Institutional context for adaptation planning

This section provides a background on the functions of different institutions involved at different levels and their roles in climate change adaptation planning based on the relevant documents confirmed through interviews. It then moves to comments and views expressed by interviewees that are intended attitude towards the different processes and programmes. This provides insight into the internal institutional context within which LAPAs are prepared and operated.

At the national level, the Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment (MoSTE) is the designated focal point and lead Ministry to coordinate and implement overall climate change adaptation

activities in Nepal. In 2009, the government of Nepal formed the Climate Change Council, which is a high-level coordination body chaired by the Prime Minister. The Climate Change Management Division (CCMD) in MoSTE was established in 2010 in order to coordinate the climate change activities. This division consists of three sections: climate change section, sustainable development and adaptation section, and clean development mechanism section. The sustainable development and adaptation section is responsible for strategic planning of programmes on sustainable

development and climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction, as well as its

implementation and monitoring. A Multi-stakeholder Climate Change Initiatives Coordination Committee (MCCICC) was also formed in 2010 and chaired by the Secretary of MoSTE, to coordinate collaboration on climate change programmes among line ministries, international and national non- governmental organisations, development partners, private sector and academia. The MCCICC reports to the Climate Change Council.

Another important Ministry is the Ministry of Federal Affairs and Local Development (MoFALD) which has a physical presence and governance structure down to local level. District Development

under MoFALD. According to the provisions of the Local Self Governance Act (LSGA) 1999, the DDCs are accountable for the management of natural resources within the district, but according to the Forest Act 1993, the District Forests Offices (DFOs) are responsible and hold the authority to manage forests in the district. However, the national framework on LAPA has resolved this apparent

confusion by designating DDCs and VDCs as the key agencies at local level for adaptation planning which is appropriate, as they are multi-sector and multidisciplinary.

The Alternative Energy Promotion Centre (AEPC), under the MoSTE, is responsible for promoting and undertaking renewable energy programmes. It is governed by a board with eleven members who are representatives from the government sector, industry sector and non-governmental organisations working on renewable energy. AEPC functions independently, and operates through the energy units (now renamed District Energy and Environment Units/Sections) under DDC. The District Energy and Environment Units/Sections (DEEU/S) contribute to the LAPA process through technical support from MoSTE and AEPC and administrative support from DDC (Figure 5.1).

Figure 5.1 Institutional context at National level for climate change adaptation (arrows indicate the flow of influence; non-arrowed lines indicate established linkage)

MoSTE: Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment; MoFALD: Ministry of Federal Affairs and Local Development; MoFSC: Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation; MCCICC: Multi-stakeholder Climate Change Initiatives Coordination Committee; I/NGOs: International/Non-government Organisations; DFO: District Forest Office; DDC: District Development Committee; DEEU/S: District Energy and Environment Unit/Sector; AEPC: Alternative Energy Promotion Center.

However, the interviews undertaken at different level for this study demonstrate that institutional structure and its function are still evolving in context of LAPA. The MCCICC established at central level can play a key role in coordinating the LAPA along with other adaptation strategies to create better understanding and consistency in the planning approaches. But it was found that the committee have not had regular meetings and sharing in the past one year. The MoFALD considers climate change as a cross-cutting issue but also admits the inadequate knowledge and technical

Through AEPC MoSTE

Climate Change Council

MCCICC _{Line Ministries…} MoFALD MoFSC DEEU/S I/NGOs, Development partners, others… DFO DDC

capacity specific to climate change adaptation at all level. A key respondent from the central level exclaimed:

“The Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment is supposed to be the technical expert in this matter but the plans prepared at local level has minimum inputs from these experts. The staff at district level might have surface knowledge because this is a hot issue but that basic knowledge is not sufficient for planning and generating adaptation strategies” (CP2)7.

The local government, that is the DDCs are actively involved in the LAPA implementation, however, its line ministry, MoFALD appeared to have limited role and influence at central level. At district level, the Local Development Officer manages the DDC as a centrally appointed staff and is evidently responsible for every activity in development of the district. Similarly, at Village level, the VDC secretary is responsible for every development activity within the village. One of the central level respondents said:

“Due to the political instability of our country, we do not have elected representative at local level at present, which is constitutionally mandated. This is one reason that the LDOs [Local Development Officer] and VDC secretaries are overloaded with responsibilities at their level” (CP2).

In addition, when asked about the role of DDC in LAPA process, a district level respondent from government explained:

“It is less likely for us to look after each case and activity carried in the district by different organisations, since we have limited staff and each have their role to fulfil. The non-government organisations are mainly involved in LAPA processes and are working as per the donor’s mandate” (D2P19).

Moreover, it was notable when discussing the LAPA process with the government officials, they consistently referred only to the programmes that they have been involved for example, NCCSP and appeared to treat other programmes involved in LAPA development with less seriousness and familiarity. In the areas without NCCSP, the government did not seem to have a track record of the LAPAs prepared by other programmes and undergoing implementation.