Expert Workshop on Adaptation Financing and Implementation, Putting Priorities into Practice in OECD Countries, Paris, 18-19 June, 2014

1. 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'adaptation
de l'Etat en France
June 18 2014
Expert Workshop on Adaptation Financing and
Implementation
Putting 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. 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. 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. 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

5. 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

6. 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. 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. 8
2. Results tracked at the action level
actions
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. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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.

13. 3. Expenses covering Impacts & Adaptation
National Adaptation Plan: 171M€ over 5 years
in the DPT : ~160M€ in 2013
(without taking international cooperation into account)
Agriculture
Forest
Land (in general)
Costal risks
Urbanism
Building
On-land transport
Plane
Satellites
Climate research
Health
Risk prevention
Coordination
Fundamental research
Applied research
Observation
Favoring resilience
and observation

14. Differences and similarities between
the 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)

15. Differences and similarities between
the 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).

16. Thank you for your attention