Iied

Piloting climate-smart
development planning
for local government
in Ethiopia
Lessons learned from the
BRE programme
David-Paul Pertaub, Florence Crick, Sam Greene,
Belay Tizazu Mengistie, Solomon Gizaw, Bayu Nebsu
and Mengistu Alemayehu
Working Paper Climate change; Policy and planning
Keywords:
March 2024 Climate resilience, development planning,
Least Developed Countries (LDCs), financing
local adaptation, locally led adaptation
About the authors Produced by IIED’s Climate
David-Paul Pertaub is a researcher in IIED’s Climate Change Group
Change Group; david.pertaub@iied.org
The Climate Change Group works with partners to help
Acknowledgements secure equitable solutions to climate change in low and
middle-income countries, by combining appropriate support
This paper was written by David-Paul Pertaub, Florence and financing for adaptation with ambitious and practical
Crick, Samuel Greene, (International Institute for Environment mitigation targets.
and Development), Belay Tizazu Mengistie, Solomon For more information go to: www.iied.org/climate-change or
Gizaw, Bayu Nebsu and Mengistu Alemayehu (Echnoserve www.iied.org/climate-change-research-group
Consulting). The authors would like to thank CRGE Facility
staff, GCF project experts and government employees — at
national, regional and woreda levels — for their commitment,
About our partners
expertise and time at all stages of the Woreda Climate Smart Echnoserve is a local multidisciplinary solution provider
Development Planning Guidelines project. Thanks are also delivering services through rigorous analytical research,
due to Dr Elyas Abduhali (vice-president) and Abdilahi Elmi tailored consultancy and capacity building. Echnoserve’s
Mumin (researcher) at Jigjiga University for their advice and team brings a wealth of local and international expertise
support when working in Somali region, and to Misganaw to execute complex tasks in a timely manner as well as
Eyassu (Ministry of Finance) for input on the CRGE Facility. addressing the needs of the government of Ethiopia,
We would like to recognise and thank Mette Groen at IIED its ministries and donor partners. We work with local
for her patient and effective project management, and the communities and implementers in their capacity needs
work of Lucy Southwood (editing), Emily Sadler (typesetting and gaps. The company works in areas of climate change,
and design) and Alice Nightingale (proofreading). We are sustainable development, renewable energy and information.
also particularly grateful to Dr Sam Barrett and Dr Dorice Oxford Policy Management is committed to helping low-
Agol for reviewing this paper and for their suggestions and and middle-income countries achieve growth and reduce
constructive advice. poverty and disadvantage through public policy reform. We
Thanks also go to Daniel Fikreyesus (director) and all the seek to bring about lasting positive change using analytical
other Echnoserve staff and consultants who have worked on and practical policy expertise. Through our global network
this project. of offices, we work in partnership with national decision
makers to research, design, implement and evaluate
This paper was funded through the Building Resilience impactful public policy. We work in all areas of social and
in Ethiopia (BRE programme) through Oxford Policy economic policy and governance, including health, finance,
Management (OPM). We would like to recognise the education, climate change and public sector management.
encouraging support and effective oversight of Shivaranjani We draw on our local and international sector experts to
Venkatramai (OPM). provide the very best evidence-based support.
This paper represents the opinions of the authors and does
not necessarily represent the position or opinions of the
Government of Ethiopia, the CRGE Facility, OPM, UKAid or
USAID. Any errors are the fault of the authors alone.
Published by IIED, March 2024

Pertaub, D, Crick, F, Greene, S, Mengistie, B T, Gizaw S, Nebsu, B and
Alemayehu, M (2024) Piloting climate-smart development planning for
local government in Ethiopia: lessons learned from the BRE programme.
IIED, London.
pubs.iied.org/22266IIED
ISBN 978-1-83759-076-6
International Institute for Environment and Development

Third Floor, 235 High Holborn, London WC1V 7DN, UK
Tel: +44 (0)20 3463 7399
www.iied.org
@iied
www.facebook.com/theIIED
Download more publications at iied.org/publications
IIED publications may be shared and republished in accordance with
the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives
4.0 International Public License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). Under the
terms of this licence, anyone can copy, distribute and display the material, providing
that they credit the original source and don’t use it for commercial purposes or make
derivatives. Different licences may apply to some illustrative elements, in which instance
the licence will be displayed alongside. IIED is happy to discuss any aspect of further
usage. For more information, visit www.iied.org/Creative-Commons
IIED is a charity registered in England, Charity No.800066 and in Scotland, OSCR Reg
No.SC039864 and a company limited by guarantee registered in England No.2188452.
IIED WORKING PAPER
Despite growing consensus that climate-resilient development

should be at the top of the agenda for least developed
countries, a persistent implementation gap means there
is little practical learning derived for governments on how
to operationalise. Describing an action research project
to assess the readiness of Ethiopia’s planning system
for locally led climate-resilient development, this paper
identifies areas for action, provides valuable lessons on the
constraints to institutionalising these processes in Ethiopia,
and illustrates some of the challenges and design trade-offs
that development practitioners and local governments in least
developed countries will have to make when implementing the
Principles for Locally Led Adaptation.
Contents 5 Lessons for the LLA Principles

5.1 Risk-informed decision making 32
32
5.2 Gender and social inclusion 33

Acronyms4
5.3 Whole-of-government and whole-of-
Summary5 society approach 35
5.4 Valuing local, Indigenous and traditional
1 Background 7 knowledge36
1.1 Introduction 7 5.5 Training and capacity building 37
1.2 Climate action in Ethiopia 8 5.6 Appropriate subsidiarity 39
1.3 The Woreda Climate-Smart Development 5.7 Accountability and transparency 40
Planning (WCSDP) Action Research Project 13 5.8 Predictable regular funding 40
2 Framework, methodology and guidelines 15 6 Conclusion 41
2.1 The Climate-Resilient Development Framework 15

Appendix 1: The CRDP and LLA Principles 43
2.2 Methodology 16
Appendix 2. Woreda climate and disaster
3 The WCSDP guidelines 19
risk management planning scorecard 45
3.1 Structure of the WCSDP process 19
3.2 Integrating the CRDP Principles into the Appendix 3. Indicators for assessing
WCSDP process 21 the presence of climate-resilient or
climate‑smart planning in local government
4 Findings: the limitations of guidelines 27
annual and five-year development plans 49
4.1 Policy and legislative framework 27
4.2 Institutions 28 References52
4.3 Climate-resilient planning 28
4.4 Monitoring, evaluation and learning 31
4.5 Budgeting and finance 31
www.iied.org 3
PILOTING CLIMATE-SMART DEVELOPMENT PLANNING FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN ETHIOPIA | LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE BRE PROGRAMME
Acronyms
ACT Action on Climate Today
BRE Building Resilience in Ethiopia
CBO community-based organisation
CBPWD Community-Based Participatory Watershed Development
CRDP climate-resilient development planning
CRGE Climate-Resilient Green Economy
CSO civil society organisation
CVCA Climate Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment
DCF Decentralised Climate Finance
EFCCC Ethiopia Forests and Climate Change Commission
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FCDO Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (UK)
GCF Green Climate Fund
GHG greenhouse gas
GTP Growth and Transformation Plan
HABP Household Asset Building Programme
IIED International Institute for Environment and Development
LDC Least developed country
LIFE-AR Least Developed Countries Initiative for Effective Adaptation and Resilience
LLA Principles Principles for Locally Led Adaptation
MEL Monitoring, evaluation and learning
MoFEC Ministry of Finance and Economic Cooperation
MoPD Ministry of Planning and Development
MSWT Multisectoral Woreda Transformation Initiative
NAP-ETH Ethiopia National Adaptation Plan
NDC nationally determined contributions
NGO nongovernmental organisation
PSNP Productive Safety Net Programme
RLLP Resilient Landscapes and Livelihoods Project
SLMP Sustainable Land Management Project
SNNPR Southern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples’ Region
WASH water, sanitation and hygiene
WCSDP woreda climate-smart development planning
4 www.iied.org
IIED WORKING PAPER
Summary
Given the increasing severity of the climate crisis, there is growing
interest among least developed countries (LDCs) about how to
operationalise climate-resilient development. This means finding socially
just and effective development pathways that combine progress on the
Sustainable Development Goals — that is, leaving no one behind —
with the need for progress on climate mitigation and adaptation.
There is growing consensus among scientists, promote climate justice and the agency of local actors
policymakers and practitioners in the international and leverage local knowledge to avoid maladaptation.
climate change community that climate-resilient A flexible framework, local governments and associated
development is not just about mainstreaming climate actors in the climate space can use it in several ways.
concerns into business-as-usual programming. The
This working paper describes an action research
fundamental uncertainty associated with climate futures
project to assess the readiness of Ethiopia’s planning
requires a systemic shift in governance that better
system for locally led climate-resilient development and
integrates all aspects of government action — finance,
identify areas for action. Working with local (woreda)
planning, monitoring, evaluation and learning, policy,
governments, the national climate finance agency and
and institutional change — into an ongoing and iterative
a private Ethiopian climate consultant, the project used
learning process. In particular, there is a need for
IIED’s Climate-Resilient Development Framework
greater bottom-up accountability and empowerment of
as a tool to co-design and pilot a set of practical,
those that are most affected by the impacts of climate
user-centred climate resilient development planning
change: communities and livelihood systems at the
(CRDP) guidelines for local government use. As well
local level. Equitable and sustainable climate-resilient
as providing valuable lessons on the constraints
development can only be achieved by putting local
to institutionalising locally led climate-resilient
communities at the heart of decisions that directly affect
development processes at the local level in Ethiopia,
their climate resilience, as outlined in the Principles for
the project illustrated some of the challenges and
Locally Led Adaptation (LLA Principles), and by drawing
design trade-offs that development practitioners and
on expertise and understanding from individuals and
local governments face when implementing the LLA
organisations across the whole of society.
Principles in an LDC context.
While practical guidance and a variety of tools for
This paper contributes to the research on
government actors about how to integrate climate
climate-resilient development in several ways. First,
adaptation considerations are available, very few fully
it introduces and applies an innovative analytical
incorporate the Locally Led Adaptation Principles and
framework to assess the preparedness of LDC
even fewer are widely operationalised at local level.
institutions and planning processes to adopt
IIED has developed a climate-resilient development
climate-resilient development practices across five
framework to address this gap by helping national and
pillars of government action. Second, it presents our
local governments ensure they are establishing the
findings from applying that framework in Ethiopia,
right institutions, policies, climate-resilient planning and
showing the strengths and limitations of the country’s
monitoring, evaluation, and learning MEL tools — and
local government planning system. Third, it explores
have the finance in place — at all levels to support
how the LLA Principles could be operationalised in
the integration of equitable and sustainable climate
local-level planning, if capacity and financial gaps
resilience into development planning. Inspired by the
are addressed. And fourth, it reports on the general
latest thinking on climate-resilient development, locally
challenges of integrating CRDP into local government
led adaptation and ‘business unusual’ (McIvor, 2021)
planning systems that face serious capacity and
approaches to climate finance, the framework identifies
financial constraints. Although the focus is on the
five fundamental areas of government action and eight
Ethiopian context, these findings apply to all LDCs.
crosscutting operational principles to shape plans to
www.iied.org 5
Building on the challenges encountered by the 6. Ethiopia already has guidelines for integrated
project, and the serious capacity and financial participatory community-level planning at watershed
constraints facing local governments in Ethiopia, the level, and these have been semi-institutionalised
paper draws the following conclusions: within well-funded national flagship programmes
housed within specific ministries. Although
1. While Ethiopia’s climate policies and regulatory
watershed planning processes cannot be a
frameworks provide a strong foundation for
substitute for woreda planning systems, they can
climate-resilient development at the national level,
provide climate-resilient governance interfaces
there is a significant implementation gap at sub-
at lower tiers. Reviewing and aligning these
national levels and the planning process remains
watershed guidelines with the CRDP Principles
top-down with very little systematic community input.
and establishing a formal professional certification
Local government planning processes are strongly
process through accredited training institutions
sectoral and climate risk management is minimal.
could help build capacity nationally.
Operating in a context of severe funding constraints,
the main focus in annual budgeting and strategic 7. A CRDP system involves multiple actors with
direction is strongly shaped by regional sectoral divergent interests working together systematically
targets and guidelines, (which are themselves not across scales in mutually beneficial ways. Such a
climate smart). system is based on longstanding relationships and
networks of trust through sustained collaboration
2. To effect change in Ethiopia’s local government
and will take time to develop.
planning system, the country must first build a
cross-sectoral coalition for action at the national The paper will be of interest to:
level and then work down. The organisation leading
• LDC governments interested in establishing the
this coalition needs to have enough convening
systems, mechanisms and tools for equitable and
power, mandate, political momentum and financial
sustainable climate-resilient development that leaves
resources to coordinate and lead change across all
no one behind
levels. Guidelines can provide an operational manual
but can only succeed if accompanied by formal • Ethiopian government actors in the planning and
authorisation for institutional collaboration at all levels, climate space interested in understanding the
long-term institutional commitment, and reliable implications of climate-resilient development
funding for planning. paradigms for government planning systems and
the readiness of existing Ethiopian systems for
3. Ethiopia’s regions currently provide strategic direction
business-unusual approaches
and technical support of many kinds to lower levels
of government. Where woreda-level capacity is poor, • Adaptation and development practitioners interested
it may be more effective to make the region, zone or in the burgeoning field of locally led adaptation who
woreda cluster the focus of climate-smart strategic wish to explore the challenges and practicalities
development planning processes — while also taking of operationalising the LLA Principles in an LDC
care to ensure meaningful community engagement context, and
from, and accountability to, lower levels.
• Stakeholders, practitioners and other actors in the
4. Given the capacity gaps and wide range of local international climate financing community and system.
conditions, a flexible approach to designing planning
systems is required. This should be sensitive to
regional differences in professional ways of working,
levels of capacity and the organisation and formal/
informal structure of civil society in different places.
5. Local government planning systems do not generally
deal with the radical uncertainty associated
with future climate change and its local impacts.
Scenario planning is a useful tool that builds on both
available scientific information and local knowledge,
can be used at various scales, builds community
awareness of future climate risk and helps build
downward accountability.
6 www.iied.org
1
IIED WORKING PAPER
Background
Setting the context for the Climate-Smart Development Planning for Local
Government pilot in Ethiopia, this chapter introduces the legislative and policy
background to climate action, briefly describes the main actors involved and
some of the planning tools used at the local level. It also provides an overview
of the project.
1.1 Introduction climate conditions (Pisor et al., 2022). Climate-resilient

development therefore goes well beyond the standard
Climate-resilient development recognises that process of mainstreaming climate into normal,
sustainable development and climate action are business-as-usual government operations at different
mutually dependent goals that cannot be pursued administrative levels.
independently. Climate-resilient development is neither
In 2019, the LDC Group launched a 2050 vision at
a set of abstract targets to be met nor an outcome that
the Climate Action Summit. The vision is “for all LDCs
can be met once and for all. Rather, it is an ongoing
to deliver climate-resilient development pathways by
and iterative process involving a systemic shift in
2030 and net-zero emissions by 2050 to ensure our
governance that better integrates finance, planning,
societies and ecosystems thrive” (IIED, 2019; LDC
monitoring, evaluation and learning (MEL), policy, and
Group, 2019).
institutional change centred on inclusion and social
justice (IPCC, 2023b). For least developed countries But it is clear that existing models of international
(LDCs) — which have contributed the least to global climate finance are not fit for this purpose. The
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions yet have the poorest design logic and priorities of development projects
populations in dollar terms — this poses specific are typically decided by external donors, with tightly
challenges as they choose their development pathways controlled, short-term finance that is challenging to
to middle-income status. As well as managing future access, restricted with conditionalities and inflexible
carbon emissions, they must increase the climate in the face of both unpredictable climate risks and
resilience of the poorest and most marginalised emerging opportunities for positive change. As a result,
groups in their society. To be effective, the system of they neither reflect LDC priorities nor incorporate
governance for selecting, implementing and assessing local people’s understanding, expertise or agency
development pathways needs to be socially just, (Omari-Motsumi et al., 2019).
inclusive and flexible in the face of uncertain future
www.iied.org 7
There is limited guidance for LDCs on how to al., 2022). The CRGE Strategy informed Ethiopia’s
implement climate-resilient development. The eight first nationally determined contributions (NDCs) and
LLA Principles provide a high-level framework has been at the heart of the updated NDC process
outlining important formal characteristics that an (FDRE, 2021b). It has also been integrated into
ideal climate-resilient adaptation governance system successive national development plans — including
should exhibit to maximise efficiency and equity the first two five-year growth and transformation
while also challenging business as usual (Coger et plans (GTPs) and the 10-year development plan
al., 2022; Soanes et al., 2021; WRI n.d.). But these for 2021–2030 (FDRE, 2021a) — and is now
do not amount to an instruction set for governments. one of the country’s main policy agendas.
There is little normative guidance on how to scale out
While the CRGE Strategy has successfully
the LLA Principles in an LDC government planning
mainstreamed mitigation and low-carbon
context, how to institutionalise them within existing
development into national and sectoral planning
systems, whether sequencing or prioritising different
frameworks through the Green Economy Strategy,
principles matters, and whether there are trade-offs or
it has been less successful in mainstreaming
dependencies between the individual principles.
adaptation (Dagne et al., 2022). It subsequently
It is, therefore, vital to experiment and document efforts developed sector-specific versions of its climate
to implement such systems. But there is also a need to resilience strategy for agriculture and forestry,
reflect on and learn from climate-resilient development water and energy, and transport, but it was the
practice more widely, exploring the practical real-world development of the National Adaptation Plan (NAP-
challenges and difficulties of turning a manifesto into ETH) that finally consolidated these efforts and
an effective system of governance at multiple scales of extended the analysis to eight vulnerable sectors,
government, the different strategies for doing so, and identifying 18 thematic adaptation options and five
their relative merits. This paper aims to: strategic priority areas. A NAP-ETH Implementation
Roadmap (FDRE, 2020) identifies key enabling
• Introduce a high-level framework for analysing
activities, timelines and milestones and suggests
institutional readiness for climate-resilient
key actors responsible for implementation.
development planning (CRDP) and use this to assess
the Ethiopian context Since 2011, Ethiopia has also developed various
guidelines to help sector and subnational
• Explore the challenges and difficulties encountered in
administrations integrate the CRGE Strategy into
woreda-level CRDP, particularly in terms of capacity
their annual and strategic planning processes,
and resources
such as the Woreda Climate Resilient Green
• Provide a high-level overview of what a CRDP Economy Investment Planning Guide (FDRE et al.
process might look like at the woreda level, and 2013) and the Wereda2 Disaster Risk Mitigation/
Adaptation Planning Guidelines (FDRE and Ministry
• Reflect on the learnings from the piloting process,
of Agriculture 2014). Following the preparation
particularly insights that are relevant for applying or
of the NAP-ETH (FDRE 2019b), which notes the
operationalising the LLA Principles
need to mainstream adaptation into planning at
1.2 Climate action

all levels and makes building planning capacity a
strategic priority, the Ethiopia Forests and Climate
in Ethiopia Change Commission (EFCCC) prepared a revised
guideline to help integrate both the CRGE Strategy
and NAP-ETH into local government annual
1.2.1 Climate policies and frameworks and medium-term planning processes (FDRE,
Ethiopia was a pioneer among LDCs when it 2019a). This was tested in five woredas in five
introduced the Climate-Resilient Green Economy regions, but capacity and financial constraints and
(CRGE) Strategy1 as part of its national planning a lack of prioritisation mean they have not been
system in 2011 (FDRE, 2011), setting out a clear institutionalised3 and the findings from the pilots
vision for transforming Ethiopia into a middle- have not been made available. Table 1 summarises
income country following a low-carbon resilient key climate change policies and guidelines.
development pathway (Bhandary, 2022a; Dagne et
1 Formally, the CRGE Strategy consists of two distinct and separable strategies, namely the Green Economy Strategy (which focuses on mitigation) and the
Climate-Resilient Strategy (which focuses on adaptation).
2 Woreda and wereda are both acceptable English transcriptions of the Amharic term. We prefer the general use of the term woreda in the text, except where
wereda is in a document title.
3 Key Informant Interview, EFCCC.
8 www.iied.org
IIED WORKING PAPER
Table 1. Key climate policies, guidelines and frameworks in Ethiopia since 2011
YEAR NAME
Climate-Resilient Green Economy Strategy, comprising:
2011 Green Economy Strategy (focused on mitigation)
Climate-Resilient Strategy (focused on adaptation)
Woreda Climate-Resilient Green Economy Investment Planning Guide
2013
National Policy on Strategy and Disaster Risk Management
2014 Wereda Disaster Risk Mitigation/Adaptation Planning Guidelines
Growth and Transformation Plan II (GTP II) 2015/16–2019/20
Climate Resilience Strategy: Agriculture and Forestry
2015
Climate Resilience Strategy: Transport Sector
Climate Resilience Strategy: Water and Energy
Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC)
2017
National Adaptation Plan to Address Climate Change (NAPA)
2018 Guideline for Mainstreaming CRGE
Ethiopia Forests and Climate Change Commission (EFCCC) Planning Guideline to
Integrate the CRGE Strategy at Woreda Level
Ethiopia’s CRGE National Adaptation Plan (NAP-ETH)
2019 Multisectoral Woreda Transformation: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development of
Ethiopia Strategic Document
Watershed and Rangeland Planning Guide
Green Legacy Initiative
Ethiopia’s CRGE National Adaptation Plan: Implementation Roadmap
2020 CRGE Facility Gender Mainstreaming Strategy
Community-Based Participatory Watershed Or Rangeland Development Guideline
Updated NDC
2021
Ten Years Development Plan: A Pathway to Prosperity 2021–2030
Sources: World Bank (2018); Eshete et al. (2020).
www.iied.org 9
1.2.2 National institutional National flagship sustainable

architecture to support climate action development programmes
Various national flagship development programmes —
The CRGE Facility such as the Productive Safety Net Programme
(PSNP), Sustainable Land Management Programme
Following the publication of the CRGE Strategy in
(SLMP), Resilient Landscapes and Livelihoods Project
2011, Ethiopia set up a national climate fund, the CRGE
(RLLP), the Agricultural Growth Program (AGP)
Facility, within the MoFEC with the national mandate to
and the Lowlands Livelihood Resilience Project
source, mobilise and channel climate funds in support
(LLRP) also contribute to national development
of the multisectoral CRGE Strategy (Bhandary, 2022a;
and CRGE strategic objectives with longstanding
Dagne et al., 2022). It is one of the more successful
funding commitments from international multilateral
national climate funds set up by LDCs.
and bilateral donors and development partners (see
The Ministry of Finance is accredited as a direct Table 2). These programmes have cross-sectoral
access entity by the GCF and the Adaptation sustainable development objectives determined by
Fund. This means it has met fiduciary and national government in agreement with international
governance criteria, which allows it to access development partners, and are coordinated through
adaptation and mitigation funding directly from group focal points in sectoral ministries.
these climate funds without using an international
Some have run for decades and are institutionalised,
organisation as an intermediary (Caldwell and
with sophisticated coordination and delivery structures
Larsen, 2021). The GCF accreditation allows the
at all administrative levels, including formalised
ministry to handle small projects (up to US$50
technical support, management and coordination
million) of medium environmental and social risk
committees, programme implementation manuals
(Category B), up to project management level.
(PIMs), environmental and social management
Until it was reorganised in 2021, the EFCCC frameworks (EDMFs), gender mainstreaming
co-managed the CRGE Facility with the Ministry guidelines and other standards, and donor-
of Finance, and had the mandate to lead and mandated reporting systems. Each provides its own
coordinate overall climate-aligned national local planning guidelines and woreda/sub-woreda
development strategy, including updated NDCs planning institutions, often based around variations
and the NAP-ETH. It was the institutional home of the Community-Based Participatory Watershed
for technical capacity related to climate change Guidelines (FDRE and MoARD, 2005). They are a
and provided support, training and coordination major source of reliable and predictable development
across all administrative levels. Since 2021, the funding in Ethiopia. However, apart from some pilot
EFCCC’s climate mandate has been split between initiatives, these programmes do not explicitly plan
the EPA, which is responsible for coordinating the for future climate risk, nor do they track climate
implementation of the NAP-ETH and other climate- related expenditure or have explicit CRGE-related
related actions, and the MoPD, which is responsible performance indicators.
for cross-sectoral coordination and mainstreaming
the CRGE Strategy into national, regional and LIFE-AR: an alternative, climate-resilient
woreda-level plans, the updated NDC and the development funding mechanism
Long‑Term Low-Emissions Development Strategy.
In 2018, Ethiopia signed the LIFE-AR Country
Compact (LDC Group, 2019) as a frontrunner
Sector ministries
country. Its cross-ministerial platform, technical
The MoPD sets CRGE related target indicators for committee and task force, housed in the EPA, has
sectoral ministries, especially all those identified as been experimenting with a business-unusual climate
priority areas (agriculture, water, energy, transport and finance mechanism (McIvor, 2021) that commits to
forestry). The ministries develop their own sectoral channelling 70% of climate finance to the local level,
plans and strategies (which integrate climate related engaging with whole-of-society/whole-of-government
priorities and mainstream the CRGE strategy to principles in a transparent and accountable manner.
varying degrees) and oversee their respective regional Investment decisions are demand-led at community
bureaus. Sector ministries are also closely associated level according to the principle of subsidiarity. This
with the delivery and coordination of significant experiment in transformative governance is being
national flagship programmes. piloted in a woreda in Oromia region, North Shoa
zone. The government has since signed up to the LLA
Principles at COP28 in Dubai in 2023.
10 www.iied.org
IIED WORKING PAPER
Table 2. Overview of selected national flagship programs contributing to CRGE Strategy objectives
Productive Safety Net Programme (Ministry of Agriculture)

Operating since 2005 and now in its fifth phase, the PSNP has become a fully
institutionalised shock-responsive social protection delivery mechanism targeting
Overview
poor and extremely poor households in food-insecure and drought-prone kebeles of
selected woredas.
Using the watershed as the basic unit of development planning, the programme
finances unconditional or food for work transfers for undertaking public works or social
Contribution to infrastructure projects related to natural resource management (e.g. soil conversation
CRGE Strategy or water harvesting). Livelihood support activities (capacity building, training, access
objectives to credit etc) also aim to build resilience to shocks and community adaptative capacity
through a layered approach of livelihood diversification, early warning systems and
adoption of climate-smart techniques.
Sustainable Land Management Programmes (1 and 2) and Resilient Landscapes and
Livelihoods Project (Ministry of Agriculture)
SLMP 1 and 2 were World Bank-funded programmes designed to reduce land
degradation, enhance land productivity, and improve livelihoods and the environment
Overview
through an integrated cross-sectoral sustainable landscape management approach.
RLLP builds on SLMP 1 & 2 with an added emphasis on climate-smart agriculture.
SLMP builds resilience through integrated sustainable land management in micro-
Contribution to watersheds (soil and water conservation/water harvesting), supported by land
CRGE Strategy certification and institutional capacity development to boost smallholder investment,
objectives reduce land degradation and improve agricultural productivity. The third phase (RLLP)
adds climate-smart practices (Deichert, 2017) and livelihood diversification.
Agriculture Growth Programmes AGP (1 & 2)
Operating since 2010, the AGP programmes aim to increase agricultural
Overview
productivity by targeting woredas with high potential for agricultural growth.
AGP builds resilience through increased agricultural production, increased uptake of
Contribution to
technology (with a focus on gender, nutrition and climate smart agricultural practices)
CRGE Strategy
and the development of value chains. It also focuses on small-scale rural infrastructure
objectives
and irrigation development, using the watershed as the unit of intervention.
Lowlands Livelihood Resilience Project (LLRP)
Ministry of Irrigation and Lowlands (formerly under Ministry of Peace)
Operating since 2019, the LLRP aims to build the resilience of pastoralists and agro-
Overview
pastoralists in lowland areas to external shocks including drought, conflict and disease.
LLRP focuses on improving pastoral rangelands through participatory rangeland
Contribution to
management at the landscape level and governance arrangements supportive of
CRGE Strategy
pastoralist mobility. There is also a focus on demand-led community pastoralist
objectives
development and livelihood diversification, and the provision of basic services.
www.iied.org 11
Table 3. Formal institutions involved in climate related planning and action in Ethiopia, by administrative level
INSTITUTION FUNCTIONS
Federal/national level
Facilitates and coordinates climate and development funding as an
Ministry of Finance
accredited entity for the Green Climate Fund (GCF) and Adaptation Fund
National climate fund, housed within the Ministry of Finance, tasked
CRGE Facility
with sourcing international and domestic finance for climate action
Responsible for technical support and training on climate
change at federal and regional levels
EFCCC (until 2021) Provided technical support to the CRGE Facility
Developed the NAP-ETH
Revised the NDC
EPA (since 2021, Responsible for technical support and mainstreaming NAP-ETH,
successor to EFCCC) LIFE-AR and other climate-related actions
Responsible for integrating CRGE Strategy into long-term planning
MoPD
and climate-related targets into national, regional and woreda plans
Line ministries
Implementation entities for CRGE-related programmes and initiatives
(eg Ministry of Agriculture)
CRGE directorates within Provide technical support and capacity building to line ministries
line ministries for CRGE mainstreaming
Regional (zonal) level
Regional Bureau of Finance Facilitates and coordinates climate and development funding
Provides strategic climate-related indicators and targets (CRGE
Regional Planning Commission
Strategy) to sectors and validates annual sector plans
Implementation entities for CRGE-related programmes and initiatives
Regional sectoral bureaus
Provide technical support and coordination
CRGE directorates in each sector
Provide technical support and capacity building to regional ministries
bureaus (as of 2024; incomplete
for CRGE mainstreaming
presence in many regions)
Woreda level
Woreda finance office
Prepare annual plans based on regional/zonal strategic priorities
Woreda planning office
Prepare sectoral plans based on regional/zonal strategic priorities
Sectoral offices Responsible for sectoral service delivery, act as implementing agencies
for sectoral strategies and national flagship programmes
Non-governmental organisations
Often plan and act independently of woreda processes
(NGOs)/development partners
Kebele sector offices
Kebele cabinet (management) Sectoral planning and implementation entities at lowest
Extension services administrative level
Development agents
Kebele/community watershed
planning committees These formal institutions may exist depending on regional and local
context, the presence of flagship programmes, capacity and funding.
Water user associations
Representatives from these bodies may be involved to some degree
Community health workers
in kebele or watershed level planning but processes vary greatly.
(development army)
Farmer cooperatives
Sources: MoA and FDRE (2019); World Bank (2014, 2019, 2020).
12 www.iied.org
IIED WORKING PAPER
1.2.3 The woreda and the local • Some limited funding for local climate action has
development planning process become available through the CRGE Facility, through
finance from the Adaptation Fund and the Green
Ethiopia has a federal system of governance, with Climate Fund. This is only available to a very small
four subnational administrative levels: regions, number of woredas - and it is directed at specific
zones, woredas (or districts) and kebeles (wards), kebeles within them.
which are the smallest and most local unit of
• International NGOs, FBOs and development partners
government administration.
provide funding for projects in line with their missions
Officially, and in accordance with the constitution and agendas, selecting intervention locations on the
(FDRE, 1995), Ethiopia is engaged in a process of advice of the region or zone and woreda.
progressive decentralisation (Vaughan et al., 2020),
creating a system where woreda-level governments
are formally responsible for local service delivery,
1.3 The Woreda Climate-
development planning, coordination and delivery —
5
Smart Development
including disaster risk management, climate adaptation
and mitigation (mainstreaming the CRGE strategy) — Planning (WCSDP) Action
based on local contexts, priorities and needs. Woredas
can coordinate the work of non-state actors in line with
Research Project
annual plans. Woredas are expected to produce five- Funded by the UK’s Foreign, Commonwealth and
year strategic plans which set out their medium-term Development Office (FCDO) and USAID through the
development priorities, in addition to annual plans. Building Resilience in Ethiopia (BRE) programme
(OPM, n.d) IIED worked with Echnoserve Consulting
However, as our research confirms, decision making and
and the CRGE Facility to co-develop and pilot a set
resource allocation within this woreda planning system
of WCSDP guidelines. This was in collaboration with
remain largely top-down and sectoral, with a strong focus
22 woredas participating in an adaptation project6
on meeting regionally determined strategic targets. While
secured by the CRGE Facility through the GCF’s
the annual woreda planning system may involve kebele-
Direct Access modality (GCF, n.d.). The project
level institutions, including government and technical
focuses on building resilience to drought, primarily
staff and some community representatives,4 it leaves little
through investments in agriculture, water and irrigation,
space for meaningful, bottom-up, demand-led community
together with building local-level technical capacity.
engagement and little scope for local innovation. The
CRGE strategy has not been mainstreamed into woreda Focal CRGE group/units, housed in national ministries,
planning processes. and the CRGE Facility secretariat within the MoPD,
have tended to bypass local woreda planning units
The limits of the decentralisation agenda can be
in project design, planning and appraisal processes,
partially explained by the nature of the funding deficit
partly because local-level planning capacity is
at the woreda level. Funding for development activities
fragmented, under-resourced and extremely variable
(including climate action) is scarce:
between regions and sectors.
• Regions provide a General Purpose Grant (the
The basis of the WCDSP project’s theory of change
‘block grant’) to fund general woreda activities.
is that building the capacity of these woreda planning
However, most of this block grant is used by woredas
units will lead to better integration and mainstreaming
on recurrent expenditures such as salaries and
of CRGE strategy initiatives into regular planning,
administration, leaving a minimal residual fund for
budgeting, and monitoring and evaluation processes
planning or capital investment.
and will support the decentralisation agenda. A
• Much woreda development funding comes through focus on emerging best practice in climate-resilient
the national flagship programmes (PSNP and so development, with its emphasis on cross-sectoral,
on), which are often restricted to specific outcomes, demand-led, socially just and inclusive decision
investments and activities. Moreover, flagship making, will lead to more context-appropriate, equitable
programmes are targeted at specific kebeles of some, and effective local-level plans that are well suited to the
not all, woredas. dynamic contexts associated with climate change.
4 Particularly where national flagship programmes have targeted woredas and specific kebeles within them.
5 Climate-resilient development as a concept refers to a wider ecosystem of enabling conditions, governance mechanisms and principles as set out in our CRD
framework. A set of guidelines is only one component of the ‘pillars’ of CRD — so we refer to them as ‘climate smart’ rather than ‘climate resilient’.
6 FP058 - Responding to the increasing risk of drought: building gender-responsive resilience of the most vulnerable communities.
www.iied.org 13
Our project aimed to contribute to this by

operationalising IIED’s Climate-Resilient Development BOX 1. WHAT’S DISTINCTIVE
Framework (Section 2.1) as a set of practical, cost- ABOUT THE WCSDP
effective, climate-resilient planning guidelines that
woredas could integrate into their normal planning
GUIDELINES?
systems. The project objectives, developed by IIED
The WCSDP guidelines build on and extend the
and Echnoserve with the CRGE Facility, were to:
EPCCC guidelines. They support the woreda
• Build on the EFCCC guidelines to synthesise planning system with the aim of integrating the
emerging best practice and learning on locally led CRGE Strategy and the NAP-ETH into a practical
adaptation into a set of practical WCSDP guidelines and sustainable planning process.
that are suited to the Ethiopian context and aligned
They are distinctive from other guidelines due to:
with national policy and legislative frameworks
• Their focus on strategic, integrated cross-
• Pilot and refine these guidelines with GCF woreda
sectoral planning based around development
planning teams, through action research, to maximise
priorities chosen by woredas and informed by
their feasibility and sustainability, with the hope of
local climate risk
institutionalising their use in woredas benefitting from
climate finance through the CRGE Facility • Their comprehensive step-by-step focus on all
aspects of the planning process (co-developed
• Provide learning on the practical difficulties and
with woredas), and
challenges woredas face in integrating climate
programming into their planning • The way they systematically set out clear principles
for climate-resilient development and explicitly
• Use the piloting process to produce medium-term
describe how to operationalise them.
climate-smart woreda investment plans that identify
investable activities that could attract additional
climate finance from the GCF and through current and
future CRGE Facility projects, and
• Conduct research to analyse and reflect on the
implications of the practical challenges associated
with operationalising the LLA Principles in LDCs.
14 www.iied.org
2
IIED WORKING PAPER
Framework,
methodology
and guidelines
IIED developed a high-level climate-resilient development framework that
shows how to realise best practice in locally led climate action in a local
government context. Based on eight principles of climate action, the project
used the framework and an adaptive action research methodology to design
the WCSDP guidelines.
2.1 The Climate-Resilient climate adaptation and mitigation in an effective,

sustainable and socially just way (see Figure 1). It shows
Development Framework how eight fundamental principles of climate action — the
CRDP Principles (see Appendix 1), which are largely
Drawing on research conducted during this project identical to the LLA Principles — must be embedded in
and prior engagements, IIED have developed a generic five domains or ‘pillars’ of government action:
conceptual framework to help developing country
• The wider policy and legislative framework at
governments consider the implications of climate-resilient
national and subnational levels, which creates the
development when designing their own governance
enabling environment for locally led climate action and
processes (Crick et al., 2021). The framework draws
creates the conditions for the other four pillars
on the latest research on adaptation, climate-resilient
development and the LLA Principles (Coger et al., 2021, • Trustworthy and capable budgeting and finance
2022; Erisken et al., 2020; IPCC, 2023b; Soanes et systems, which enable climate funds to flow to all
al., 2021; Vincent and Colenbrander, 2018) and IIED’s levels (including local government)
experience of developing the Decentralised Climate
• Appropriate institutions and decision-making
Finance (DCF) mechanism, an institutional architecture
structures, which support cross-sectoral thinking and
designed to channel climate finance through the public
meaningful citizen participation at all stages of the
finance system to demand-led public good investments
development cycle
selected and overseen by local communities themselves
(Crick et al., 2019; DCF Alliance, 2019) • Capacity to conduct climate-resilient planning
using appropriate risk management tools and relevant
The Climate-Resilient Development Framework provides
climate information at different scales of government
a succinct analytical structure for thinking about how
action, and
core government areas of action should incorporate
www.iied.org 15
• An effective MEL system, which is essential for This framework is intentionally conceptual and high-
tracking the progress of interventions, scaling level and needs to be operationalised, and the precise
up learning, flexible and adaptive responses, and form this will take will depend on the context where it
avoiding maladaptation. is applied. Our objective in this project was to translate
this abstract template into a set of practical guidelines
that could be used for strategic planning in Ethiopia at
woreda level.
Figure 1. The Climate-Resilient Development Framework
Risk-informed decision making
Gender and social inclusion
Whole-of-society and whole-of-government approach
Valuing local, Indigenous and traditional knowledge
Training and capacity building
Appropriate subsidiarity
Acccountability and transparency
Predictable, regular climate funding for local action
Budgeting Institutions Climate-resilient MEL

and finance planning
Policy and legislative framework
2.2 Methodology • Semi-structured interviews with federal, regional

and woreda-level stakeholders, including high-level
officials from the EFCCC, Ministry of Water, Irrigation
2.2.1 Institutional readiness assessment and Energy, and the Ministry of Agriculture (from the
Working with Echnoserve and the CRGE Facility, we Planning, CRGE and Disaster Risk Management
used several methods to refine and use the Climate- Directorates), and
Resilient Development framework to assess institutional
• Workshops involving key regional and woreda officials
readiness for WCSDP. These included:
to document and assess woreda planning processes,
• A desk review of international literature to identify followed by community consultations in a limited
approaches, best practices and insights into climate- number of kebeles in those woredas. These were
resilient development, to refine and supplement the held in the Amhara region and the Southern Nations,
Climate-Resilient Development Framework Nationalities, and Peoples’ Region (SNNPR).7
• A desk review of key national level policies, plans,
existing guidelines and large-scale local development
and social protection programmes
7 The woredas selected were Bahir Dar Zuria and Mecha in Amhara and Wondo Gente and Melga in SNNPR. Woredas were selected to represent different
agroecological zones within the constraints of accessibility due to security concerns.
16 www.iied.org
IIED WORKING PAPER
Crick et al. (2021) analysed our findings from this stage Through a structured process of learning and peer
in an interim internal report, which sets out the Climate- mentoring, we expected to refine the guidelines as
Resilient Development Framework (with its principles they were tested with a user-centred approach.
and institutional pillars) in more detail. Their analysis Unfortunately, this was not possible for several reasons,
made clear that introducing and institutionalising including: unforeseen and uncontrollable factors such as
climate-smart development planning at the woreda serious internal security issues and a global pandemic,
level would require much more than simply refining a which impacted operational and research plans and
set of guidelines. New processes and the capacities impeded communication between key stakeholders;
required to carry them out would need significant severe capacity constraints at woreda level, especially a
action across all five building blocks of government lack of finance; limited buy-in from national-level actors
action, and the appropriate institutional architecture, and absence of a cross-ministerial working group to
political prioritisation and adequate financing. A key authorise and mobilise action at national level; and the
recommendation was to develop a cross-sectoral constraints of working within a projectised entry point
national working group that could create coordinating within the GCF Facility.
structures and facilitate management and technical
Ultimately, the set of guidelines we finalised (and
support both vertically and horizontally.
describe in this paper) illustrate what a climate-resilient
planning process in Ethiopian woredas might look like
2.2.2 Developing the draft WCSDP if it were sufficiently resourced and promoted through a
guidelines supportive institutional coalition of actors. We wanted
to set a standard that Ethiopian woredas can aspire
Building on the findings of the institutional readiness
to, rather than produce a simplified version dictated
assessment, we sketched out a draft woreda-level,
by current capacity. Although institutionalising these
medium-term strategic planning process and the
guidelines within the GCF project was not a realistic
associated WCSDP guidelines to operationalise
objective, the lessons learnt from this initiative shed
the framework for the Ethiopian local government
light on how climate-resilient development might be
context. These were modelled on the EFCCC’s
introduced in the future.
CRGE mainstreaming guidelines for woredas (FDRE,
2019a), (which as mentioned before, were trialled in
five regions but not scaled out due to resource and
2.2.3 Limited piloting of the
capacity constraints). Applying the Climate-Resilient guidelines and producing
Development Framework, we extended the guidelines to climate-smart development plans
introduce some novel features, such as more integrated
cross-sectoral planning, and systematically embedding For the reasons noted above, none of the 22 woredas
the CRDP Principles (see Section 3.2). were able to pilot the WCSDP guidelines and produce
their own plans as originally intended. But the pilot did
After developing the guidelines, we invited clusters
produce 16 written climate-smart woreda plans as
of representatives from the 22 GCF woredas to four
deliverables for the GCF project.
five-day training sessions run by our local partner
Echnoserve. The objective was twofold: to help build Our in-country partner Echnoserve Consulting took
the capacity of woreda experts in climate-sensitive a lead role and provided significant direction, input
sectors to conduct climate-resilient planning, and to and support to all woredas, coordinating, developing
provide an opportunity to test and refine the concepts and writing the plans with woreda experts providing
and processes presented in the guidelines, with woreda significant inputs. Loosely following the guidelines,
experts advising on their viability, intelligibility and they adapted steps to reflect available capacity and
practicality. By co-developing and co-designing the resources at woreda level. Though not a formal piloting
guidelines with the woredas themselves, our objective process, Echnoserve’s observations and reflections
was to ensure they reflected practical realities at became a major source of data on the implications of
woreda level as well as national needs, and to ensure embedded assumptions and practical challenges of
they were both useable and affordable. Feedback from doing CRDP at woreda level.
these sessions reinforced initial findings about the
An Echoserve-IIED team carried out some quality
large capacity gaps at woreda level and highlighted the
assurance deep dives in selected woredas for specific
tension between designing guidelines that emphasise
activities featured in the WCSDP guidelines, including:
quality processes but are also accessible and practical
(see Chapter 5). • Phase 2 piloting of the field guide and community
consultations in two woredas: Haroreys in Somali
The original plan was for woreda-level planning teams
and Enbise Sar Midir in Amhara, selected to contrast
to pilot each and every phase of the WCSDP process,
a lowland, agropastoralist region with a highland,
with mentoring and technical support from Echnoserve
agricultural region, and
and specially trained regional CRGE coordinators.
www.iied.org 17
• Phase 3 piloting of the multistakeholder (whole-of- strategic development objectives that are relevant to
society/whole-of-government) workshop in Somali the woreda and set out related intervention options.
and Harar regions. These plans successfully mainstream national climate
policy at the woreda level by translating the CRGE
The team used several research methods, including
Strategy and NAP-ETH into discrete, investable
semi-structured key informant interviews and participant
options for possible inclusion in specific woreda
observation, which allowed reflection on some of the
annual plans.
challenges faced in implementing the principles on
the ground. While this is clearly not a comprehensive Although the woreda plan preparation process was
piloting process, it provided important insights into inspired by the WCSDP guidelines, the final development
issues surrounding WCSDP implementation, which we plans do not fully reflect the principles of the climate-
capture in Chapter 5. resilient development process. And, because they did
not implement Phases 4 and 5 (see Figure 2), the plans
2.2.4 Final climate-smart are still very much top-down, supply-driven outlines
development plans that require further discussion and validation with all
community stakeholders. However, the institutionalisation
The 16 woreda plans successfully mainstreamed of CRDP into existing structures is extremely challenging,
CRGE strategies into their planning processes in and these plans are an important step in an iterative and
one precise way: they articulate climate-related gradual process of learning and experimentation.
18 www.iied.org
3
IIED WORKING PAPER
The WCSDP
guidelines
Outlining the WCSDP guidelines that we developed based on the Climate-Resilient
Development Framework, this chapter explains key design decisions made to
operationalise the principles into the planning framework. Recognising that the wider
enabling environment is not yet fully in place to facilitate their institutionalisation in
Ethiopia, this illustration will be useful for future work and for other LDCs.
3.1 Structure of the Phase 3. Planning: The planning team convenes a

multistakeholder workshop including whole-of-society
WCSDP process and whole-of-government actors. Workshop participants
collectively review the situational assessment from Phase
Guided by the high-level principles set out in the 2, conduct a summatory climate risk review, prepare
Climate-Resilient Development Framework (Section future climate scenarios, and propose a set of high-level,
2.1) and the findings of the institutional readiness cross-sectoral strategic climate-smart objectives — a
assessment (Section 2.2.1), we developed practical vision — for the woreda. The planning team subsequently
guidelines for WCSDP. The guidelines outline an ideal assesses these objectives and related interventions
woreda planning process with five discrete phases against evaluation criteria that include cost-effectiveness,
(Figure 2). social inclusion, robustness to future climate scenarios
and coherence with national and regional policy,
Phase 1. Preparation: The woreda establishes a
preparing a theory of change for each intervention. It
cross-sectoral, gender-balanced planning team,
produces a detailed written strategic plan following
conducts a whole-of-society stakeholder analysis, and
a standard template including relevant findings and
prepares a budget and timeline.
decisions from Phases 2 and 3.
Phase 2. Assessment: The planning team prepares
Phase 4. Communication and validation: The
an overview of the woreda development context (a
team crosschecks and validates the draft plan with
situational assessment). Primary data are collected
stakeholders from across the woreda before finalising it.
through fieldwork conducted with a representative
It designs a communication strategy to make it accessible
sample of kebeles in the woreda; secondary data
for all community members and promote transparency.
are sourced from woreda sectoral offices and other
development actors. Where available, data include Phase 5. Implementation: The annual planning
hazard and risk information from woreda-specific process is guided by the final five year climate smart
disaster risk profiles (FDRE, 2012) prepared by the development strategy. Activities are implemented and
National Disaster Risk Management Commission. MEL is carried out.
www.iied.org 19
Figure 2. The five phases of WCSDP
Phase 1: Preparation
1. Assigning planning mandate. 2. Identifying 3. Preparing a
Establishing cross-sectoral and prioritising planning programme
planning team stakeholders and budget
Phase 2: Assessment
1. Direct engagement with 2. Assessing 3. Reviewing 4. Preparing
communities (climate risks social services secondary a summary
and development priorities) and infrastructure data situational analysis
Phase 3: Planning
1. Multi-stakeholder workshop:
a. Woreda b. Future c. Propose climate 2. Evaluate 3. Prepare 4. Analyse

Situational Climate smart strategic options logical findings
analysis Scenario objectives and against CRD framework and write
review Development development options and practical or theory up plan
for the Woreda ctiteria of change
Phase 4: Communication and validation

1. Vertical validation of the WCSDP 2. Horizontal validation of 3. Finalise and
plan with technical experts and the WCSDP plan with local officially adopt
whole of society actors at higher communities and woreda the WCDSP
administrative levels stakeholders written plan
Phase 5: Implementation
1. Communite the plan through 2. Monitoring, Evaluation 3. Integrate actions/interventions/
appropriate channels and Learning investments into current annual plan
20 www.iied.org
IIED WORKING PAPER
3.2 Integrating the CRDP Principles

into the WCSDP process
Table 4. Operationalising the CRDP Principles to guide woreda-level planning
PRINCIPLE RATIONALE PLANNING DESCRIPTION OF ACTION/ACTIVITY

PHASE (AND ASSOCIATED ASSUMPTIONS)
Conduct participatory climate risk assessments
Decision making must
with communities in a representative sample
be informed by a robust 2
of wards (kebeles), stratified by climate risk
understanding of the
characteristics (eg agroecology).
dynamic nature of
climate risk. Planning Assess all readily available climate change and
decisions (especially over disaster risk information and integrate it into
medium- and long-term 2 a summary situational analysis that presents
timeframes) need to actionable information about the woreda and
Risk-informed
acknowledge and account known climate risks.
decision
making for deep and irreducible At a multistakeholder workshop, review the
uncertainty about future woreda climate risk profile with whole-of-
climate conditions. society actors.
Decision making must also Develop long-term future climate scenarios
consider multiple forms 3
at the workshop to help visualise possible
and sources of climate climate futures.
information: scientific, local
Screen strategic objectives and development
knowledge etc.
options for robustness against future scenarios.
Establish a cross-sectoral woreda planning
1
team that aims for gender balance.
Ensure community-level participation activities
(eg risk assessments) are sensitive to inequalities
2 and power differentials between social groups,
split activities by gender, age and/or any other
relevant dimension of difference.
Gender-based, economic Invite members of socially disadvantaged
and political inequalities groups — including elders, community-
need to be recognised as based organisations (CBOs), civil society
root causes of vulnerability. 3 organisations (CSOs) and NGOs — to a
Climate-resilient high-level strategic objectives multistakeholder
Gender development solutions workshop to ensure inclusion and
and social need to be identified representation.
inclusion and selected through a Planning team screens criteria for shortlisting
socially inclusive process 3 climate-resilient development options for
that recognises and gender and social inclusion.
prioritises the specific
climate priorities of socially Disaggregate climate risk profiles for
disadvantaged groups. disadvantaged groups in written strategic plan,
3
clearly stating how planned interventions will
benefit them.
Ensure communications and validation
4 processes are sensitive to the differential needs
and preferences of distinct social groups.
Disaggregate MEL indicators to allow tracking
5
of intervention outcomes for different groups.
www.iied.org 21

Ensure the planning team is cross-sectoral.
1 Use stakeholder analysis to notify and include

relevant whole-of-society actors in the planning
process.
Conduct a situational analysis, drawing on
Effective climate action
service delivery updates, cross-sectoral reports
needs to be a systemwide
and nonstate actor reports/data.
response, drawing on the
knowledge and experience Conduct participatory fieldwork at the
of multiple and varied 2 kebele level to gather community climate risk
stakeholders across society information.
and government, including
Use local knowledge and systemic livelihood
Whole-of- CSOs, CBOs, the private
needs as a starting point, not sectoral
society / sector, academia, NGOs,
assessments.
Whole-of- parastatal organisations
and others at many different Conduct a multistakeholder strategic objectives
government
scales. workshop with whole-of-society actors to
approach
3 review the woreda climate risk profile, develop
A cross-sectoral and climate scenarios and identify medium-term
holistic planning approach goals for the woreda.
recognises that the
goals of climate and Integrate strategic objectives and planned
sustainable development 4 activities across sectors, guided by livelihood
are interdependent and needs and community vision.
synergistic. Validate the plan and communicate it to other
4 stakeholders to allow for cooperation and
activity coordination.
Engage stakeholders in participatory monitoring
5 and evaluation, and a system of learning and
reflection for adaptative, flexible planning.
Local people and existing Fieldwork with communities provides
livelihood systems already understanding of Indigenous and traditional
2
have significant adaptative knowledge through participatory (kebele-level)
capacity and Indigenous climate risk and livelihood hazard consultations.
technical knowledge Multistakeholder strategic objectives workshop
for dealing with climate brings whole-of-society perspective on
change. Climate-resilient 3 Indigenous technical knowledge at multiple
Valuing local,
development should scales, including community, landscape and
Indigenous
actively recognise, cross-border.
and traditional
document and research the
knowledge
comparative effectiveness
of these practices, allowing Validation workshops confirm understanding of
for the possibility that they Indigenous and traditional knowledge through
(or improvements on them) 4
engagement and validation with communities
may be more climate- and whole-of-society actors.
robust than mainstream
development solutions.
22 www.iied.org
IIED WORKING PAPER

Climate-resilient
Where possible, base strategic planning
development requires
activities on and build them around existing
investment in a wide
woreda planning processes and institutions.
range of capabilities and
skills of those involved Prepare comprehensive and context-relevant
in governance and written guidelines covering all aspects of the
decision making, including planning process.
Training and communities, government
For greater accessibility, translate guidelines
capacity staff and whole-of-society ALL into Amharic as well as English.
building actors.
Provide training to woreda clusters at regional
Capacity building is most
level for cost-effectiveness and to encourage
sustainable when it builds
both peer-to-peer learning and regional-level
on and complements
backstopping and technical support. Include
existing tools and
key cross-sectoral woreda experts (who are
processes that are already
expected to form part of the planning team) and
institutionalised and
regional staff in this training.
funded.
Local actors are most
immediately affected by
climate change and have
deep knowledge about its
impacts (both social and
bio-physical).
For reasons of justice and The woreda is the most appropriate level for
effectiveness, climate- conducting and coordinating strategic planning
Appropriate resilient development for climate-resilient development, given its
ALL
subsidiarity requires decision making to formal administrative and legal role as the most
be devolved to the lowest local coordinating body, implementation hub
appropriate administrative and service delivery centre.
level. This level will depend
on interdependencies and
spillover effects within the
ecosystem, social system,
economies of scale and
issues of capacity.
www.iied.org 23

Transparency is
fundamental for
downward, horizontal and
upward accountability. Provide a comprehensive, publicly available
Downward accountability written plan at woreda level.
to communities builds
trust, reinforces the social This is a formal commitment that allows
contract and social justice, stakeholders at all levels to review decisions
and enables learning taken and the rationale behind them, and
Accountability about effective adaptation to hold local government and other actors
and responses. 3 to account on commitments made. It also
transparency provides critical climate risk information for all
Horizonal accountability stakeholders.
encourages more effective
coordination and better Translate written plans into a variety of different
integration of sectoral formats — such as oral, visual, social media —
responses. for wider accessibility.
Upward accountability to
donors encourages trust
and addresses concerns
about fiduciary risk.
Regular funding needs to
be available for both the Using the national climate fund (the CRGE
governance of climate- Facility) as an entry point in connection with a
resilient development high-level policy agenda (the CRGE Strategy)
(planning, institutions will make it easier to fund and institutionalise a
etc) and sequenced CRDP process at woreda level.
Predictable, and interconnected By identifying specific climate-related
regular climate investments. investments and their rationale, formal, written
ALL
finance for National policies, finance woreda climate-resilient development plans will
local action systems and climate make it easier for the CRGE Facility and other
funds need to support the development agents to effectively target climate
transfer of both domestic funds (and design bespoke projects) from
resources and international multiple sources to the local level in a socially
climate funds to the just and sustainable manner.
local level for both these
purposes.
Table 4 presents a general overview of how we community involvement is generally limited during
operationalised the eight CRDP Principles within the standard annual woreda and sub-woreda planning
five phases of the WCSDP guidelines. This section processes (see Table 5). The EPCCC guidelines
provides more detail on some of these design decisions, (FDRE, 2019a) for CRGE mainstreaming recommend
particularly where they differ from other guidelines such using popular tools for community consultation, but
as those developed by the EPCCC, and provides the assume woreda capacity to interpret and implement
rationale and assumptions embedded in them. them effectively.
To address these limitations, the WCDSP guidelines
3.2.1 Community participation: emphasise meaningful community engagement and
fieldwork at kebele level participation throughout the woreda planning process;
but it is especially important in Phase 2. This is where
Community participation is fundamental to equitable
fieldwork with communities at kebele level provides
and effective CRDP, with a special emphasis
climate risk and development priority information for
on demand-led prioritisation and bottom-up
communities across the woreda, with a special focus
accountability. Findings from our institutional readiness
on culturally disadvantaged and climate vulnerable
assessment (Crick et al., 2021) confirmed that
groups within them.
24 www.iied.org
IIED WORKING PAPER
We developed a tailor-made field guide with very assessment of the drivers of vulnerability and an
detailed instructions and structured response tables. appraisal of the dynamic interactions over time, which
The rationale for a new guide was to provide tailored, may not be entirely beneficial.
easy-to-use, context-relevant instructions for woreda
Planning processes at all administrative levels —
staff, covering participatory livelihood and climate risk
including the woreda — are currently strongly sectoral,
assessment activities. We developed two field guide
an approach endorsed by the EFCCC climate
variants, allowing for the woreda’s choice according to
mainstreaming guidelines (FDRE, 2019a).
its capacity and funding.
The WCSDP approach is distinctive in that it aims
Participatory risk assessment activities in the field
to produce a comprehensive five-year development
guide use livelihood systems and community wellbeing
plan based on non-sector-specific development
rather than sectoral targets as entry points. By
goals endorsed by the whole of society and whole
encouraging participants to articulate challenges as
of government. The systemic strategic development
they see them — as opposed to how the government
goals chosen by the woreda could be explicitly related
categorises them — this approach allows for a more
to addressing emerging climate vulnerabilities or they
systemic assessment of development needs based
could engage with broader sustainable development
on a more holistic understanding of local livelihood
objectives that build resilience. The WCSDP approach
strategies, addressing the principle of valuing local,
aims to create opportunities for sectors to work together
Indigenous and traditional knowledge.
across the whole of government to identify overlaps and
The guidelines promote sensitivity to the differential synergies and coordinate interventions, using a testable
needs of disadvantaged and minority groups by theory of change to make these explicit.
recommending holding separate workshops for
Cross-sectoral planning is embedded in all aspects of
men and women, and paying careful attention to the
the WCSDP process, but it is particularly important
attendee profile to ensure representation of different
in Phase 3 where a multistakeholder workshop brings
livelihoods, geographical areas, age groups and
together whole-of-government and whole-of-society
wealth groups, addressing the gender and social
actors to agree medium-term, non-sectorally specific
inclusion principle.
development goals and explore how sectoral initiatives
For cost effectiveness, we recommend using quota could work synergistically towards these.
sampling to select kebeles for fieldwork. Sampling
by agroecology — for example, lowland, midland or 3.2.3 Future climate scenario planning
highland — or livelihood characteristics allows the
Climate change presents distinctive challenges for
planning team to develop an understanding of the range
planners at all levels. Decision making takes place in
of climate risk and vulnerability contexts present within
the context of deep and irreducible uncertainty about
a woreda while keeping costs manageable. This may
climate futures over longer (decadal and multidecadal)
also allow woredas to share costs and pool capacity
planning timeframes. Special decision support tools
between WCSDP and other flagship programmes that
are needed to ensure that current adaptation and
are already conducting planning in specific kebeles.
mitigation measures do not lock in undesirable future
development pathways in the context of a dynamic and
3.2.2 Cross-sectoral, integrated and evolving risk environment (IPCC 2023a). Such tools
strategic development planning are lacking in the Ethiopian local planning context.
CRDP is not restricted to analysing only climate-related Even where climate risk is considered - for example,
impacts. Climate change is a crosscutting theme and as part of flagship national programmes with a
a risk multiplier: it will exacerbate existing vulnerability climate-smart component, such as PSNP - there is
and social issues, and could create new ones. In other an assumption that building climate resilience can
words, climate change cannot be treated in isolation, or largely be addressed by identifying optimal responses
as a bolt-on (Eriksen et al., 2021). Its systemic nature to largely predictable future climate impacts — for
means that climate risk requires layered and coordinated example, by adopting specific climate-smart agriculture
responses that involve multiple sectors working together techniques or preparing optimised watershed
over time to reduce vulnerability, based on a systemic infrastructure development plans.
www.iied.org 25
But climate change is by its very nature dynamic, donors, a logframe assumes a linear and predictable
uncertain and subject to sudden tipping points that can causal relationship between inputs, activities, outputs,
change local ecosystems dramatically in unprecedently outcomes and impacts.
ways (Lenton et al., 2023). Planning in such an
A theory of change approach is better suited to
uncertain context requires specialised decision
uncertain situations where the effectiveness of an
support tools as well as resources for communicating
intervention is an open question that needs to be
climate risk to local stakeholders. Climate scenarios
assessed, tested, modified and adjusted in real time.
have the potential to translate otherwise abstract
It is a learning tool that supports flexible and adaptative
climate futures into concrete and locally intelligible
programming by locally engaged actors. It is effective
and tangible realities, making explicit the impacts
for exploring dynamically uncertain and evolving social
across different sectors, with an emphasis on plausible
and environmental contexts — that is, climate change
extreme events. The Intergovernmental Panel on
situations (Prinsen and Nijhof, 2015).
Climate Change defines a scenario as “a coherent,
internally consistent and plausible description of a Developing a theory of change requires planners
possible future state of the world. It is not a forecast; to be explicit about how they expect interventions
rather, each scenario is one alternative image of how to work to achieve the woreda’s wider strategic
the future can unfold” (IPCC, 2011). It also notes objectives identified in the plan. A theory of change
that “the most useful climate-resource scenarios facilitates learning because it allows planners to
are plausible, relevant, divergent, challenging, and develop indicators that can genuinely test underlying
oftentimes memorable”. assumptions about the problem domain and expected
pathways of change. This is particularly important for
As part of the multistakeholder whole-of-government/
climate adaptation, where maladaptation is a risk, and
whole-of-society workshop in Phase 3, stakeholders
it may be necessary to adjust intervention pathways in
co-produce locally relevant climate scenarios that
response to rapidly changing conditions.
embrace this uncertainty and translate it into locally
intelligible narratives. The WCSDP team then uses Although local government planners are generally
these scenarios to screen for ‘robust’ development unfamiliar with theory of change approaches, logframe
options that are likely to be effective across a wide and theory of change approaches complement each
range of possible climate futures (Lempert et al., 2006; another because they serve different purposes (Biden,
Wilby and Dessai, 2010). n.d.). The WCSDP approach recommends that the
woreda planning team be explicit about their theory of
3.2.4 Logframes and theory of change change for each single (and combined) intervention
they propose. This empowers local-level actors to
Planning staff at all administrative levels in Ethiopia are
design, pilot and evaluate their own solutions to
familiar with logframes as practical managerial tools
contextually dependent local situations.
for clearly setting out and monitoring the delivery of
project outputs. Ideal for upwards accountability to
26 www.iied.org
4
IIED WORKING PAPER
Findings: the
limitations of
guidelines
Using the five pillars and the eight principles of the CRDP framework
as an analytical lens, this chapter explores the wider challenges of
institutionalising a climate-resilient system of governance and shows
how guidelines can only go so far.
Our institutional readiness assessment made clear supportive policies that provide a strong foundation for
that a set of guidelines alone — no matter how climate-resilient development (see Table 1). The CRGE
clear and comprehensive — would never be enough Strategy promotes mainstreaming and increasingly
to institutionalise CRDP at the woreda level. focuses on adaptation through the NAP-ETH, and it
Guidelines are just one small part of the wider enabling already has guidelines for mainstreaming climate into
policy framework. development. Its ongoing decentralisation process
supports subsidiarity, in theory empowering woredas
The assessment concluded that building a supportive
to develop local plans and budgets to reflect local
enabling environment for sustainable CRDP would
needs and context. Its CRGE Facility can mobilise
require coordinated action across all five pillars
funds with accreditation to the international climate
of government action: the policy and legislative
funds, and it officially recognises the need for
framework, institutions, climate-resilient planning,
participatory, multistakeholder and socially inclusive
MEL, and budgeting and financing. Our subsequent
development planning.
experience during this action research project only
confirms this conclusion. However, despite these supportive frameworks at
national level, an acute implementation gap remains
4.1 Policy and legislative at subnational and local levels, and coordination
with other development initiatives and national
framework programmes remains weak (Dagne et al., 2022). At
regional and woreda level, there is a lack of policy
Ethiopia was one of the first LDCs to seriously awareness, limited implementation capacity to
consider how to integrate climate change into support national and international commitments, and
long-term strategic planning. It has a collection of insufficient follow-up.
www.iied.org 27
4.2 Institutions Although housed in the Ministry of Finance, the CRGE

Facility received technical expertise and support on
Having appropriate institutions and effective, functional climate change programming from the EFCCC, which
relationships between them (both horizontally and developed the NAP-ETH, woreda mainstreaming
vertically) is crucial for embedding climate-resilient guidelines (FDRE, 2019a) and contributed to the
development into governance systems at all levels and 10-year development plan. The EFCCC might have
across the whole of society (Crick et al., 2019; IPCC, been a complementary entry point and could have
2023b, 2023a). Institutions are complex systems, and assisted with resourcing as well as authorising climate
capacity-building efforts aiming for lasting change action. But when the EFCCC was reorganised in
require sophisticated, multipronged approaches that 2021 while the project was midstream, ownership
work in a politically informed and opportunistic manner of climate change-related responsibilities was
to leverage dynamic opportunities for change when and transferred at all administrative levels, and mandates
where they are arise (Shakya et al., 2018). and institutional structures at subnational levels have
remained in a state of flux.
In Chapter 1, we described the main institutions involved
in delivering climate finance. Here, we explore some of This highlights the challenges of working in a fluid
the institutional difficulties we encountered during the institutional environment where ministries and
project; problems that contributed to our inability to mandates are frequently reorganised — a common
build a national-level working group that could authorise situation in LDCs. But it also shows the importance
and resource piloting at the woreda level. of perseverance over time, continued engagement
with a wider range of interested actors and sensitivity
In Ethiopia’s hierarchical state structure, the institutional
to the changing political agendas of different
sponsor for climate-resilient development needs to be
institutional actors. These are all crucial factors in
an influential actor at federal level, with enough cross-
working flexibility to take advantage of ‘moments of
sectoral convening power and an effective mandate
momentum’ in these contexts.
for planning. Our institutional entry point (the CRGE
4.3 Climate-resilient
Facility) is housed withing the Ministry of Finance and
specialises in raising and managing finance for projects
from international climate finance agencies such as the
GCF and Adaptation Fund. As such, even though it planning
has an interest in local-level climate-resilient planning,
Another major learning to emerge from this work is the
it does not have the authority to coordinate, resource
lack of woreda capacity and skills for both annual and
or implement a comprehensive, cross-sectoral local
strategic climate-resilient planning. While we explored
planning process. The projectised nature of the specific
these issues during the initial readiness assessment
entry point — a GCF project delivered through the
phase of our research, Echnoserve’s work with woreda
Ministry of Agriculture and Ministry of Water, rather than
offices and our deep-dive piloting further emphasised
as part of a wider cross-sectoral national programme —
the capacity gap for planning at the woreda level.
further limited the resources available to the project.
Table 5 summarises how the annual planning processes
in the woredas where we worked measure up against
the CRDP Principles.
28 www.iied.org
IIED WORKING PAPER
Table 5. Assessment of annual woreda planning process against the CRDP Principles
CRDP PRINCIPLES ANNUAL WOREDA PLANNING PROCESS

Climate risk assessments are not conducted at woreda or sub-woreda level
Risk-informed decision There is limited climate information available for any timescale, and this is not
making used for planning
Disaster risk profiles are sometimes available but their use is limited
Representation of women on planning teams is limited
Gender and social
There is no differentiated climate risk analysis for disadvantaged groups
inclusion
There are no gender-disaggregated MEL indicators
Whole-of-society actors are not systematically included in the annual
planning process
Whole-of-society/ NGOs often operate independently
whole-of-government Sub-woreda (kebele) planning tends to involve technical discussion between
approach experts, with community engagement limited to ratifying prepared plans
Coordination between sectors during planning process is weak at both kebele
and sub-kebele levels, unless within projects/national progammes
Valuing local, Indigenous Planning teams take no specific measures to document or act upon this knowledge
and traditional
knowledge There is little scope for innovation based on scaling up or out of local solutions
Woreda staff training on formal strategic planning and climate programming

Training and capacity is limited
building Training provided is one-off and not embedded in continuous practice
Frequent staff turnover limits the effectiveness of training
Strategic targets and objectives are largely decided at zonal/regional level and
Appropriate subsidiarity passed down to woredas
Woredas have scarce funds for independent action
Planning at kebele level is through undocumented, informal consultations and
Accountability and discussions between experts and community members
transparency Annual plans are not published and/or widely communicated among
woreda stakeholders
Budget for planning is extremely limited, especially for climate-related programming
Predictable, regular
There is little capital budget from the block grant available for climate and
climate funding for local
development investments and interventions
action
There is no budget for MEL
Source: Data based on workshop discussions and key informant interviews with woreda and regional experts, and with community members in Amhara and SNNPR.
There is great regional variation in woreda preparedness, and performance may be much stronger in kebeles where national flagship programmes are present.
4.3.1 Strategic planning Woreda planning teams do routinely compile and

coordinate an annual operational plan and budget.
Despite their central role in service provision and project
This is a collection of sectoral plans developed largely
implementation, most woredas do not currently produce
independently by each woreda sectoral office, with
five-year written strategic plans, only annual plans. 8
strategic direction provided by regional sectoral
There is no budget allocated for strategic planning
strategic plans and/or national flagship programmes.
and, as far we could ascertain, there are no up-to-date
Producing annual plans involves negotiation between
guidelines or processes for this purpose in line with the
woreda staff and regional actors, and informal
current Ten-Year Perspective planning process.
prioritisation to meet local needs.
8 Reports from woreda key informants suggest that under previous five-year planning systems (GTPI and GTPII), some woredas did prepare
strategic five-year plans.
www.iied.org 29
One consequence of this lack of strategic planning delivered as part of the GCF project — confirms that
expertise is that woreda staff are unfamiliar with the sectoral thinking is extremely entrenched at woreda
setting and refining of medium-term formal strategic level. Experts typically operate in silos even within the
objectives and goals. For example, we originally very sectoral offices where they are based. Given this
proposed a woreda visioning activity as part of Phase deep-seated organisational culture, woreda experts
3 to help teams identifying long-term woreda-specific, and planning teams struggled to articulate strategic
cross-sectoral climate-resilient goals, but the woreda objectives for the woreda in non-sectoral terms.
teams assessed this as being complex for their level,
Cross-sectoral integration between woreda sectoral
so we dropped the exercise. If Ethiopia is to scale out
offices does happen at woreda level, but this typically
strategic planning at woreda level, significant capacity
takes place within well-funded flagship national
building and adequate funding will be required.
programmes — such as the SLMP, PSNP, RLLP,
Alternatively, it may be necessary to reconsider the
Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) programme,
locus of planning.
and Household Asset Building Programme (HABP) —
where cross-sectoral goals have been set at the national
4.3.2 Cross-sectoral level and modalities of cooperation and coordination
(whole-of-government) planning between line ministries have already been established
through a formal programme architecture supported
While long-term climate and development planning
by structures at all levels of government. For example,
benefits from an integrated systems approach, the
national programmes that use the watershed as the unit
piloting process showed that framing objectives in
of participatory development planning already feature
non-sectoral terms and encouraging cross-sectoral
cross-sectoral planning teams that set priorities at
(whole-of-government) strategic integration is a serious
watershed level.
challenge at woreda level.
But fully integrated cross-sectoral planning at woreda
Evidence from Phase 3 deep-dive multisectoral
level is novel and transformational in Ethiopia, and is
workshops in Harar and Somali — and from the
being piloted (Box 2). This approach represents a
consultant’s experience of drafting the 16 finalised plans
fundamental shift in institutional norms and culture.
BOX 2. MULTISECTORAL WOREDA TRANSFORMATION

INITIATIVE (MSWT)
Recognising the fragmentation and siloed nature of service delivery and development programmes in Ethiopia,
the MSWT, initiated in 2019, puts empowering woredas to make progress on the sustainable development
goals at household level at the centre of its delivery and performance targets. Overall initiatives are set nationally
by focusing on the four Ls — ‘livelihoods, lifestyle, literacy and life expectancy’ — and, while climate risk is a
crosscutting theme, it is not central to the initiative.
The MSWT focuses on integrated planning at the woreda level and integrated service delivery and community
engagement at the subworeda level by insisting on:
• One plan, which is horizontally and vertically aligned to ensure integration across sectors
• One budget, which is an integrated/comprehensive costed woreda plan with explicit
woreda-level priorities, and
• One performance monitoring system, which includes multisectoral targets that support woreda
development objectives. Woreda sector offices are required to endorse and allocate resources to
multisectoral woreda indicators, irrespective of their individual sectoral mandate.
Confirming our findings in this research, authorising and resourcing the MWST required the establishment of
formal working groups between federal line ministries and their respective technical working groups, supported
by committees at lower tiers of administration for coordination and technical support. It is currently being piloted
in just one woreda.
Note that we have not evaluated the MWST programme comprehensively against all the CRDP Principles, nor
have we reviewed evaluation or programme progress reports.
Source: FDRE (2019c)
30 www.iied.org
IIED WORKING PAPER
4.3.3 Facilitation and workshop strategic goals for the woreda. But, even with technical
organising skills assistance from the consultant, pilot woredas found it
extremely difficult to compile this information due to a
The piloting process confirmed that organising and lack of comprehensive data.
facilitating participatory whole-of-society engagements
If monitoring and evaluation is generally weak,
requires considerable financial and technical capacity,
systematic learning is practically non-existent.
which in many cases is not present at woreda level.
Woreda staff were also unfamiliar with using a theory
This reflects the complexity and novelty of the activities
of change approach to explain the rationale behind
and the wide range of stakeholders being convened,
investments. During the guideline drafting stage
which have no parallel in current woreda planning.
(see 2.2.2), workshop participants advised against
Ideally, planning activities should just be a extension of a
introducing this new approach as it was significantly
longer-term engagement strategy involving a wide range
beyond the current capacity of woreda staff. However,
of organisations — such as NGOs, CSOs, CBOs and
this creates an important limitation to learning by trial
academia — with differing agendas, levels of capacity
and error. As a result, future programming will be less
and long-term interests. For example, the guidelines
adaptable and flexible in response to dynamically
propose holding a multistakeholder workshop as part
changing system conditions.
of Phase 3. This is a pivotal event where government
4.5 Budgeting and finance

experts and community representatives meet to propose
and co-develop long-term, cross-sectoral strategic
objectives for the woreda in the light of the findings
As noted in the Section 1.2.3, funds for
from the community fieldwork, situational analysis
development activity of any kind are scarce at
and future climate scenarios. Holding such an event
the local government level.
requires advanced logistical and organisational skills,
sophisticated facilitation and note-taking capabilities, Our theory of change is that we can increase flows of
finance, and the ability to manage and coordinate climate finance to the local government level by helping
diverse interests. woredas to produce comprehensive, climate-smart
strategic plans. With clearly identified investment entry
4.3.4 Reporting and plan preparation points, we assume that additional funding will become
available from the CRGE Facility and other sources of
While there is wide regional variation, we found that
climate financing (such as international NGOs).
woreda staff have relatively little experience of preparing
extended formal written reports and often lack the Working with woreda staff, we produced climate-smart
capacity or time to do so. Where written reports are plans for 16 woredas, but it is too early to assess
needed, this task is outsourced to external consultants, as whether they have had any significant impact, in terms
was largely the case with the 16 plans that were prepared of affecting the selection of woreda investments as
for this project. In many contexts, the organisational part of existing woreda-level programmes or additional
culture of woredas favours oral and informal modes of funding for the activities identified. This limits our ability
governance, possibly as a flexible response to multiethnic, to comment on the theory of change.
multilingual woreda administrations where fluency in any
In the short term, as an alternative it may possible to
single language — be that English, Amharic or any other
use existing and established programmes — such
— cannot be assumed.
as the SLMP, PSNP and WASH — as entry points
This has important implications for transparency and for climate action by making their planning systems
accountability, as well as appropriate subsidiarity (see more climate smart and increasing the range and
Section 5) scope of investments they make. This is the approach
taken by Climate-Smart Mainstreaming PSNP (DAI,
4.4 Monitoring, evaluation n.d.), which modified the existing Watershed and
Rangeland Planning Guide (FDRE, 2019d), already
and learning used by multiple national programmes, to take account
of climate risk and climate-smart activities. But this
We found that woreda-level monitoring and evaluation approach risks fragmentation, duplication of resources
systems were severely under-resourced and and maladaptation without effective coordination
functionally limited. Frequent staff turnover coupled and learning across scales (See Box 3 - PSNP and
with weak information technology and poor information integrated participatory watershed management).
management systems resulted in extensive gaps in
sectoral documentation and reporting. Phase 1 of the
WCSDP guidelines recommends compiling a situational
analysis that provides an overview of the woreda’s
development context to provide a baseline for setting
www.iied.org 31
5
Lessons for the

LLA Principles
In this chapter, we reflect on lessons learned and issues raised from
our Climate-Resilient Development Framework, which by extension
also apply to the LLA Principles.
5.1 Risk-informed There is a clearly an urgent need for access to climate

information across all temporal scales — from daily or
decision making weekly forecasts to seasonal forecasts and decadal and
multidecadal projections. But at the strategic planning
As GCF project FP058 specifically targeted woredas — level, there are two major challenges: the first is around
and kebeles within them — where no other programmes supporting decision making in the context of deep and
were running, our target woredas had very limited prior irreducible uncertainty about climate futures over longer
experience of conducting climate change assessments (decadal and multidecadal) planning timeframes; the
or integrating climate risk into annual sectoral planning. second around ensuring that current adaptation and
In some cases, tailored woreda disaster risk profiles mitigation measures do not lock in undesirable future
were already available as part of the national Disaster development pathways in the context of a dynamic and
Risk Management and Food Security Sector database, evolving risk environment (IPCC, 2023a). It is important
but we found that outside of the specialised disaster risk to assess trade-offs and prioritise options through
management office, woreda staff do not routinely use an iterative and ongoing process that explores the
this information. While these data are comprehensive robustness of adaptation options and pathways against
and detailed down to the kebele level — for example, future climate and socioeconomic uncertainties and is
the report for Jigjiga woreda (DRMFSS and FDRE, sensitive to issues of equity, justice and inclusion.
2015) runs to 254 pages — they are not easy to use and
The pilot multistakeholder workshop conducted in
interpret by themselves and lack a holistic, explanatory
Somali region confirmed the feasibility of using future
narrative. There was little awareness of providers of
climate scenarios as a useful decision support tool
climate information and woredas had no established
and pointed to their value in a setting where preparing
links with the Ethiopian National Meteorological Agency.
extensive written reports is often challenging.
Given this low level of capacity and resources, how
do we go about embedding climate risk into local
government planning systems?
32 www.iied.org
IIED WORKING PAPER
Scenarios are particularly effective for transparency

and accountability in local climate change planning
5.2 Gender and social
in two ways. Firstly, they can translate abstract future inclusion
scientific projections based largely around rainfall and
temperature averages at higher scales into concrete WCSDP planning needs to understand and account for
and meaningful information for citizens, communities the distinctive climate risk profiles of different groups
and their specific livelihood systems and geographic within communities, paying particular attention to the
and socio-economic contexts. Secondly, they can help needs and priorities of disadvantaged and minority
to move the agenda beyond planning for existing and groups, such as women and young people.
known climate hazards to considering the prospect
Our WCDSP Phase 2 uses focus group activities run
of unprecedented and unexpected climate change
by woreda planning staff and local development agents
impacts associated with never-before-experienced
for this purpose. The dedicated field guide provides
extreme events.
detailed instructions on how to select participants to
Ideally, long-term climate scenario planning would be ensure the experiences and interests of all groups are
embedded in a comprehensive climate-smart strategic considered, documented and adequately represented.
local planning process (such as the WCSDP), whether But woredas can interpret these instructions very
this is conducted at woreda or another level. But shared differently depending on local contextual factors,
woreda climate scenarios co-designed with local regional variations and operational constraints, and
stakeholders are also useful as flexible, standalone these differences have important consequences for the
climate action decision tools that can used independently legitimacy of the findings.
by different sectors and programmes.
Although we were unable to conduct a full piloting of
Even in the absence of scientific data, with imperfect all aspects of the guidelines, IIED and Echnoserve
data or insufficient capacity to process it, it is possible staff did carry out light-touch quality assurance visits
to conduct effective long-term contingency planning during Phase 2 in two woredas with very different
for plausible future climate outcomes and screen geographical profiles: Amhara, a highland region, and
interventions to identify robust solutions with as few Somali, a lowland region. The limited nature of the
as three scenarios providing vivid illustration of local available funding provided interesting insights into how,
biophysical and socioeconomic impacts. Valid for up irrespective of the ideal processes set out in guidelines,
to ten years, these scenarios can be supplemented resource constraints and local conditions are likely to
with maps and translated into local languages, allowing shape real-life practice, imposing biases and constraints
widespread dissemination through locally appropriate on the legitimacy of the findings.
channels, such as cartoons, videos or songs. This
First, in both woredas, resource constraints meant
would allow sectoral planners to screen suggested
that we could only sample a limited number of kebeles
initiatives easily against possible future impacts, and
(up to two in each) and the selections were due to
communities and their representatives to critically
convenience, not representativeness. This led to an
assess proposed initiatives through a climate lens
accessibility bias - all the kebeles chosen were well
and hold local government to account. More granular
connected by road and close to the main woreda
information can be added as capacity allows — and
offices. But the most vulnerable kebeles are likely to
be greatly enhanced by increased whole-of-society
be remote, costly to access and have poor transport
participation in the scenario development process
links. Having enough available funding is vital to ensure
— by including expert judgement and through further
fieldwork can be conducted where development
stakeholder engagement and scientific models of
support is weakest and services most deficient.
particular biophysical subsystems. Scenarios can also
be extended to include dimensions of possible social, Second, the selection process for focus group
economic or political change, in addition to climate participants was interpreted differently in different
futures (Cavanna and Abkula, 2009). regions. For example, in Amhara — where there is a rich
network of formal, functional community governance
structures — woreda officials worked with kebele-level
development agents and staff to select exemplary
community members, preferably people who were
already active in other community-level institutions,
such as water and watershed committees. While these
participants effectively articulated their concerns and
priorities, the system is exposed to both elite capture
and confirmatory bias, where participants simply
reiterate existing government understandings and
www.iied.org 33
Male community members participate in a men’s focus group in Enbise Sar Midir woreda in Amhara.
endorse existing interventions that favour more powerful empowerment and engagement throughout the
community members. development cycle, including implementation and MEL.
Members received training and capacity building to help
This bias was successfully avoided in a rural kebele
them act as empowered partners of local government,
in Somali, where kebele officials used convenience
capable of authoritatively speaking on behalf of their
quota sampling on the day. But this introduced other
communities on a more level playing field.
forms of bias and participants were less effective at
communicating and articulating their interests. And, Funding a system of community institutions can be a
while both selection processes were operationally serious challenge. In Ethiopia, it would make sense
convenient and cost-effective in their particular to build on existing institutions where they exist, have
context, they lacked democratic accountability and local legitimacy and already have funding — such as
legitimacy because the community was not involved the watershed committees established and funded
in their selection. under PSNP following the Community Rangeland and
Watershed Guidelines — paying due attention to social
One solution to the problem of political and statistical
justice and equitable representation in the selection
representation is to move beyond one-off consultations
process. In lowland regions such as Somali, informal
and work with longer-lived, bespoke community
but powerful community institutions such as clans and
planning institutions (recall that appropriate institutions
councils of elders may be a more effective entry point,
are one of the five pillars of government action in the
rather than insisting on imported formal structures that
CRDP framework). For example, Kenya’s County
have little legitimacy or authority.
Climate Change Fund (CCCF) set up new community
planning institutions at ward level. Communities used Of course, even the most functional and locally
transparent, socially inclusive selection criteria that legitimate institutions may not always be able
emphasised knowledge, honesty and trustworthiness to champion the interests and needs of socially
(not literacy) to determine membership. Members disadvantaged groups consistently. That is why in Phase
were elected and minorities were included through 3 step 2 of the WCSDP planning process we insisted
membership quotas (Crick et al,. 2019). These on mandatory social inclusion assessment criteria that
institutions became vehicles for greater community explored the impact of all proposed interventions and
34 www.iied.org
IIED WORKING PAPER
Female community members participate in a women’s focus group in Haroreys woreda, Somali region.
activities on the most vulnerable and dis-empowered

groups in the community. Further scrutiny and
5.3 Whole-of-government
amendment is possible during Phase 4 (Communication and whole-of-society
and validation).
approach
Using a whole-of-society approach, including CSOs
or CBOs with deep experience in advancing the Whole of government
interests of particular minority groups, is another
Strategic planning across sectors is a challenge for
solution (Greene et al., 2020). CSOs and CBOs can
LDCs, especially at subnational levels. What does
help local government with community engagement,
the Ethiopian experience teach us about addressing
run focus groups, participate in woreda-level planning
the difficulty of working across sectors and setting
events and provide oversight of investment plans. As
cross-sectoral strategic objectives?
they usually have a good sense of the context and
local power dynamics, they can help navigate complex In Ethiopia, it is possible to work across sectors and
social dynamics and give voice to disadvantaged scales, but doing so requires formal coordination from
minorities in ways that are consistent with their own the top down. Several national programmes, including
aspirations rather than externally driven agendas. This WASH and PSNP, have and deliver integrated objectives.
can help avoid power imbalances and conflicting But they are housed within specific ministries at the
agendas as experienced, for example, between national level which are accountable to international
Tanzanian national NGOs directed by middle-class donors for ensuring delivery. Formal programming
urban women and the priorities of rural pastoralist frameworks set out the modalities of collaboration and
women’s groups (Hodgson, 2017). coordination - which are supported by cross-sectoral
working groups at all levels of government.
Convening and coordinating sectoral offices at the
woreda level, on the other hand, is extremely difficult
without a formal structure and official mandate.
Even if the higher administrative levels can authorise
www.iied.org 35
and coordinate such collaboration, conceptualising reinforce the resource and implementation functions
and independently setting long-term non-sectoral of climate government action. Closer cooperation with
development planning goals at woreda level is extremely CSOs, CBOs and NGOs can complement government
difficult due to entrenched sectoral thinking and actions and address capacity gaps in planning processes
deep-seated organisational culture. In the short term, at multiple scales, from community engagement at kebele
therefore, strategic goalsetting in Ethiopia is likely better level to woreda and regional level processes. They can
achieved either at higher levels of planning than the aggregate, intermediate and articulate interests, acting as
woreda — where capacity exists to prepare integrated brokers with deep understanding of local culture, history,
programmes that can be translated into discrete sectoral livelihoods and patterns of social exclusion. Academic
targets for implementation at lower levels — or through and research institutions can make scientific findings
whole-of-government collaboration across vertical accessible at local level, while local government needs
scales, with adequate coordination and technical can influence the content and practical relevance of
support from the region or zone where necessary. research agendas.
Indeed, effective vertical integration means that the
Setting up networks of longer-term collaboration
woreda should never have to ‘go it alone’: higher-level
based on shared climate interests would help address
technical advice and oversight should always be part of
questions of cost, since other actors have an incentive
the planning system, even while prioritising demand-led
to pool resources. It can also help retain expertise and
priorities and preferences.
know-how despite high local government staff turnover.
Less ambitious forms of integration can also be
beneficial. For example, CARE’s seasonal participatory
planning tool describes a process whereby
5.4 Valuing local,
cross-sectoral stakeholders convene regularly to Indigenous and traditional
discuss the latest seasonal weather forecast, its
implications for each sector’s immediate implementation knowledge
objectives, and coordinated contingency plans and
Research consistently shows that building on local
responses across sectors (CARE, 2018).
systems and ideas is crucial for effective and sustainable
adaptation (see for example, Pisor et al., 2022).
Whole of society
In the WCSDP guidelines, the main conduits for
Whole-of-society action is crucial because different
capturing local Indigenous and traditional knowledge
kinds of knowledge about climate risk and vulnerability
are through structured participatory activities during
are distributed across society and climate action is the
community consultations in a sample of kebeles during
sum of actions and interactions by multiple stakeholders
Phase 2, and the multistakeholder workshop in Phase 3.
— individuals, households, academia, NGOs and private
firms — not just the actions of government. Climate- There is a well established literature on the problems
resilient development planning by local government with the use of participation in development (see e.g.
requires synchronised engagement with this wider Cooke & Kothari, 2001), especially with regard to the
ecosystem of climate stakeholders. unequal power dynamics within which community
consultations so often take place. Our deep-dive pilots
The WCSDP guidelines set out a structured process
in Amhara and Somali regions also illustrated some of
for involving whole-of-society actors. At the heart of this
the limitations of one-off workshops, focus groups and
is the multistakeholder workshop in Phase 3. However,
participatory consultations when it comes to indentifying
efforts to include them in all aspects of the planning were
and valuing local knowledge.
curtailed by cost considerations and the limited planning
mandate of our GCF host project. Our research also The cognitive and epistemic biases of outside actors
confirmed that, like sectoral offices, whole-of-society (including the government experts we worked with) can
actors at woreda level often work independently in silos, mean that this kind of knowledge is invisible, mislabelled
following their own project-based agendas, duplicating or misunderstood; this is particularly the case where
efforts and working at cross purposes. local populations and their livelihood systems have been
historically marginalised and discriminated against by
But, more significantly, the project underlined the lesson
elites that have the power to define what constitutes
that whole-of-society engagement cannot mean simply
legitimate knowledge. The problem is particularly acute
holding a one-off workshop with nonstate actors at the
where standardised national policies are not sensitive
woreda level.
to the specifics of particular local ecosystems and
It should involve establishing, building and nurturing a livelihood strategies.
network of ongoing relationships across the full planning
For example, we noted that a common assumption
and implementation cycle, and building a whole climate-
across policy frameworks is that local people’s existing
resilient development community of practice to help
adaptive capacity is very low. Almost all local responses
36 www.iied.org
IIED WORKING PAPER
to climate variability are reflexively considered ‘coping adaptation options; but at the same time, flexibility is vital
strategies’ — that is, emergency measures that are both for adopting and endorsing effective solutions that are
undesirable and unsustainable. Pastoral mobility can context-specific, even if they cannot be scaled.
easily be interpreted in this light, a desperate action
taken in response to exceptional, emergency conditions
rather than a routine and effective livelihood response
5.5 Training and capacity
to the variability of resources in the drylands across building
space and time. (African Union, 2013; Barrow et al.,
2007; FAO, 2022; Krätli, 2019). In other words, it is As already noted, we found extensive capacity
considered an expression of vulnerability rather than weaknesses at the woreda level, from conducting
an expression of resilience. climate risk assessments and using climate information
to preparing formal plans and writing reports. It was
Reflecting on the 16 climate-smart plans produced
therefore difficult to build on existing capacities and
produced, we note that woreda experts sometimes
institutional processes, and we did not have the mandate
recommend mitigation interventions without fully
to implement and institutionalise entirely new ones.
understanding local livelihood system dynamics. For
example, the CRGE Strategy (FDRE, 2011) recommends Our assumption was that more comprehensive
substituting low-emitting livestock types, such as guidelines would help improve capacity on the ground.
poultry, and changing livestock management practices Take, for example, participatory community engagement.
— including smaller cattle herd sizes — to reduce GHG In the WCSDP project, we chose to develop a new
emissions while increasing productivity in agriculture. field guide for Phase 2 (section 4.3.4), considering that
But it is important to interpret such blanket advice off-the-shelf tools, such as CARE’s Climate Vulnerability
carefully in the light of local environmental conditions and Capacity Assessment (CVCA) (CARE, 2019) are
and the sustainability of the proposed alternatives. For not tailored to Ethiopian local government contexts
example, in pastoralist areas, livestock breeds and and can be difficult for woreda staff to adapt without
many management practices are already optimised for extensive and expensive training. We provided detailed
resilience to local variable environmental conditions and written instructions in English, to ensure the climate-
therefore productive in their context (Krätli et al., 2015). resilient quality of the process and to move away from
The absence of well developed theories of change in fragmented, sectorally biased consultations.
the 16 plans makes it all the harder for communities
But while there is clearly a need to build capacity
and whole of society actors to assess and challenge
at woreda level, it is important to also consider
the background assumptions of planners, and compare
sustainability and reflect on the conditions necessary
expected delivery pathways for interventions against
for effective training and learning to be retained. The
actual outcomes.
feedback we received on the field guide indicated a
Overall, it is important to note that focus groups may not clear preference for experiential and social learning
always be the best source of information on complex rather than relying on long, written documents, and
adaptation strategies that even local people find we observed that practitioners in the field substituted
difficult to articulate clearly. Unequal power dynamics these ‘complex’ instructions with alternative, familiar
may prevent some groups within communities from approaches used by their particular sectors. The
challenging dominant discourses or policy narratives. longer a document is, the less likely it is to be used —
A systemwide and/or landscape perspective may only especially in contexts where woreda teams have varying
be visible at higher operational scales of planning, so levels of functional mastery of technical vocabulary in
bringing in whole-of-society actors that operate at different languages.9
different scales can help contextualise local decisions
This preferred learning style, frequent staff turnover
within a broader framework. Academic and research
and limited resources at woreda level suggest that
organisations, networked through national and
standardisation of processes and ongoing training
international knowledge circuits, may be able to help
is vital for effective capacity building. It is better
here. Where a culturally nuanced perspective is only
to prioritise recurring training for activities that are
visible to those with deep and longstanding knowledge
embedded in mandated processes for which civil
of community norms, CBOs may be the solution.
servants are accountable, and where funding is
There is also a need for knowledge management of local available to cover the cost of these activities. Providing
practices and solutions, and this information needs to certification or professional training through academic
be vertically and horizontally integrated. Some of these or training institutions would be helpful, alongside a
practices could inform the development of the NAP- community of practice to advise on how to tailor the
ETH and lead to a wider or more flexible range of official guidelines to different contexts.
9 If guidelines are to be translated into other languages, length becomes a cost issue, and the lack of sophisticated technical vocabulary presents additional
difficulties.
www.iied.org 37
When it comes to community-level consultations and rural appraisal field guide. They also recommend the
risk assessments, it may be more effective to embed creation of various permanent participatory structures
and refine existing guidelines rather than attempt to at the watershed, kebele and woreda level to facilitate
introduce a completely new process as we did for ongoing planning and engagement with communities
Phase 2 of the WCSDP. using the watershed as the basic unit of development
(see Box 3).
The Participatory Watershed and Rangeland
Development guidelines, which have been in Fully institutionalising a common set of
evolution since 2005, have been endorsed by the CRDP-compatible community-level planning guidelines
Ministry of Agriculture for use nationally and have that can be adopted (and crucially, funded) by several
been adopted by several high-profile funded national national programmes and by different sectors will
flagship programmes including the SLMP and PSNP create demand for certified professionals who are
(FDRE, 2019d; FDRE and MoARD, 2005). Using trained on the guidelines and a pool of woreda-level
the watershed as the preferred unit of intervention, experts who can use their skills in any woreda across
these guidelines include a detailed participatory the country.
BOX 3. PSNP AND INTEGRATED PARTICIPATORY WATERSHED

MANAGEMENT
In the absence of a formally integrated woreda strategic planning process and an institutional structure to
support it, the most effective existing mechanisms for facilitating cross-sectoral planning at the local level and
ensuring regular funding flows is through national flagship programmes.
Now in Phase 5 (FDRE and MoA, 2021), the national flagship PSNP is an institutionalised shock-responsive
social protection delivery mechanism that targets extremely poor and vulnerable households in food-insecure
and drought-prone kebeles of selected woredas.
PSNP finances conditional or unconditional cash or food transfers in exchange for undertaking public works or
social infrastructure relating to natural resource management — such as water harvesting or soil conservation
— with the explicit objective of reducing disaster risk and promoting climate change adaptation and mitigation.
In addition to public works and resource transfers, the programme has evolved to provide a bundle of
cross-sectoral solutions for its clients, including livelihood support (through capacity building, training and
access to credit), and a platform with linkages to a broad range of government services.
Delivered through the Ministry of Agriculture, the programme has a well-developed institutional architecture that
features integrated and well-established modalities of coordination and collaboration across many line ministries
in pursuit of nationally determined objectives from the federal down to the woreda level. Programme-wide
guidelines and frameworks cover all aspects of operation, including community participation, environmental and
social management, gender and social inclusion.
In line with many other national flagship programmes, PSNP uses the watershed as the unit of integrated
planning at the community level and establishes (and funds) formal participatory planning institutions in
the kebeles where it is operative. The nationally endorsed Community Based Participatory Watershed or
Rangeland Development (CBPWRD) Guidelines (2021) are comprehensive and cross-sectoral and provide
participatory tools for gender responsive disaster risk and climate risk assessments; 10however, at present
take-up and quality of implementation is limited due to capacity and funding constraints.
Properly resourced, and suitably screened against the CRD framework principles and informed by lessons from
the PSNP climate mainstreaming experience, the CBPWRD guidelines could be scaled out as one model for
community-based, demand-driven, climate smart planning at the sub-woreda level (the community engagement
process of Phase 2 of the WCDSP guidelines we present in this paper). But while it meets many of the CRD
principles, this kind of watershed level planning still needs to be integrated into wider climate resilient planning
processes at other scales (woreda, zonal, regional) to check for policy coherence, possible maladaptation,
systemic sustainability, and equity of various kinds; its contribution to climate action objectives needs to be
quantified, and additional funding needs to be secured outside of existing national flagship programmes for
both climate smart planning and investments.
Sources (Adem et al., 2017; DAI., n.d.; FDRE and MoARD, 2005; FDRE and MoA, 2021)
38 www.iied.org
IIED WORKING PAPER
5.6 Appropriate subsidiarity support to individual woredas as they each prepare their
own plans. It may mean convening clusters of woredas
Our research provides insights into the meaning of to conduct specific activities (See Box 4) – leveraging
appropriate subsidiarity when designing a locally-led economies of scale, pooling technical expertise and
climate-resilient planning system. widening the circle of whole of society actors involved.
But it can also mean deciding that the most appropriate
When preparing the climate-resilient development
unit for formal planning is not the single woreda at all10.
guidelines, we assumed that the locus of strategic
Local circumstances (including available resources,
planning at the local level should be the woreda.
ecosystem and landscape dynamics) may indicate
The woreda is the official home of elected local
that strategic plans are better produced at the woreda
government representatives and has an executive
cluster, zonal or even regional level – with due attention
office (the ‘cabinet’) overseeing the coordination,
to the other CRDP principles. Ultimately there is a need
delivery and implementation of government services
to be pragmatic and flexible.
and interventions at the local level. All national and
regional government line ministries are represented This brings us to a broader reflection on the principle
here. The woreda has formal planning responsibilities of subsidiarity and its role within CRDP systems.
and has been the main focus for previous guidelines Appropriate subsidiarity recommends that decisions
aiming to mainstream the CRGE Strategy into be taken at the most appropriate lower level. This does
local government processes. This choice of unit not specify what the local level should be, nor does
actively supports the decentralisation agenda which it mean that planning should take place exclusively at
progressively delegates responsibility to the woreda any one level, or as part of one single process. Rather
level (Vaughan et al. 2020; FDRE 1995). than a specific geographical place or administrative
scale, ‘local’ is better understood as a ‘social-political
But our findings showed that, although there were
entry point’ - one that prioritises local ownership,
large variations between the woredas where we
agency and empowerment (Vincent, 2023). Locally-
worked, levels of capacity for climate-resilient
led planning for climate action requires both horizontal
planning were generally low and there was little (if
and vertical integration and coordination between
any) dependable funding for strategic medium-term
many actors across many scales of government. It
planning. As such, our research suggests that in many
involves creating and nurturing socially inclusive
cases it would be more cost-effective and efficient to
spaces for accommodation, contestation and
encourage the close involvement of the region or zone
negotiation between diverse worldviews, conceptions
in the WCSDP process.
of well-being and priorities in the face of the unfolding
There are a number of models for this. It may mean climate crisis.
regions providing extensive and focused technical
BOX 4. SOMALI WOREDA CLUSTER PILOTING WITH

REGIONAL SUPPORT
In Somali region, IIED and Echnoserve explored clustered planning with two adjacent woredas for the
whole-of-society/whole-of-government strategic objectives workshop in Phase 3. This was held in the
regional capital, Jigiga.
Holding a joint workshop at this stage of planning enabled us to include regional staff with greater capacity,
promoted both horizontal and vertical integration, and encouraged a more systemic scale of analysis by including
representatives from the German development agency GIZ and Jigjiga University.
In terms of climate risk, it clearly illustrated how the same climatic phenomenon (sudden downpours) could
have different, but interconnected, impacts in adjacent woredas. In one, the main problem was rapid drainage,
leading to soil erosion and damage to property; in the other, it was extensive lowland flooding. The joint
workshop also provided an opportunity to develop two plausible climate scenarios rooted in locally observed
trends and an exploration of local impact with a wider range of stakeholders.
10 The guidelines and ideal process that we developed were inspired by the DCF work piloting of the County Climate Change Fund in Kenya (Crick et al. 2019),
where the devolution process favours the county. But Kenya has many fewer counties (47) than Ethiopia has woredas (more than 700).
www.iied.org 39
5.7 Accountability and modes of documentation and information sharing,

such as wall charts, audio, video and social media.
transparency Diversifying communication channels and formats —
including community radio programmes, dedicated
Climate-resilient development requires planning local spokespeople, social media, diagrams, cartoons
processes and plans to be as accessible and transparent and songs — is also key to addressing accessibility
as possible for all stakeholders. This promotes meaningful challenges at community level due to low literacy and/or
participation and ongoing learning in line with the LLA language differences.
Principles, as well as downwards accountability to
Adequate financial resourcing for transparency can
communities. Setting out a clear and verifiable theory of
be a challenge. Whole-of-society approaches may
change promotes more effective MEL.
be helpful in ensuring continuity and communicating
Creating comprehensive, written strategic plans with communities effectively, particularly where non-
that include climate risk management helps ensure governmental development actors have established
accountability and transparency by providing lasting and trusted access to communities or disadvantaged
documentation and therefore continuity in cases of groups within them. Development becomes embodied
high government staff turnover. As well as creating an in functional relationships between trusted and
essential reference for understanding local climate accountable networks of people, rather than documents.
risk, a written plan signals commitment to climate
action and competency to donors and provides
clear entry points for investment. There can be a
5.8 Predictable regular
tendency to equate climate mainstreaming with funding
the production of such plans. But where capacity
to produce written plans is lacking — for example, Predictable and regular funding is needed not only
due to time constraints, reporting language issues for climate-resilient interventions, but also for the
or organisational culture — quality will suffer and planning system and to maintain the wider ecosystem
important planning knowledge may be omitted from of ongoing stakeholder relationships that make up the
these plans. In any case, busy woreda staff may have climate resilience governance system.
little time to read longer reports, IT equipment may
Although we developed the WCSDP guidelines with
be lacking and printed hard copies are expensive,
cost-effectiveness and practicality in mind, it is clear
nondurable and quickly outdated.
that existing woreda financial resources alone are
These issues can partly be addressed by tailoring not enough to fund a CRDP process. This requires
modes of transparency through subsidiarity. At lower political prioritisation from the national level and, action
levels of government, it is worth institutionalising across all five pillars of government.
and legitimising alternative and more accessible
40 www.iied.org
6
IIED WORKING PAPER
Conclusion
Our key takeaways from the research project focus on the importance of
working with existing institutions and practices, ensuring there is enough
support and funding for reform, addressing capacity and resource gaps, and the
need for time, patience, multiple iterations and a willingness to learn from failure.
Our Climate-Resilient Development Framework support and necessary finance for planning. Our
underlines that CRDP is not a variation on the existing experience highlights that successful systemic climate
planning system. It is not just about mainstreaming transformation hinges on strategic timing and correctly
nationally determined climate-related plans and policies judging both political moments of opportunity and the
across all sectors and all levels of administration. Nor is contingent alignments of otherwise divergent agendas.
it simply a matter of better, clearer guidelines or a one-
Despite these limitations, the guidelines we developed
off process that leads to plans that are mechanically
illustrate some of the ways in which LDCs can
implemented and followed. Rather, CRDP requires a
operationalise climate-resilient development principles at
fundamental systemic shift in governance across multiple
the local level within a wider supportive commitment to
domains of government. This includes: the policy and
experiment with local-level planning processes. The final
legislative frameworks that underpin everything else;
guidelines we present here are certainly not normative.
the institutional architecture at all levels; practices and
Rather, they are both exploratory and suggestive.
capabilities for climate-resilient planning; adequate
This paper highlights the rationale behind our design
funding for planning and investment; and MEL, which
choices, explores the practical challenges we faced in
allows us to experiment with and assess policy responses
implementing them and questions some of the implicit
to rapidly changing environments.
assumptions we made while operationalising the CRDP
Appreciating this complexity helps explain the challenges Principles. These are some of our key takeaways:
we encountered in attempting to pilot and institutionalise
1. It is important to work with the grain of existing
a new set of local government guidelines. Despite our
administrative structures and government culture
best efforts to ensure these were co-produced with local
and practices. For example, Ethiopia’s governance
actors, tailored to local contexts and aligned with existing
structure, although federal, is top-down, strongly
capacities, several factors — including the reorganisation
hierarchical and deeply sectoral. This means that
of key national institutions, serious security issues and a
before reforming planning at the lower levels,
major global pandemic — we were unable to assemble
proposed changes must be negotiated, sponsored,
an effective cross-sectoral national coalition of committed
institutionalised and operationalised at the national
actors with the mandate, political motivation and,
level, particularly if they involve cross-sectoral
above all, additional finance to fully trial the guidelines.
cooperation. All national flagship programmes in
A successful pilot would have required a supporting
Ethiopia operate with coordination and technical
institutional structure of coordination and technical
support structures present at each administrative
support committees at every administrative level, enabling
level; and deeper cross-sectoral collaboration at the
cross-sectoral collaboration and providing the technical
local level requires a superstructure of this kind.
www.iied.org 41
2. A significant reform agenda must have adequate • To ensure capacity building is sustainable,
political and financial support. When selecting modifying existing planning frameworks that
an entry point, timing and political expediency are are already institutionalised and working at
crucial because the ambition of the initiative must be scale can help, while funding it properly is vital.
demand-led and driven by appropriate institutions In the case of the WCSDP guidelines, it would be
(Shakya et al., 2018). Our projectised GCF entry possible to scale up fieldwork with communities
point was not ideal for institutionalising a new more sustainably by modifying existing participatory
planning system: it did not have a national mandate watershed and rangeland guidelines, which local
for extensive reform; there was no formal coordination government staff are already familiar with and
with existing planning systems through the Ministry trained on. Several national programmes that also
of Planning; there was no supporting national/ provide funding for planning have also already
regional administrative structure; and it did not bring adopted these guidelines.
new financial flows for climate-resilient development
• Scenario planning with local stakeholders is
planning or investments.
a cost-effective way to plan in conditions of
3. Piloting of new planning systems must have uncertainty. Used sensitively, shared common
sufficient funding to ensure a quality process. scenarios can be accessible, transparent and
However, the funding envelope must be determined intuitive tools that enable stakeholders at many
with an eye to sustainability. An inclusive, levels to screen suggested investments or
participatory learning framework is also essential to interventions against a range of plausible climate
improve processes. Piloting can be limited to one or futures in terms that are meaningful and relevant
two demonstration woredas, but scaling up must take to them. Once a common scenario is developed
into account regional and agro-climatic differences. it can be used repeatedly by different sectors and
national flagship programmes.
4. Capacity and resource gaps at lower levels
of local government can be a huge obstacle 5. Climate-resilient development involves iterative,
to introducing CRDP. Recommendations for systemic change and may require multiple
addressing this issue include: solutions and pathways to implementation.
Experimentation involves time, patience, multiple
• Regions and zones have a critical role to play in
iterations, funding and a willingness to accept failure
plugging capacity gaps. In addition to providing
as successful learning outcome. This means that
tailored technical support, they can convene and
knowledge management and documentation are
facilitate activities and workshops at the woreda
essential components of the process.
cluster level and facilitate peer learning. A flexible
approach is needed. In some areas of the country, However, MEL systems at lower levels of government
the individual woreda may not be the best unit for in LDCs are often minimally functional. The lack of
strategic planning. support for inclusive, participatory and systematic
learning and reflection across scales severely limits
• Whole-of-society actors can complement
the flexibility and agility that is needed to respond
government staff and build resilience into the
effectively to the unprecedented impacts of rapid and
planning system. Whole-of-society engagement
unpredictable climate change on complex, dynamic,
is not simply about increasing the number and
socio-economic systems.
range of people attending workshops. Establishing
a functional, well-resourced and coordinated There is an urgent need to address this. This working
network of actors with an interest in climate action paper and other ongoing initiatives experimenting
can create a pool of expertise and resources that with ‘business unusual’, such as LIFE-AR, are key
can complement and extend the reach of local contributors to this process.
government. They can provide scientific advice, as
well as acting as trusted community gatekeepers.
42 www.iied.org
IIED WORKING PAPER
Appendix 1:
The CRDP and
LLA Principles
The Climate-Resilient Development Planning (CRDP) • LLA principle 8 (Collaborative action and
Principles largely correspond to the rationale underlying investment) refers more to whole-of-government,
the Principles of Locally Led Adaptation (LLA Principles) cross-sectoral and integrated government and
as set out in Table A.1. There are a few differences: para-governmental action across scales but does
not refer to whole-of-society, which recommends
• MEL is an LLA principle but appears in the Climate-
including a wider range of actors.
Resilient Development Framework as one of the five
pillars of government action.
• Valuing local, Indigenous and traditional knowledge
is not an explicit LLA principle, although the
importance of local knowledge is recognised in
Principle 5: Building a robust understanding of
climate risk and uncertainty.
www.iied.org 43
Table A.1. Comparing the CRDP and LLA Principles
CRDP PRINCIPLE LLA PRINCIPLE

Appropriate subsidiarity 1. Devolving decision making to the lowest appropriate level:
Giving local institutions and communities more direct access to finance
and decision-making power over: how adaptation actions are defined,
prioritised, designed, implemented; how progress is monitored and how
success is evaluated.
Gender and social inclusion 2. Addressing structural inequalities faced by women, youth,
children, disabled, displaced, Indigenous Peoples and
marginalised ethnic groups: Integrating gender-based, economic,
and political inequalities that are root causes of vulnerability into
the core of adaptation action and encouraging vulnerable and
marginalised individuals to meaningfully participate in and lead
adaptation decisions.
Predictable, regular climate 3. Providing patient and predictable funding that can be accessed
finance for local action more easily: Supporting long-term development of local governance
processes, capacity, and institutions through simpler access
modalities and longer-term and more predictable funding horizons, to
ensure that communities can effectively implement adaptation actions.
Training and capacity building 4. Investing in local capabilities to leave an institutional legacy:
Improving the capabilities of local institutions to ensure they can
understand climate risks and uncertainties, generate solutions, and
facilitate and manage adaptation initiatives over the long term without
being dependent on project-based donor funding.
Risk-informed decision making 5. Building a robust understanding of climate risk and
uncertainty: Informing adaptation decisions through a combination
of local, traditional, Indigenous, generational and scientific knowledge
that can enable resilience under a range of future climate scenarios.
(MEL pillar) 6. Flexible programming and learning: Enabling adaptive
management to address the inherent uncertainty in adaptation,
especially through robust monitoring and learning systems, flexible
finance and flexible programming.
Accountability and transparency 7. Ensuring transparency and accountability: Making processes
of financing, designing and delivering programmes that are more
transparent and downwardly accountable to local stakeholders.
Whole-of-society / Whole-of- 8. Collaborative action and investment: Collaboration across
government approach sectors, initiatives and levels to ensure that different initiatives and
sources of funding (humanitarian assistance, development, disaster
risk reduction, green recovery funds etc) support each other and avoid
duplicating activities, to enhance efficiencies and good practice.
Valuing local, Indigenous and (not present)
traditional knowledge
Source: Descriptions of the LLA Principles are from Global Center on Adaptation (n.d.).
44 www.iied.org
IIED WORKING PAPER
Appendix 2. Woreda
climate and disaster
risk management
planning scorecard
We developed this self-assessment scorecard to climate change. The self-assessment methodology is
enable woreda planning teams to assess their readiness based on IIED’s Tracking Adaptation and Measuring
for climate risk and disaster management during Development framework (Brooks and Fisher, 2014). It
Phase 1 of the WCSDP process. It covers aspects can be used to measure baseline capacity, but also to
including financing, participation, social inclusion, use measure progress through time as capacity is built and
of climate change information and understanding of institutionalised.
Section A. Woreda activities and capacity rating

SCORE GUIDANCE
0 The woreda does not do this at the moment, and has no experience of doing this in the recent past
1 The woreda has just begun doing this in a very limited way
2 The woreda does this (or has recently done this), but only in specific sectors or projects
3 The woreda has integrated this across many of its planning or budgeting activities for a number of
years but there are still gaps and it is not mandatory
4 The woreda has fully integrated this across planning and budgeting for all programmes and
projects; it is now institutional standard procedure
www.iied.org 45
Section B. Consider each of these statements below and rate them according to the scoring
system given above
WOREDA NAME SCORE EXPLANATION

(0–4) AND SUPPORTING
EVIDENCE/
NARRATIVE FOR
RATING (3–4
Principle Indicator category SENTENCES MAX)
Risk- To what extent do woreda planning processes assess and
informed plan for climate and disaster risks?
decision
Concrete examples of doing this may include any of the
making
following (as well as others not listed):
• Using climate information such as historical weather
data, weather forecasts, early warning systems and/or
climate projections to understand short- and long-term
climate risks
• Conducting climate and disaster risk assessments of
current livelihoods and planned economic activities in the
woreda
• Conducting climate and disaster risk assessments
of infrastructure such as roads, public buildings
and services
• Consulting communities to understand how current
and historical climate and disaster risks are affecting or
undermining livelihoods and decision making
• Using future climate and disaster scenarios to understand
the potential impact of severe weather events or
unexpected crises.
We are not asking if woredas do all the above. These
are illustrative examples only. Please provide a single
score (0–4).
Training To what extent do woreda planning processes include staff
and capacity with experience and technical training relevant to climate
building and/or disaster risk management?
Examples of relevant skills include people with experience of:
• Interpreting, using and collecting climate and
weather information, such as meteorological data
and climate projections
• Conducting climate and disaster risk assessments
• Disaster risk management and early warning systems
• National and regional climate change policies,
commitments and programmes (eg NAP-ETH, CGRE etc)
• Hydrology, groundwater management and integrated
watershed management
• Climate-smart agriculture approaches
• Climate adaptation and mitigation
We are not asking if woredas have people who are familiar
with all of the above. These are illustrative examples only.
Please provide a single score (0–4).
46 www.iied.org
IIED WORKING PAPER
Whole-of- To what extent does the woreda involve and consult a

society / wide range of stakeholders affected by climate change (eg
whole-of- CSOs, producer groups, universities, private sector actors,
government traditional or Indigenous communities) during woreda
approach planning and budgeting processes?
To what extent do different sectors systematically consult
each other about climate and disaster risks and coordinate
their responses and sectoral plans?
Valuing To what extent do woreda planning processes use
local, inclusive participatory methods such as discussion tools,
Indigenous focus groups, participatory mapping, field guides and
and community outreach processes to enable local people and
traditional communities to explain and document:
knowledge • Local livelihood systems and the impact of climate
change on them
• Local and traditional knowledge that can inform climate
adaptation and reduction of risk in those systems
Gender To what extent do woreda planning processes include
and social individuals with expertise in gender issues and working with
inclusion socially disadvantaged individuals and groups?
To what extent are the interests of disadvantaged groups
that are most negatively affected by climate change
(including women and other marginalised groups)
meaningfully represented at all stages of woreda planning/
decision making? This could be through:
• The use of participatory consultation processes that
are sensitive to local patterns of exclusion and different
communication preferences
• Collaboration with CSOs, CBOs and NGOs that
have deep knowledge and experience of working
with these groups
• Institutionalised screening of development options for
impacts on disadvantaged groups
Accountability To what extent are opportunities to allow stakeholders (eg
and CSOs, producer groups, universities, private sector actors,
transparency traditional or Indigenous communities) to raise concerns,
objections or complaints about woreda plans, budgets
or implementation, especially regarding investments or
initiatives impacted by climate and/or disaster risks?
To what extent are planning processes and final development
plans publicly available for consultation, considering the
specific accessibility needs of all stakeholders, especially the
most disadvantaged and marginalised?
Monitoring, To what extent does the woreda have a current MEL
evaluation strategy?
and learning
To what extent is the MEL strategy being implemented?
To what extent does the woreda use lessons learnt
from previous activities to inform new activities and
development plans?
www.iied.org 47
Section C. YES/NO questions

Principle Indicator Yes/No
Institutional The woreda has a formal climate change or disaster risk strategy
readiness
An authoritative body or department within the woreda is mandated with
ensuring climate change issues are considered in planning across all sectors
There is dedicated funding or certainty of long-term funding for sustaining
this coordination activity by the body/department
Predictable, There is adequate political and administrative support and prioritisation for
regular funding climate action by an authoritative financial entity (eg at regional or national
for local action level, Ministry of Finance)
Funding is available to pilot measures that address climate change (eg
adaptation, risk management, mitigation, low-carbon development)
Funding is available for specific measures addressing gender inequalities
related to climate change and/or the specific vulnerabilities, needs and
priorities of women
48 www.iied.org
IIED WORKING PAPER
Appendix 3. Indicators
for assessing the presence
of climate-resilient or
climate‑smart planning in
local government annual and
five-year development plans
We developed these indicators as part of the WCSDP guideline piloting process to help with project MEL.
CATEGORY INDICATOR WHERE IN TYPE OF EVIDENCE IN PLAN

THE PLAN
Community Community Methodology Clear explanation of community participation
participation participation captures strategy with rationale
Summary of findings
perspectives from
from community Community sampling strategy aims
all livelihoods and
participation activities to capture representative sample of
agroecological zones
(in main text or livelihoods, agroecological zones
in local area
appendix) and people from marginalised and/or
Community particularly vulnerable groups
Narrative for detailed
participation focuses
plan/logframe Details of participatory learning and action
explicitly on climate
tools used to identify community risks,
risks, hazards and Logframe
adaptation strategies and priorities
impacts
Participation reports
Evidence that community priorities have been
Community (eg in appendix)
addressed in the plan
participation captures
priority investments/ Evidence that Indigenous knowledge has
interventions been considered and included in the plan
Evidence of validation with communities
Explanation of limitations and possible
biases in data
List of workshops, consultations and
attendance statistics
www.iied.org 49

THE PLAN
Whole-of- Co-development of Methodology Clear explanation of participation strategy
society the plan with expert
Summary of findings Stakeholder analysis
approach and professional
from whole-of-society
stakeholders including Details of participatory tools and research
participation activities
NGOs, community methods used
(in main text or
representatives,
appendix) References to reports and resources
private sector
produced by other stakeholders
actors and multiple Narrative for detailed
government plan/logframe Validation includes feedback from multiple
departments actor types
Logframe
List of workshops, consultations and
Planning team details
attendance statistics
Workshop reports (eg in
appendix)
Workshop attendance
lists (eg in appendix)
Social Plan recognises Methodology Participation strategy takes a gender-
inclusion the different climate responsive approach (tools and methods
Summary of findings
impacts experienced disaggregate risks and priorities by gender,
for marginalised or
by marginalised age and other excluded identities)
vulnerable groups (in
social groups
main text or appendix) Evidence that selection (and
Plan activities refinement of) activities or investments
Narrative for detailed
address priorities has considered the needs of and
plan/logframe
and perspectives of differentiated climate risks for
typically marginalised Logframe marginalised and excluded groups
groups
Workshop attendance
lists (eg in appendix)
Cross- Planning covers Planning team list Planning team features members from across
sectoral all sectors sectors
Methodology
collaboration
Planning explores Process involves activities with sectors
Strategic objectives
sectoral synergies and comparing their priorities and planned
avoids duplications Logframe activities in the face of climate risk
Sectors actively plan Planning workshop Evidence of sectors/offices allocating budget
interventions together summaries (eg in to cross-sectoral strategic objectives in
based on cross- appendix) response to climate risk
sectoral strategic
Participation records
objectives
(eg in appendix)
Climate Current and future Climate and disaster risk Plan refers to the woreda disaster risk profile
information climate and disaster section (in main text and
Plan refers to future climate projections
risks and impacts appendix as needed)
identified and explored Participatory activities and tools explore
Methodology
Indigenous and local understanding of climate
Climate risk
Summary of findings for risk and climate trends with community and
incorporates local
community/whole-of- whole-of-society actors
expert knowledge and
society workshops (in
lived experience Future climate scenarios are co-produced
main text or appendix).
with whole-of-society actors and the impacts
on different livelihood systems, sectors and
vulnerable groups is explained
50 www.iied.org
IIED WORKING PAPER

THE PLAN
Integration of Climate risk is Strategic objectives Process for choosing strategic development
climate risk reflected in choice of priorities considers identified current and
Logframe narrative for
strategic development future climate risk
activities
priorities
Evidence that activities have been screened
Climate risk is for climate risk or justified in terms of reducing
reflected in choice of vulnerability, especially for the poorest and
specific activities most excluded or marginalised
Adequate and realistic funding allocated
towards activities and priorities likely to
reduce vulnerability, build resilience and/or
reduce emissions
Policy Strategic objectives Overall plan orientation Process for choosing strategic objectives
alignment and investment and activity or investment options explicitly
Policy and legislative
with national priorities aligned with aligns with Ten-Year Perspective Plan, CRGE
frameworks section
policy and national climate plans Strategy, NAP-ETH etc
legislation Strategic objectives
MEL MEL addresses MEL section MEL plan includes specific indicators for
resilience to climate increased resilience or reduced vulnerability
risk to climate risk
www.iied.org 51
References
Adem, A, Deering, K and Molla, S (2017) Building Coger, T, Corry, S and Gregorowski, R (2021)
Adaptive Communities Through Integrated Reshaping Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning for
Programming: CARE Ethiopia’s Experience with Climate Locally Led Adaptation. World Resources Institute.
Vulnerability and Capacity Analysis (CVCA). In Adem, https://doi.org/10.46830/wriwp.20.00060
A, Deering, K and Molla, S (eds) Climate Change
Coger, T, Dinshaw, A, Tye, S, Kratzer, B, Thazin Aung,
Management. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-
M, Cunningham, E, Ramkissoon, C, Gupta, S, Bodrud-
319-49520-0_14
Doza, Md, Karamallis, A, Mbewe, S, Granderson, A,
African Union (2013) Policy framework for pastoralism Dolcemascolo, G, Tewary, A, Mirza, A and Carthy,
in Africa. Securing, protecting and improving the lives, A (2022) Locally Led Adaptation: From Principles
livelihoods and rights of pastoralist communities. to Practice. World Resources Institute. https://doi.
org/10.46830/wriwp.21.00142
Barrow, E, Davies, J, Berhe, S, Mohamed, N, Olenasha,
W and Rugadya, M (2007) Pastoralists as shrewd Cooke, B and Kothari, U (2001) Participation: The new
managers of risk and resilience in the Horn of Africa. tyranny? Zed Books. London.
Eastern Africa Regional Office.
Crick, F (2021). Framework guides local governments
Bhandary, R R (2022a) Climate mainstreaming via towards people-led climate-resilient development.
national climate funds: the experiences of Bangladesh https://www.iied.org/framework-guides-local-
and Ethiopia. Climate and Development 14(4): 311– governments-towards-people-led-climate-resilient-
320. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2021.1921686 development
Bhandary, R R (2022b) National climate funds: Crick, F, Greene, S, Assefa, F, Tizazu, B, Fikreyesus,
a new dataset on national financing vehicles for D, Gizaw, S, Nebsu, B and Alemayehu, M (2021)
climate change. Climate Policy 22(3), 401–410. Assessing the Readiness of Woredas to Adopt Climate
https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2022.2027223 Smart Development Planning.
Biden, A (n.d.) Logframe vs Theory of Change: What’s Crick, F, Hesse, C, Orindi, V, Bonaya, M and Kiiru, J
the difference? Tools4dev blog. https://tools4dev. (2019) Delivering climate finance at the local level to
org/blog/logframe-vs-theory-of-change-whats-the- support adaptation: experiences of County Climate
difference (retrieved 28 January 2024). Change Funds in Kenya. https://pubs.iied.org/G04415/
Brooks, N and Fisher, S. (2014). Tracking Adaptation Dagne, A, Elliott, C, Corfee, J and Tsehay, S
and Measuring Development: a step-by-step guide. (2022) Mainstreaming Climate Change in Ethiopia’s
Toolkit. IIED, London. http://pubs.iied.org/10100IIED Planning Process. World Resources Institute.
https://doi.org/10.46830/wriwp.21.00032
Caldwell, M and Larsen, G (2021) Improving Access
to the Green Climate Fund: How the Fund Can DAI. Ethiopia—GCCA+/Climate Smart Mainstreaming
Better Support Developing Country Institutions. into the Productive Safety Net Program (Climate-
World Resources Institute. https://doi.org/10.46830/ Smart PSNP). www.dai.com/our-work/projects/
wriwp.19.00132 ethiopia-technical-assistance-to-support-gcca-
plus-mainstreaming-of-climate-smart-planning-and-
CARE (2019) Climate Vulnerability and Capacity
implementation-approaches (retrieved 3 December
Analysis Handbook Version 2 (2nd ed).
2023).
https://careclimatechange.org/cvca/
DCF Alliance (2019) The Devolved Climate Finance
CARE (2018) Practical Guide to Participatory Scenario
mechanism: Principles, implementation and lessons
Planning: Seasonal climate information for resilient
from four semi-arid countries. https://pubs.iied.org/
decision-making.
G04424/
Cavanna, S and Abkula, DT (2009) Scenario planning
Deichert, G, Gedamu Gobena, A, Blum, L and Kersting,
with African pastoralists: a ‘how-to’ guide. IIED.
D (2017) Climate Smart Agriculture (CSA): A Manual
iied.org/10023iied
for Implementing the Sustainable Land Management
Program (SLMP). Compiled by the Sustainable Land
Management (GIZ-SLM) Programme.
52 www.iied.org
IIED WORKING PAPER
DRMFSS and FDRE (2015) Wereda Disaster Risk FDRE (1995) Constitution of the Federal Democratic
Profile (WDRP). Jigjiga woreda. Fanfan zone. Somali Republic of Ethiopia.
Region.
FDRE, EPA and ACCRA (2013) Woreda Climate
Eriksen, S, Schipper, E L F, Scoville-Simonds, M, Resilient Green Economy Investment Planning Guide
Vincent, K, Adam, H N, Brooks, N, Harding, B, Khatri, (first draft).
D, Lenaerts, L, Liverman, D, Mills-Novoa, M, Mosberg,
FDRE and Ministry of Agriculture (DRMFSS) (2014)
M, Movik, S, Muok, B, Nightingale, A, Ojha, H, Sygna,
Wereda Disaster Risk Mitigation/Adaptation Planning
L, Taylor, M, Vogel, C and West, J J (2021) Adaptation
Guidelines.
interventions and their effect on vulnerability in
developing countries: Help, hindrance or irrelevance? FDRE MoA (2021) PSNP General programme
World Development, 141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. implementation manual (Phase V).
worlddev.2020.105383
FDRE and MoARD (2005) Community Based
Eshete, G, Assefa B, Lemma E, Kibret G, Ambaw G, Participatory Watershed Development: A Guideline.
Samuel S, Seid J, Tesfaye K, Tamene L, Haile A, Asnake www.fsnnetwork.org/sites/default/files/2023-06/
A, Mengiste A, Hailemariam SN, Ericksen P, Mekonnen cbpwd-guidelines-english_low_0.pdf
K, Ameded T, Haileslassie A, Hadgu K, Woldemeskel
GCF. (n.d.). Direct Access: Improving access to
E and Solomon D (2020) Ethiopia Climate Smart
climate finance through national entities. https://www.
Agriculture Roadmap 2020–2030.
greenclimate.fund/sites/default/files/document/gcf-brief-
FAO (2022) Making way: developing national legal and direct-access.pdf
policy frameworks for pastoral mobility. FAO Animal
Global Center on Adaptation. Locally Led
Production and Health Guidelines 28. https://doi.
Adaptation. Principles for Locally Led Adaptation.
org/10.4060/cb8461en
https://gca.org/programs/locally-led-adaptation/
FDRE (2021a) Ten Years Development Plan: A Pathway
Greene, S, Pertaub, D, McIvor, S, Beauchamp, E
to Prosperity 2021–2030. Federal Democratic Republic
and Sutz, P (2020) Understanding local climate
of Ethiopia.
priorities: Applying a gender and generation focused
FDRE (2021b) Updated Nationally Determined planning tool in mainland Tanzania and Zanzibar.
Contribution. Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. www.iied.org/10210iied
FDRE (2020) Ethiopia’s Climate Resilient Green Hodgson, D (2017) Gender, Justice, and the Problem
Economy: National Adaptation Plan (NAP) of Culture: from Customary Law to Human Rights in
Implementation Roadmap. Federal Democratic Republic Tanzania. Indiana University Press.
of Ethiopia.
IIED (23 September 2019) LDC 2050 Vision for a
FDRE (2019a) Environment, Forest and Climate Change climate-resilient future. www.iied.org/ldc-2050-vision-
Commission. Planning Guideline to Integrate the for-climate-resilient-future
Climate-Resilient Green Economy (CRGE) Strategy at
IPCC (2023a) Decision-Making Options for
Woreda Level. Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia.
Managing Risk. In IPCC Climate Change 2022
FDRE (2019b) Ethiopia’s CRGE National Adaptation – Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, Chapter
Plan. Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. 17. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.
org/10.1017/9781009325844.026
FDRE (2019c) Multisectoral Woreda Transformation: the
2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development of Ethiopia IPCC (2023b) Climate Resilient Development Pathways.
Strategic Document. Federal Democratic Republic of In IPCC Climate Change 2022 – Impacts, Adaptation
Ethiopia. http://tinyurl.com/y77e72nw and Vulnerability, Chapter 18. Cambridge University
Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009325844.027
FDRE (2019d) Watershed and Rangeland Planning
Guide (Final Draft). Ministry of Agriculture, Federal Krätli, S (2019) Focus on Ethiopia Pastoral Development
Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. Orientation Framework. Misereor. http://tinyurl.
com/2p96pmej
FDRE (2012) Disaster Risk Profiling in Ethiopia. The
Stepping Stone to Disaster Risk Management. Federal Krätli, S, Kaufmann, B, Roba, H, Hiernaux, P, Li, W,
Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. Easdale, M and Hülsebusch, C (2015) A House Full
of Trap Doors: Identifying barriers to resilient drylands
FDRE (2011) Climate-Resilient Green Economy
in the toolbox of pastoral development. www.iied.
Strategy. Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia.
org/10112iied
www.iied.org 53
LDC Group (2019) LDC 2050 Vision. Vincent, K (2023) Development Geography II:
www.ldc-climate.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/ Community-based adaptation and locally-led
LDC-Group-Vision.pdf adaptation. Progress in Human Geography. 47(4):
604–612.
Lempert, R J, Groves, D G, Popper, S W and
Bankes, S C (2006) A General, Analytic Method for Vincent, K and Colenbrander, W (2018) Developing
Generating Robust Strategies and Narrative Scenarios. and applying a five step process for mainstreaming
Management Science 52(4): 514–528. climate change into local development plans: A case
study from Zambia. Climate Risk Management 21:
Lenton, T M, Armstrong McKay, D, Loriani, S, Abrams,
26–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2018.04.005
J, Lade, S, Donges, J, Milkoreit, M, Powell, T, Smith, S,
Zimm, C, Buxton, J, Bailey, E, Laybourn, L, Ghadiali, A, Wilby, R L and Dessai, S (2010) Robust adaptation to
and Dyke, J (2023). The Global Tipping Points Report climate change. Weather 65(7): 180–185.
2023 https://global-tipping-points.org/summary-report/
World Bank (2020) FP136: Resilient Landscapes
narrative-summary/
and Livelihoods Project Resilient Landscapes and
McIvor, S (15 June 2022) Practical lessons on Livelihoods Project. www.greenclimate.fund/sites/
implementing business unusual. IIED blog. www.iied. default/files/document/fp136-worldbank-ethiopia.pdf
org/practical-lessons-implementing-business-unusual
World Bank (2019) Implementation Completion and
MoA and FDRE (2019) PSNP V. General Programme Results Report: Sustainable Land Management Project.
Implementation Manual.
World Bank (2018) Project Appraisal Document
Omari-Motsumi, K, Barnett, M and Schalatek, L (2019) for a Resilient Landscapes and Livelihoods Project.
Broken connections and systemic barriers: Overcoming https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/
the challenge of the “missing middle” in adaptation en/671621533180654816/pdf/ETHIOPIA-
finance. PAD-07112018.pdf
OPM. Building Resilience in Ethiopia. www.opml.co.uk/ World Bank (2014) Implementation Completion and
projects/building-resilience-in-ethiopia Results Report: Sustainable Land Management Project.
Pisor, A C, Basurto, X, Douglass, K G, Mach, K J, WRI. Principles for Locally Led Adaptation. www.wri.
Ready, E, Tylianakis, J M, Hazel, A, Kline, M A., Kramer, org/initiatives/locally-led-adaptation/principles-locally-
K L, Lansing, J S, Moritz, M, Smaldino, P E, Thornton, led-adaptation
T F and Jones, J H (2022) Effective climate change
adaptation means supporting community autonomy.
Nature Climate Change 12(3): 213–215.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-022-01303-x
Prinsen, G and Nijhof, S (2015) Between logframes and
theory of change: reviewing debates and a practical
experience. Development in Practice 25(2): 234–246.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09614524.2015.1003532
Shakya, C, Cooke, K, Gupta, N, Bull, Z and Greene,
S (2018) Building institutional capacity for enhancing
resilience to climate change: An operational framework
and insights from practice. www.iied.org/x00194
Soanes, M, Bahadur, A, Shakya, C, Smith, B, Patel, S,
Rumbaitis del Rio, C, Coger, T, Dinshaw, A, Patel, S,
Huq, S, Musa, M, Rahman, F, Gupta, S, Dolcemascolo,
G and Mann, T (2021) Principles for locally led
adaptation: A call to action. www.iied.org/10211iied
Vaughan, S, Berhanu, W, Yehualashet, W and
Engedasew, Z (2020) Rapid Assessment of Wereda
Institutions, Allocation & Planning (RAWIAP) for Human
Development (HD) Service Delivery (SD). Final revised
report.
54 www.iied.org
IIED WORKING PAPER
www.iied.org 55
Despite growing consensus that climate-resilient
development should be at the top of the agenda for
least developed countries, a persistent implementation
gap means there is little practical learning derived for
governments on how to operationalise. Describing
an action research project to assess the readiness
of Ethiopia’s planning system for locally led climate-
resilient development, this paper identifies areas for
action, provides valuable lessons on the constraints to
institutionalising these processes in Ethiopia, and illustrates
some of the challenges and design trade-offs that
development practitioners and local governments in least
developed countries will have to make when implementing
the Principles for Locally Led Adaptation.
IIED is a policy and action research

organisation. We promote sustainable
development to improve livelihoods
and protect the environments on which
these livelihoods are built. We specialise
in linking local priorities to global
challenges. IIED is based in London and
works in Africa, Asia, Latin America, the
Middle East and the Pacific, with some
of the world’s most vulnerable people.
We work with them to strengthen their
voice in the decision-making arenas that
affect them — from village councils to
international conventions.
International Institute for Environment and Development

Third Floor, 235 High Holborn, London WC1V 7DN, UK
Tel: +44 (0)20 3463 7399
www.iied.org
Funded by:
Knowledge
Products
This research was funded by USAID and UK aid from the UK

Government. However the views expressed do not necessarily
reflect the views of the UK Government.

Iied

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Iied

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Iied

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Piloting climate-smart

Working Paper Climate change; Policy and planning

Published by IIED, March 2024

International Institute for Environment and Development

Despite growing consensus that climate-resilient development

Contents 5 Lessons for the LLA Principles 

5.2 Gender and social inclusion 33

2 Framework, methodology and guidelines 15 6 Conclusion  41

2.1 The Climate-Resilient Development Framework 15

1.1 Introduction climate conditions (Pisor et al., 2022). Climate-resilient

1.2 Climate action

1.2.2 National institutional National flagship sustainable

Productive Safety Net Programme (Ministry of Agriculture)

Our project aimed to contribute to this by

2.1 The Climate-Resilient climate adaptation and mitigation in an effective,

Risk-informed decision making

Gender and social inclusion

Whole-of-society and whole-of-government approach

Valuing local, Indigenous and traditional knowledge

Training and capacity building

Acccountability and transparency

Predictable, regular climate funding for local action

Budgeting Institutions Climate-resilient MEL

Policy and legislative framework

2.2 Methodology • Semi-structured interviews with federal, regional

3.1 Structure of the Phase 3. Planning: The planning team convenes a

Figure 2. The five phases of WCSDP

a. Woreda b. Future c. Propose climate 2. Evaluate 3. Prepare 4. Analyse

Phase 4: Communication and validation

3.2 Integrating the CRDP Principles

PRINCIPLE RATIONALE PLANNING DESCRIPTION OF ACTION/ACTIVITY

PRINCIPLE RATIONALE PLANNING DESCRIPTION OF ACTION/ACTIVITY

1 Use stakeholder analysis to notify and include

PRINCIPLE RATIONALE PLANNING DESCRIPTION OF ACTION/ACTIVITY

PRINCIPLE RATIONALE PLANNING DESCRIPTION OF ACTION/ACTIVITY

4.2 Institutions Although housed in the Ministry of Finance, the CRGE

CRDP PRINCIPLES ANNUAL WOREDA PLANNING PROCESS

Woreda staff training on formal strategic planning and climate programming

4.3.1 Strategic planning Woreda planning teams do routinely compile and

BOX 2. MULTISECTORAL WOREDA TRANSFORMATION

4.5 Budgeting and finance

Lessons for the

5.1 Risk-informed There is a clearly an urgent need for access to climate

Scenarios are particularly effective for transparency

activities on the most vulnerable and dis-empowered

BOX 3. PSNP AND INTEGRATED PARTICIPATORY WATERSHED

BOX 4. SOMALI WOREDA CLUSTER PILOTING WITH

5.7 Accountability and modes of documentation and information sharing,

Table A.1. Comparing the CRDP and LLA Principles

CRDP PRINCIPLE LLA PRINCIPLE

Section A. Woreda activities and capacity rating

WOREDA NAME SCORE EXPLANATION

Whole-of- To what extent does the woreda involve and consult a

Section C. YES/NO questions

CATEGORY INDICATOR WHERE IN TYPE OF EVIDENCE IN PLAN

CATEGORY INDICATOR WHERE IN TYPE OF EVIDENCE IN PLAN

CATEGORY INDICATOR WHERE IN TYPE OF EVIDENCE IN PLAN

IIED is a policy and action research

Contents 5 Lessons for the LLA Principles

5.2 Gender and social inclusion 33

2 Framework, methodology and guidelines 15 6 Conclusion 41

2.1 The Climate-Resilient Development Framework 15