Need a bottom-up action plan to tackle climate change challenge

While a top-down climate risk model captures climate hazards and exposure, vulnerability assessment is not yet in sync with a climate action plan.

For instance, the National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC), constituted in 2008 with eight overarching National Missions on climate change, has not been aligned with the State Action Plan on Climate Change (SAPCC).

The sixth assessment report of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) emphasises the necessity of a bottom-up climate action plan. But there are a few concerns: (a) how to develop a bottom-up climate action plan? (b) how can the NAPCC and SAPCC align with adaptation and mitigation strategies? (c) how do we reduce the climate finance gap, and would the National Adaptation Fund for Climate Change (NAFCC) bridge this gap?

As SDG 13 focuses on climate action, the NAPCC and SAPCC should take stock of the climate-hazard-prone States’ commitments and mitigation strategies.

For example, Himachal Pradesh SAPCC 2.0 (2021–2030) proposed a framework embracing the bio-physical achievement of proposed climate action, financial commitments (aggregate and adjusted), and alignment with the mission and Nationally Determined Commitments and SDGs.

Second, climate projections and analysis are critical to developing a State-wise climate profile and action plan.

Third, vulnerability assessment is critical to developing the SAPCC. Working Group II Agricultural Research Service illustrated the climate change vulnerability as cause-and-effect relationships between climate and socio-economic processes classified into socio-economic pathways, adaptation and mitigation actions, and governance (IPCC, 2014). The integrated vulnerability index computation should consider hazard-linked; exposure-linked; sensitivity-linked; and adaptive capacity-linked indicators.

Fourth, climate profile and vulnerability assessment should drive climate adaptation and mitigation strategies following a participatory stakeholder assessment.

Fifth, findings from a climate-smart agriculture intervention as adaptation and mitigation strategies in India’s Himalayan region, especially Himachal Pradesh (Sirmaur), show that farmers prefer sprinkler/drip irrigation as water-smart technology, fertigation/integrated nutrient management, and knowledge-smart technologies through improved planting materials, zero tillage as carbon and energy-smart practices and indigenous anti-hail gun and weather-based insurance as weather-smart technologies.

There is paucity of funds for these projects in addition to NAFCC and Krishi Kosh as credit-linked back-ended subsidy scheme.

Policy suggestions

First, aligning climate action plans with adaptation and mitigation requires an integrated approach and should draw a convergence between state and national missions, commitments, and SDGs. Second, a bottom-up climate action plan can align localised adaptation and mitigation with required climate finance. For example, Green Climate Fund (GCF) Readiness Program is gaining traction; the total financial support provided as a percentage of core activities to Parties underlying the Framework Convention on Climate Change secretariat has increased between 2011-18. Furthermore, the NAFCC and impact investing can bring additional risk capital to bridge the climate finance gap.

Third, IPCC’s sixth assessment report suggests that a legitimate climate action plan can promote the use of advanced technologies, influence regional partnerships and learning, and improve forecasting capabilities and risk awareness.

Fourth, policy think tanks can draw lessons from the impact of climate on socio-economic processes and enable strategic knowledge networks for climate change and align climate action plans with localized adaptation and mitigation.

Dey teaches at IIM Lucknow, Kumar teaches at IIM Calcutta. Views expressed are personal

COMMENT NOW