Page - 528 - in Loss and Damage from Climate Change - Concepts, Methods and Policy Options

528 M.vandenHombergandC.McQuistan consequenceof adaptationmeasureson impacts and risks.Asanother example, the secondNCforBangladeshidentifiesasagapthat thereishardlyanyresearchrelated toLoss andDamage. Scattered throughout the reports is some losses anddamages data, butoftenat ahighlyaggregate levelorvery specific. Box22.3Casestudyfindingsonreporting frameworks Weassessednational-andlocal-levelpolicies inrelationtothethreeglobalagreements forBangladesh,IndiaandNepal. Ingeneral,ministriesresponsiblefor theenvironment and forestry develop the national-level climate change policy and investment plans, includingtheadaptationpart.BothNepalandPakistandevelopedlocaladaptationplans of action (LAPAs) in response to perceived shortcomings of theUNFCCC’sNAPAs (Klinsky et al. 2014). Despite successfully integrating vulnerability assessments and prioritising adaptationprojects accordingly, thenational plan is still seen as anoverly broad, top-down estimation that has not adequately captured local needs. Since the impacts of climate change dramatically changed fromone village to the next, a top- down process such as a NAPA is considered ill-equipped to cater for meeting local needs (Chaudhury et al. 2014). In Nepal, the LAPA process started mid-2010 and covered, by 2016, 90 village development committees and sevenmunicipalities—the lowestadministrativeunits in thecountry(GovernmentofNepal2016).Nepal’sLAPA has succeeded in mobilising local institutions and community groups in adaptation planning and recognising their role in adaptation. However, the LAPAapproach and implementationhavebeenconstrainedbysocio-structuralandgovernancebarriers that haveprevented the integrationof localadaptationneeds into localplansandthusfailed to increase the adaptive capacity of vulnerable households (Regmi et al. 2016). For DRR, each state and district develops its own state and district disastermanagement plan by adapting the national plan to its local context. TheGlobal Network of Civil SocietyOrganisations forDisasterReductionhas theFrontlineprogrammeinwhich it collectscommunityperceptionsofdisastersandrisktomeasurethreats, localcapacities andunderlyingdevelopmentfactors,bringinglocalknowledgetonational,regionaland global actors. It was one of the few agencies separate from theUNand the agencies thatwere being assessed that also produced a reviewofHFA. Frontline continues its programme for the post-2015 agreements,whereby it tries to capture data from local experience and reality on all three key global agreements instead of only on Sendai, by using grounded resilience indicators. Frontline has established baselines during 2015–2016asabasisforongoingmonitoringduringthecurrencyof theseframeworks. TheNepalesegovernment,supportedbyTheUnitedNationsDevelopmentProgramme (UNDP) and in dialoguewith development partners, implemented theMDGgoals in national-levelpolicies andmeasures. In somecases, local-level implementationplans, and reportingwas completed. Similarly, also for the SDGs, Nepal states in its SDG 2016–2030National (Preliminary)Report its ambition to combine the localisation of SDGswithpolitical setups at local levels that arewilling andcapable of handling the developmentagenda (NationalPlanningCommission2015). Article 13 of the Paris Agreement describes the principles for a transparency framework.Thenewframeworkwillbuildontheexistingmechanisms,butwillalso introducetheadaptationcommunication,containingadaptationpriorities,implemen-