1

Review of the Liberia National Adaptation Programme of Action

By

Glory Nwagbara

July, 2013

2

Introduction

Climate change has become a global focus because it affects every sector of sustainable

development (Sumi et al., 2011:10). Its impacts like frequent weather changes, higher

temperatures, erratic rainfall and wind storms result in erosion, flooding etc. and worse still,

predicted catastrophic events pose serious threats to agriculture, health and economic planning

sectors. These impacts are borne mostly by the vulnerable Least Developed Countries (LDCs)

such as Liberia because about 70% of its populace depend on the weather for subsistence

farming and fishing (Government of Liberia, 2011:3).

Liberia being 10-year post-conflict has low gross national income and poor human

development outcomes in terms of health, literacy and poverty (United Nations, 2003). This

situation is worsened by climate change, making adaptation strategies an urgent priority for

national development. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

(UNFCCC) has supported Liberia to identify her vulnerable sectors and strategically map out

plans to address them through National Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPA). Efforts to

develop Liberia’s NAPA started in 2004, producing the first draft in 2006 and a final reviewed

submission was made to the UNFCCC in 2008 (United Nations Environment Programme,

2006: 1).

This paper seeks to critically evaluate the Liberia NAPA to ascertain its capacity to respond to

national adaptation needs. It will analyse the methods taken to develop the NAPA, identify and

criticize the type of adaptation activities being used as well as make recommendations on how

to improve the NAPA for future use. This is necessary because the Liberia NAPA should not

only serve to identify adaptation needs but should also translate into action to build resilience

to climate change through a successful adaptation plan.

3

Overview of Liberia and Its Adaptation Needs

Liberia is located in West Africa having a land area of 102,000km2. It is bordered on the south

by the North Atlantic Ocean with a coastline of 560km. The country has prominent highlands

and a vast tropical rainforest. The weather alternates between a rainy and dry season

(Environmental Protection Agency of Liberia, 2008:1).

The Liberian population is 2.9 million and grows at the rate of 5% per year. The country is

endowed with resources in forestry, agriculture, water and minerals which the vast majority

depend on. Emerging from a 14-year civil war, Liberia has accrued a huge debt and has a high

unemployment rate of 85%. This has led to the exploitation of its resources which includes

deforestation, illegal mining and unregulated fishing and farming practices thus making it

prone to the devastating effects of climate change. Even worse, the reduction of its hydro-

meteorological stations from forty-seven to two, has made the country more vulnerable to

climate change (EPAL, 2008:1-3).

The vulnerable sectors as identified through the NAPA were agriculture which is experiencing

poor crop yield; forestry with dying trees and spread of forests pests; rivers with reduced fish

stock; hydroelectricity dams suffering from siltation reducing energy output; public health

problems like increased incidence of infectious diseases and malnutrition. Therefore, to help

cope with these problems, the NAPA proposed three projects listed below in order of priority;

1. Enhancing resilience to increased rainfall variability through diversified integrated

cropping and livestock farming.

2. Enhancing adaptive capacity by rebuilding the National Hydro-Meteorological

network to monitor climate change.

4

3. Constructing coastal defence systems to reduce vulnerability of coastal urban areas

(Monrovia and Buchanan) to erosion, flood and degrading landscapes (EPAL, 2008:7-

11).

Methodology: Evaluation Criteria of Adaptation Plan

The critical evaluation of the proposed projects will be based on ten criteria cutting across the

following four themes:

1) The kind of adaptation activity

2) Adequacy

3) Strategic planning

4) Stakeholder and multi-sectoral involvement.

The ten criteria for evaluation are: necessity, cost-effectiveness, efficacy, equity, feasibility,

socio-cultural appropriateness, co-benefit and perverse outcomes, integration, monitoring and

evaluation (M&E) and sustainability. The definitions of these criteria were adopted from the

UNFCCC Annotated Guidelines for the Preparation of the NAPA and the UNFCCC Overview

of the National Adaptation Planning Process (Appendix 2). These criteria were used because

they emphasize a democratic and needs based approach towards adaptation planning

(UNFCCC, 2009c cited in Huq and Hugé, n.d.:4). The results of this evaluation will be

presented qualitatively below in the comparison (Appendix 3).

5

Comparison

Using the criteria outlined above, the following comparison was made on the NAPA:

Kind of Adaptation Activity

The first priority project is identified as an integration of ecosystem and community based

approach that involves members of the community engaging in integrated cropping and

livestock farming to improve biodiversity and build resilience to climate change (Colls et al.,

2009:1). The second and third prioritized projects are technologically based approach because

they involve construction of physical structures to monitor climate change and defend coastal

lands respectively. However, the second project may also be considered as institutional because

it will provide information needed to guide future climate change decision-making (Huq et al.,

2011:38).

Adequacy

The three proposed adaptation projects stipulated in the NAPA were reached through a needs

assessment and priority setting process. Using several consultations, the NAPA planning team

identified the vulnerable sectors with critical need for adaptation which guided them to propose

eight adaptation activities. These activities were then further prioritized to three projects

through locally driven criteria. (EPAL, 2008:9).

The first priority project is an environmentally friendly approach that will maintain the

ecological balance and address food security. The second priority is central to other proposed

projects because it provides needed information for weather forecasts and will guide future

strategic planning for adaptation. The third priority project addresses the need to build

resistance to climate change impacts in coastal cities. However, scholars have hinted that

6

structural adaptation activities like groynes are expensive and could result in coastal erosion as

well as loss of the beach natural scenery (Bruin, 2011:11; Karalis, 2007:14).

The costs of these projects were stated with a stipulated timeframe, but they did not break it

down to the unit cost of both the inputs and outputs. They also did not carry out an economic

evaluation to ascertain the costs and future gains that will be derived from implementing the

NAPA (UNFCCC, 2002: 5). This aspect of the Liberia NAPA is lacking when compared to the

NAPAs of other LDCs like Sierra Leone and Malawi (Government of Sierra Leone, 2007:36-

107; Government of Malawi, 2006:15-31).

Strategic Planning

The development process of the NAPA builds on other sustainability policies such as the

National Reconstruction Development Plan. The three priority projects also feed into the

National Poverty Reduction Strategy and National Biodiversity Strategy. They are also

mainstreamed into health programs like the Roll Back Malaria Program. However, the

framework for activities to achieve the linkage of the NAPA to most of these existing strategic

plans is not outlined (International Institute for Sustainable Development 2011: 133).

The NAPA gave information on the co-benefits of the priority projects such as improved

agrarian economy, food security, and transportation. However, they failed to highlight the harm

that may occur if they are implemented. For instance, both the construction of break water

systems and groynes are actually potential hazards when they encounter catastrophic storms

and breakdown, worsening coastal erosion and making coastal communities prone to flooding

(Prasetya, 2007). Also integrating crop and livestock farming may cause the outbreak of

infections and allergies in both plants and animals as well as lead to rapid decline in soil

nutrients (Pittock, 2013:53).

7

Although the NAPA stated its overall goals and targets quantitatively, it did not project them

annually in terms of the short-term and long term outputs. It also stated the indicators that will

be used for monitoring results. On the other hand, the data collection methods and information

flow system for monitoring and reviewing progress made on the NAPA were not stated

(UNFCCC, 2002:9).

The NAPA is the platform towards future adaptation prospects, however, the extent to which

the activities and benefits of the NAPA will continue beyond the planning process is

questionable. Although the budget was stated and there is potential for buy-in from various

stakeholders, their specific funding commitments and sub-activities are unclear. There is no

legislative framework and government budgetary allocation towards the NAPA (UNFCCC,

2002:9). Nevertheless, the consultations and trainings provided during the planning period can

be utilized in future to continue the process.

Stakeholder and Multi-Sectoral Involvement

The NAPA process involved multi-level stakeholder consultations in identifying adaptation

needs. Due to this participatory approach, it can be inferred that prioritized projects would be

politically and socially acceptable. Although during consultations, there were slight

disagreements which is tolerable as Liberia is at a phase of restoring its social ties, however,

the mentioned risks such as non-cooperation of farmers and insecurity can hinder progress in

actualizing the proposed projects and ways to manage these risks were not mentioned (EPAL,

2008:9).

On the basis of equity, these projects can be considered to be pro-poor because it is aimed at

improving livelihood and food security. However, stipulated activities in the agricultural sector

seem to have excluded fishermen. Moreover, there was no emphasis on gender responsiveness

8

which was initially identified as a priority area to be mainstreamed into adaptation plans

(EPAL, 2008: xii).

Discussion

It is important to evaluate the Liberia NAPA as this will enable the identification of its strengths

and weaknesses. The NAPA process is the first effort made by Liberia towards climate change

and thus has laid a road map in identifying its key vulnerabilities and adaptation needs. It was

able to achieve this through multi-sectoral consultation process which as noted by UNEP

(2006:2) was a blend of ‘bottom-up’ and ‘top-down’ approach. This approach of getting every

sector involved during the NAPA process is very important as it fosters sustainability and will

translate into acceptance of proposed projects. Also in ‘fleshing out’ its three priority projects,

it can be said that the Liberia NAPA understood its limits and focused on comprehensive

national adaptation strategies. For instance, the activities surrounding the first priority of

reducing vulnerability in the agricultural sector through diversification did not follow a path of

mechanized farming and hence can be said to be sensitive to the limits of local resources

(International Institute for Sustainable Development 2011: 132).

However, the Liberia NAPA has some obvious gaps. The NAPA can be said to be biased

towards the positive impacts of the proposed adaptation projects. It did not highlight the

maladaptation as well as plans to address them. For instance, the third priority of constructing

groynes and break water systems which is not environmentally sustainable and they could have

explored other ecosystem-based alternatives like using mangroves which thrive in these coastal

locations (Pittock, 2013:54).

Funding NAPA projects is a general problem with all LDCs because of other national priorities

competing for scarce resources (World Bank, 2010:1). However, the Liberia NAPA might have

9

delays in attracting funds because of its poor economic analysis to guide potential donors on

the efficient use of the scarce resources. This could debilitate progress of implementation.

Thus it is not surprising that implementation of the first and third priority projects kicked off

after two years of submitting the NAPA with generated funds about a third of the total project

costs (Karmorh, 2011:3-4).

In as much as the country was able to identify its core vulnerabilities during the NAPA process,

however, it met with challenges in obtaining data required for making decisions in the fishery

sector (EPAL, 2008:4) . This weakness can limit the synergy between evidence-based policy

making and implementation in this context (Head, n.d.: 14). According to UNEP (2006:5),

information management is a major setback towards sustainability and since the Liberia NAPA

also lacks adequate monitoring and evaluation processes, it limits the capacity to track progress,

make future review on achievements and inform future plans for adaptation. Liberia has

identified part of this lacking institutional framework as an adaptation need which is the second

priority project. However, it is worrying why this project has remained unfunded after five

years of being proposed. The importance of a National Hydro-Meteorological network should

not be underestimated as it serves to reduce the uncertainties surrounding climate change

(Farrell, 2003:2).

Conclusion

Through this criteria-based evaluation process, this paper has been able to identify the strengths

and the weaknesses of the Liberia NAPA. Though the main goal of the NAPA which is to

identify urgent adaptation needs was achieved by the Liberia NAPA, however, there still exist

some loopholes. Thus the following recommendations is necessary to strengthen the NAPA

process for future purposes.

10

There should be more focus on ecosystem-based approach towards climate change

adaptation in Liberia as this result to better environmental sustainability

It should include economic analysis of prioritized projects as this will enable allocation

and efficient use of scarce resources

It should strengthen monitoring and evaluation for better information management

It should improve risk management by taking negative outcomes into account

It should be more equitable in terms of gender and other vulnerable members of the

society.

Although Liberia has not done badly as a post-conflict country in preparing an adaptation plan,

however, a review process is needed to identify reasons why implementation process is slow

which may have its roots from the planning stage. Doing this would speed up the achievement

of the Liberia NAPA and hence reduce the vulnerability of its populace.

11

References

Bruin, K., 2011. An Economic Analysis of Adaptation to Climate Change under Uncertainty,

Wageningen University, Wageningen. Available from: http://www.ccsl.iccip.net/182256.pdf

(Accessed 18 July 2013).

Colls, A., Ash, N., and Ikkala, N., 2009. Ecosystems-based Adaptation: a natural response to

climate change, Gland, Switzerland.

Environmental Protection Agency of Liberia (EPAL) 2008. Liberia National Adaptation

programme of Action, Government of Liberia, Monrovia. Available from:

unfccc.int/resource/docs/napa/lbr01.pdf ( Accessed 4 yuly 2013.)

Farrell, D., 2003. Hydro-Meteorology and Sustainable Development in the Caribbean,

Principal Caribbean Institute for Meteorology & Hydrology, Barbados. Available from:

www.wmo.int/pages/prog/drr/events/Barbados/Pres/5-CIMH2.pdf (Accessed 23 July 2013).

Government of Liberia, 2011. Ministry of Foreign Affairs: Statement made by Hon. Toga

Gayewea McIntosh, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Durban.

Available from:

http://www.unfccc.int/files/meetings/durban_nov.../111207_cop17_hls_liberia.pdf (Accessed

24 July 2013).

Government of Malawi, 2006. Malawi’s National Adaptation programme of Action (NAPA),

UNFCCC, Bonn. Available from: unfccc.int/resource/docs/napa/mwi01.pdf ( Accessed 24

yuly 2013.)

Government of Sierra Leone, 2007. National Adaptation programme of Action (NAPA),

Ministry of Transport and Aviation, Freetown. Available from:

unfccc.int/resource/docs/napa/sle01.pdf ( Accessed 24 yuly 2013.)

12

Head, B., n.d. Evidence-based policy: principles and requirements, University of Queensland,

Brisbane. Available from: www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/96208/03-chapter2.pdf

(Accessed 23 July 2013).

Huq, N. and Hugé, J., n.d. National Adaptation Programme of Action (NAPA) – An Assessment

of Workers’ Rights, Department of Human Ecology, Vrije Universiteit, Brussel.

Huq, S., Reid, H., Konate, M., Rahman, A., Sokona, Y. and Crick, F., 2011. Mainstreaming

adaptation to climate change in Least Developed Countries (LDCs), Climate Policy, 4(1): 25-

43.

International Institute for Sustainable Development, De Vit, C. and Parry, J., 2011. Review of

Current and Planned Adaptation Action: West Africa- Liberia, International Institute for

Sustainable Development, United States of America. Available from:

http://www.adaptationpartnership.org/sites/default/files/West%20Africa%20Country%20prof

iles%20(Liberia).pdf (Accessed 14 July 2013).

Karalis, V., 2007. Southey Street rock groyne, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne.

Available from:

http://www.showplace.com.au/SFG/Resources/Dr%20Wayne%20Stephenson%20expert%20

report%20for%20SFG%20version%201%20(2)%2030.4.2007.pdf (Accessed 25 July 2013).

Karmorh, B., 2011. Liberia’s Experience in Implementing NAPA, UNFCCC Focal Point and

Environmental Protection Agency of Liberia (EPAL), South Africa. Available from:

http://unfccc.int/national_reports/napa/items/2719.php (Accessed 23 July 2013).

Agyei, K., 2013, ‘Critical evaluation of the National Adaptation Programme of Action of

Liberia’, in J. Pittock (Ed), A critique of selected national adaptation plans. Assessments from

the 2012 climate change vulnerability and adaptation Master’s degree course, Working paper:

13

The Australian National University Climate Change Institute. The Australian National

University, Canberra. Available from the Australian National University Climate Change

Institute: http://cci.anu.edu.au/.

Prasetya, G., 2007. Protection from Coastal Erosion, Food and Agriculture Organisation, Italy.

Available from: http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/ag127e/ag127e09.htm (Accessed 18 July

2013).

Sumi, A., Mimura, N. and Masui, T., 2011. Climate Change and Global Sustainability: A

Holistic Approach, United Nations University Press, Tokyo Japan.

United Nations Environment Programme, 2006. Final Evaluation of National Programmes of

Action: Country Report- Liberia, United Nations Environment Programme, Monrovia.

Available from: www.unep.org/eou/Portals/52/.../Annex_7a-Liberia_Country_Report.pdf

( Accessed 18 yuly 2013.)

United Nations Office of the High Representative for the Least Developed Countries,

Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States, 2003. United Nations,

New York. Available from: http://www.un.org/special-rep/ohrlls/ldc/ldc%20criteria.htm

(Accessed 24 July 2013).

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 2002. Annotated guidelines for

the preparation of national adaptation programmes of action, Least Developed Countries

Expert Group, Bonn. Available from: unfccc.int/resource/docs/publications/annguid_e.pdf

(Accessed 18 July 2013).

The World Bank, 2010. World Development Report: Development in a Changing Climate,

World Bank, Johannesburg. Available from:

http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/598liberiantreport.pdf (Accessed 14

July 2013).

14

APPENDICES

Appendix 1: The Map of Liberia

Source: www.theodora.com/maps

15

Appendix 2: Evaluation Criteria for the Assessment of Liberia NAPA

Theme Criteria Definition

Kind of adaptation activity Is it technological structural,

ecosystem-based, institutional or

behavioral?

Adequacy Necessity Were key adaptation needs

identified? Were the proposed

projects prioritized? Is it based on

country specific circumstances?

Efficacy Will it achieve adaptation? Will it

provide sound environmental

management?

Cost-effectiveness Was an economic analysis carried

out to ascertain value for money?

Strategic planning/systems

thinking approach

Integration Is it mainstreamed into other

reinforcing adaptation responses?

Co-benefits and perverse

outcomes

Were all the potential benefits and

harms identified? Were the people

or communities who will be

affected identified?

Monitoring and evaluation Were projections of the benefits

with stipulated timelines made?

Were the indicators to track

progress stated? Was the

information management system

data collection on progress stated?

Sustainability What financial and institutional

arrangements have been made to

continue the adaptation planning

process?

Stakeholder and multi-sectorial

involvement

Feasibility Were all the stakeholders and

sectors who will influence

implementation identified? Did

they participate in the planning

process? Were their roles stated?

Socio-cultural appropriateness Are the activities politically

acceptable? Are there social and

cultural concerns that will affect

implementation?

Equity Are the activities gender

responsive? Do they address the

needs of vulnerable members of

the society?

16

Appendix 3: Comparison of the Liberia NAPA Based On the Evaluation Criteria

Explanation:

Well stated

Not stated

- Not clearly stated

Adapt

ation

Project

Evaluation Criteria And Comparison

Kind of

adaptation

activity

Adequacy Strategic planning/systems thinking

approach

Stakeholder and

multi-sectorial

involvement

Tec

hn

olo

gy

-Ba

sed

Eco

syst

em-B

ase

d

Inst

itu

tio

n-B

ase

d

Nec

essi

ty

Eff

ica

cy

Co

st-E

ffec

tiv

enes

s

Inte

gra

tio

n

Co

-Ben

efit

s

Per

ver

se o

utc

om

es

Mo

nit

ori

ng

A

nd

Ev

alu

ati

on

Su

sta

ina

bil

ity

Fea

sib

ilit

y

So

cio

-Cu

ltu

ral

Ap

pro

pri

ate

nes

s

Eq

uit

y

Project

1

- - -

Project

2

- - - - - - - - -

Project

3

- - - -

17