www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr

Ministère de l'Écologie, du Développement durable et de l’Énergie

Earmarked funding for implementing adaptation in France

Suivi de dépenses d'adaptationde l'Etat en France

June 18 2014Expert Workshop on Adaptation Financing and ImplementationPutting Priorities into Practice in OECD Countries

Climate and Energy General Directorate

Pierre Brender, from the domestic mitigation unit,

On behalf of colleagues from ONERC

2

...Quick answers...

1. Main funding requirements for adaptation likely to arise ?

→ when long-lasting infrastructures have not been conceived taking into account climate change

2. How to adapt existing regulations and policy instruments ? Opportunities to reduce public spending and support resilience ?

→ revision of technical guidelines :

– risk zoning in coastal areas (done)

– Reviewing frames of reference used for civil works (in process involving DGITM, DGAC, SNCF, VNF)

– ...

3

...Quick answers...

3. Appropriate balance between mainstreamed and earmarked funding ?

→ earmarked to be limited to « climate projections, transversal actions to foster adaptation practices including outreach, education and research »

The experience of France in this regard is the subject of the rest of the presentation

4

Outline

1. Fostering adaptation : overview of what has been done already

2. Mid-term review of the National Adaptation Plan

3. Complementary results from the cross-cutting document covering expenditures of the State budget related to the climate-policy

Key dates in domestic climate policy :

The domestic agenda

2006 : National Adaptation Strategy2006 : National Adaptation Strategy

2010 : Elaboration of the First Adaptation Plan(2011-2015)

2010 : Elaboration of the First Adaptation Plan(2011-2015)

Local strategic documentsLocal strategic documents

2001 : Fight against CC a national priority, creation of ONERC

2001 : Fight against CC a national priority, creation of ONERC

1.a Global panorama

2013 : European Adapt. Strategy2013 : European Adapt. Strategy

1.b National Adaptation Action Plan (2011-2015)

Structured around 5 principles :

• Improving knowledge

• Increasing public awareness

• Considering interactions between specific measures

• Mainstreaming Adaption into existing policies

• Identifying responsibilities both in terms

of budget and implementation

Mid-term review realised in 2013, and presented to the stake-holders (CNTE) in early 2014.

7

Overall, the level of execution can be regarded as positive

(60 % of the 171M€ already engaged)

Mid-term review : a complex but federating process accross ministries

2. Results of the mid-term review

8

2. Results tracked at the action levelactions

Fiches thématiques du PNACC

Budget Total

taux taux taux

ACTIONS TRANSVERSALES 90% 5 5 100% 2 40% 0 0%

SANTE 53% 5 3 60% 1 20% 2 40%

RESSOURCES EN EAU 58% 5 5 100% 0 0% 0 0%

BIODIVERSITE 64% 4 4 100% 0 0% 0 0%

RISQUES NATURELS 65% 5 5 100% 0 0% 0 0%

AGRICULTURE 64% 5 5 100% 0 0% 0 0%

FORET 45% 5 4 80% 0 0% 1 20%

PECHE ET AQUACULTURE 100% 1 1 100% 0 0% 0 0%

ENERGIE ET INDUSTRIE 0% 5 4 80% 1 20% 1 20%

14% 4 4 100% 1 25% 0 0%URBANISME ET CADRE BATI 55% 4 4 100% 0 0% 0 0%

TOURISME 100% 2 2 100% 0 0% 0 0%

INFORMATION 49% 4 4 100% 0 0% 0 0%

EDUCATION-FORMATION -% 5 4 80% 0 0% 1 20%

RECHERCHE 35% 4 4 100% 0 0% 0 0%

FINANCEMENT ET ASSURANCE -% 7 5 71% 2 29% 2 29%

LITTORAL 66% 4 4 100% 0 0% 0 0%

MONTAGNE 49% 4 4 100% 0 0% 0 0%

73% 4 4 100% 0 0% 0 0%

GOUVERNANCE 88% 2 2 100% 0 0% 0 0%total 60% 84 77 92% 7 8% 7 8%

Situation au 1er décembre 2013

En cours

En cours en retard

Non démarrées ou stoppées

INFRASTRUCTURES ET SYSTÈMES DE TRANSPORT

ACTION EUROPÉENNE ET INTERNATIONALE

9

Caveats : At the action level, communication only on relative progress to avoid potentially misleading comparisons of spendings between sectors (and counterproductive effects on the implication of the various ministries)

Outcomes of a PNACC :

* structuring effect over several years

* favoring the mobilisation of other spending

* favoring mainstreaming of adaptation

2. Sharing the experience

3. Tracking adaptation within the Climate Change DPT

Amending the finance law of 2005

Cross-cutting Policy Documents (DPT) are annexed to the Project of Finance Law presented to the Parliament in September of each year.

• Tool contributing to pilot policies which cannot be handled by one single ministry.

Goal : improved coordination, budgetary readability, support to decision making.

For each policy, it sums up and gathers:• Strategy• Credits, goals and indicators• Overall effort of the State over 3 years (execution 2012, initial Finance Law 2013, project of finance law for 2014)

Organisation

Coordination : Ministry in Charge of Sustainable Development, Climate and Energy Directorate

31 programs managed by about 10 ministries

For budgetary expenditures : evaluation of a « climate share »For each sub-action of the State budget, assessment of a relative contribution to the Climate Change Action

3 scenarios :1. Direct participation

2. Indirect participation

3. Staff expenditures

No double counting with expenses in favor of other environmental goals

3. Credits evaluation

Indirect contribution

qualitative indication of the importance in regards of other priorities which are targetted

3. Example

Crop insurance

Subsidies from the State to reduce the price of inovating insurances which adress most of Climate hazards assessing and showing Farmers’ level of exposure encouraging them to take climate hazards into consideration within their management

This measure is part of the National Adaptation Plan. qualitatively, a « climate share » of 10 % is taken into account.

3. Expenses covering Impacts & Adaptation

National Adaptation Plan: 171M€ over 5 years

in the DPT : ~160M€ in 2013(without taking international cooperation into account)

AgricultureForestLand (in general)Costal risksUrbanismBuildingOn-land transportPlaneSatellitesClimate researchHealthRisk prevention

CoordinationFundamental researchApplied researchObservationFavoring resilience

and observation

Differences and similarities betweenthe two exercices

Differences of scope :The Climate DPT :• Includes measures not taken into account in the PNACC

• Ex : agroenvironmental measures favoring more resilient practices among other environmental benefits

• Takes a broader look at research focusing on the observation

of CC and its impacts

Similarities :Both exercices capture very few investments :

- they are mainly financed by local authorities and the private sector

- the tracking is limited to extra-cost associated with adaptation :

dykes mainly tracked in the risk protection chapter (annex on other

environmental issues)

Differences and similarities betweenthe two exercices

Takeaway messages

* Adaptation issues taken into account very heterogeneously in the different sectors...

* Earmarked state expenditures represent a fraction

of the investments that have to be « climate proof »,

but tracking it facilitates mobilisation of founding

across topics

(although the exercise must be elaborated

very carefully

to avoid counterproductive effects).

Thank you for your attention