Comments on: How can we “mainstream” adaptation? http://www.climaticoanalysis.org/post/how-can-we-%e2%80%9cmainstream%e2%80%9d-adaptation/ Independent analysis of climate policy Fri, 27 Jan 2012 14:01:24 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Climatico » Recipients announced for Climate Investment Funds http://www.climaticoanalysis.org/post/how-can-we-%e2%80%9cmainstream%e2%80%9d-adaptation/#comment-403 Climatico » Recipients announced for Climate Investment Funds Mon, 02 Feb 2009 00:13:39 +0000 http://www.climaticoanalysis.org/?p=1438#comment-403 [...] for integrating climate resilience in national development planning, an issue on which I have written before. The cash will be spent through the regional development banks (ADB, AfDB, IDB) as well as the EBRD [...] [...] for integrating climate resilience in national development planning, an issue on which I have written before. The cash will be spent through the regional development banks (ADB, AfDB, IDB) as well as the EBRD [...]

]]> By: Simon Billett http://www.climaticoanalysis.org/post/how-can-we-%e2%80%9cmainstream%e2%80%9d-adaptation/#comment-150 Simon Billett Wed, 24 Dec 2008 10:23:07 +0000 http://www.climaticoanalysis.org/?p=1438#comment-150 I think you make the points about positive and negative sides of mainstreaming well. However, what becomes evident very quickly is that the debates about adaptation are still very much in their infancy in terms of how to deal with the issue. Mainstreaming in its current form essentially means 'priority' or 'non-priority'. Surely there is some room for a more nuanced approach in which adaptation is prioritised in some areas but not others, potentially mapping on to predicted risk. The UNDP, for example, is now doing work to increase adaptation action, but it is focused on areas vulnerable to climate change, rather than trying to 'mainstream' adaptation internationally for all countries. This more localised approach (although more difficult to organise internationally) seems to be well suited to the adaptation issue, which is itself much more local than mitigation. I think you make the points about positive and negative sides of mainstreaming well. However, what becomes evident very quickly is that the debates about adaptation are still very much in their infancy in terms of how to deal with the issue.

Mainstreaming in its current form essentially means ‘priority’ or ‘non-priority’. Surely there is some room for a more nuanced approach in which adaptation is prioritised in some areas but not others, potentially mapping on to predicted risk.

The UNDP, for example, is now doing work to increase adaptation action, but it is focused on areas vulnerable to climate change, rather than trying to ‘mainstream’ adaptation internationally for all countries. This more localised approach (although more difficult to organise internationally) seems to be well suited to the adaptation issue, which is itself much more local than mitigation.

]]>