final evaluation report akk_iges_final.pdf - IGES EnviroScope

APFED Project Final Evaluation Report 2011
the historical level could be a safe approach but may not be termed as ‘climate proof approach’ in
absence of reliable climate change impact predictions since nobody can tell if 2 feet above historical
floods would suffice and for how long. One of the limitations is that there are cost implications as
well. Raising the homesteads from 2 feet above historical flood level to 4 feet above historical flood
levels costs more which means additional financial burden for the implementing agencies and for the
communities who share the costs.
While it has been a challenge for the implementing agencies to implement these projects, it becomes
even more challenging when the local governments consider these projects as ‘out of their mandate’.
It is often hard to make them believe that there is a value to integrate the idea of raising homesteads
within government driven programs or to introduce training programs on floating vegetable
cultivation since they consider these are outside their mandate. The limited resources with the local
governments make it even more difficult to find any engaging point with them. The best one could
expect is to invite a government official to distribute project benefits to the beneficiaries. The
challenge is how to move from this point of engagement to the point of even more stronger
engagement such as joint implementation of projects? The project has certainly helped in engaging the
local governments to the first step.
The following recommendations appear to be valid for implementing climate change adaptation
projects:
1) Climate change adaptation cannot be isolated from any other development efforts. Both
development and adaptation are closely interlinked, particularly at the local scale we experienced.
2) There is limited knowledge amongst local communities on what climate change is, why it is
happening and how to respond to it. While improving understanding of climate change amongst local
communities might be important, communities are interested in understanding how to cope with, and
adapt to, change – of which climate change is just one part.
3) Good progress has been made so far in Faridpur and this progress has established a good point to
move forwards from. But local governments and NGOs could play a even greater role in promoting
local adaptation initiatives by close closely collaborating with each other.
4) Local actions could be more closely based on thorough or ‘scientific’ climate change vulnerability
assessments for which the knowledge and tools be made available.
5) Gender aspects could also have been better addressed by the local initiatives, bearing in mind the
strong involvement of women in the self-help groups being formed for promoting rural
entrepreneurship.
47