, the major drivers of long-term ecosystem change was from climate shifts. As a result, ecosystems are naturally resilient and adaptable to some rates of change; d) Ensuring participatory decision-making that is decentralized to the lowest accountable level, and is flexible and adaptive; e) Managing ecosystems at the appropriate spatial and temporal scales; f) Using information and knowledge from all sources, including traditional, local and contemporary scientific sources, and recognizing that such information needs to be gathered and validated. These principles clearly have some overlap with those presented by Andrade et al (2011) but references to the most vulnerable and flexible management structures are not present. Point (f) has particular implications for M&E, acknowledging the need to integrate a wide range of information from decision-makers. It should also be noted that other documents describe a set of principles that, compared to those described by Andrade et al (2011) are more specific to a geography and set of services, as shown in Box 3: Box 3 Reference to EbA Principles Nominates 5 basic considerations and a set of 7 steps for planning and implementing effective EbA schemes; which would be applicable outside the coastal context (6) Notes that Eco-DRR projects are focused more heavily on human wellbeing outcomes relating to a spectrum of climate and non-climate hazards, less on the conservation of biodiversity (21) Based on this review it appears that the various interpretations of EbA have resulted in a set of slightly different principles for implementation in different contexts when compared to those developed globally. It is suggested that this flexibility may be an important part of building a locally owned product, and is not necessarily a risk to EbA effectiveness. Similarly, variations in the core objectives result in a necessary variation of approach (i.e. in the case in DRR). 4.6 Consideration of the Recommendations of the Baseline Study The Baseline Analysis recommends the development of training manuals for costeffectiveness analysis for EbA. Despite the additional tools and guidance available since the completion of the Baseline Study, the level of guidance is still quite limited, as follows in Box 4: Box 4 Cost-effectiveness References 15 UNFCCC SBSTA 38 th Session: Report on the technical workshop on ecosystem-based approaches to climate change Note by the Secretariat. 17

Step 2.3 involves Assessing the Cost-Effectiveness of EbA Responses and offers a four page description of method and examples (7) Notes that scaling up of EbA requires: Clearly documented economic arguments showing relative costs of EbA to other solutions (9) No coverage of cost effectiveness, but willingness to pay for green roofs used. (3) " projects implementing EbA measures should include cost-benefit analyses, comparing EbA in relation to grey measures" (14) Generally, the relative cost-effectiveness of EbA is still flagged within the documents (7, 9); almost an assumption that it will be more cost-effective with the right data: Better evidence is needed to support and encourage EbA use (12). It should also be noted that the costeffectiveness methodology has limitations in relation to consideration of co-benefits (by definition it assumed that effectiveness can be described using a single, non-financial parameter 16 ) so other economic mechanisms should be explored, as per some of the guidance reviewed (25). The need for meaningful economic information is still a central need within EbA practitioner networks, with the February 2015 report from the EbA Community of Practice 17 concluding that: Economic analyses are critical to the incorporation of EbA policies into local, regional, national and international planning Cost-benefit analysis may be a better choice in relation to EbA, but accurate assessments of co-benefits are very difficult. 16 Pearce et al (2006) Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Environment Recent Developments, OECD Publishing, Paris. 17 http://ebacommunity.com/en/knowledge-center/library/item/455-event-report-international-meeting 18

5 Conclusions Generally, it is clear that progress is being made in EbA policy: global guidance is being translated to regional and national-levels, and a number of large-scale projects that support EbA are in progress. However, the lack of evidence is constraining suitable reflection of EbA within international and national policy: EbA cannot be competitive when the costs and benefits of EbA are compared with non-eba alternatives because of a) the broad distribution of services and b) uncertainties associated with these services. In addition, both the level of investment and the quality of evidence is inconsistent across the various adaptation-relevant ecosystem services (EbA-services) with work on climate-resilient food productivity being the most well-progressed. As discussed in the method, it is important that the results of the New Analysis can be presented in contrast to the findings the Baseline Analysis, despite the slight differences in method between the two studies. A number of trends can be identified based on the core characteristics of the EbA policy in the two periods. In consideration of these trends, two alternative scenarios for the future can be established that describe broad trajectories of both international and national EbA policy, as per Figure 3. Figure 3 Evolution of EbA Policy and Future Scenarios These future scenarios are not mutually exclusive, and combinations are possible. For example, for EbA services in which the evidence base is more advanced, such as for coastal vegetation for sea level rise 18, a greater emphasis on integrated decision-making may be warranted; the evidence-base already supports some comparisons between EbA and non-eba solutions. However, where the evidence base is insufficient for such integrated decisionmaking a focus on evidence building is appropriate. 18 Sierra-Correa et al (2015) Ecosystem-based adaptation for improving coastal planning for sea-level rise: A systematic review for mangrove coasts, Marine Policy, 51, 385-393. 19

One of the main constraints of the study relates to the underlying difficulty in characterizing EbA effectiveness. Without such information, it is difficult to argue that policies that are explicit in their focus on EbA as a primary objective are more effective. However, this challenge is aggravated by projects typically being established with broad and vague objectives. In the cases where detailed objectives are established, they tend to be later in the project cycle which reduces their utility. Policy that both requires and supports improvements in this area is a critical area of improvement for building the evidence base for EbA. 6 Recommendations RECOMMENDATION 1 Consistent with the Nairobi Work Programme (NWP) international organizations take an explicit focus on policies that subsidize the generation of evidence for EbA (i.e. without necessarily needing to demonstrate that EbA is the most cost-effective solution to local vulnerability before investment: see Future Scenario 1 in Figure 3), untilpredetermined criteria on quality of global evidence has been met for that EbA service 19. Following that point, a focus on policies consistent with Future Scenario 2 (Integrated Decision-making) for that EbA service would be appropriate. RECOMMENDATION 2 The evidence for EbA is collected, organized and presented around sectors (e.g. urban development) and specific EbA services (i.e. resilience of food productivity, regulation of water quantity, etc) RECOMMENDATION 3 That M&E tools and guidance for EbA are framed to a) distinguish between and b) accommodate the consideration and quantification of both primary adaptation benefits (EbA services) and co-benefits. RECOMMENDATION 4 That the focus on regional and nationally-focused guidance is improved, and builds on existing experiences (and associated potential for south-south exchanges) in this area. RECOMMENDATION 5 That the priorities for evidence synthesis on EbA are disaster risk reduction and food security given the greater body of project experiences in these areas. RECOMMENDATION 6 That the existing EbA networks liaise closely and consider options which will provide sustainability beyond project-based funding windows, and their efforts feed systematically into the UNFCCC database on ecosystem-based approaches to adaptation 20. RECOMMENDATION 7 That the body of evidence outside the EbA-focused peer-reviewed literature (estimated to be around 78% of EbA-relevant literature) is systematically analyzed to support the evidence base in recommendation 1. RECOMMENDATION 8 That capable organizations are designated as sector/eba service leader for the management of the global evidence-base. RECOMMENDATION 9 That online training, similar to the IKI training on mitigation is established for EbA and contextualized for regional institutions and national governments 21. 19 Such criteria could provide a rating for each EbA service based on: potential for delivery of primary service, potential for delivery of co-benefits, assumptions and dependencies in delivery of services. 20 http://unfccc.int/adaptation/nairobi_work_programme/knowledge_resources_and_publications/items/6227.ph p 21 http://www.international-climate-initiative.com/en/news-detail/article/online-training-developing-nationalmitigation-actions/ 20