Assessing the institutional capacity to adapt to climate change: a case study in the Cambodian health and water sectors

Abstract

Institutional capacity is an important element for climate change adaptation (CCA) and the development of such capacity is a great challenge in a Least Developed Country like Cambodia where resources are limited. An important first step to increasing capacity is via an understanding of the level of existing capacity; future priorities can then be subsequently identified. This study aimed to assess the capacity of organizations to implement climate change activities in Cambodia in order to provide such a basis for building capacity. Four elements of capacity were investigated in this research: (1) financial resources, (2) cooperation and coordination of stakeholders, (3) availability and quality of information on vulnerability and adaptation to climate change, and (4) the level of understanding of climate change vulnerability and adaptation. The data were collected through semistructured interviews with a wide range of government and non-government informants across a number of sectors. Results of the study showed that informants perceived capacity for CCA to be very constrained, especially in terms of financial resources and cooperation, and addressing these factors was ranked as the highest climate change capacity priority. Institutional capacity constraints were considered to relate more generally to weak governance of CCA. In light of our research findings, the absence of local higher education institutions in CCA activities should be addressed. The support of such institutions would provide an important mechanism to progress both capacity development as well as partnerships and coordination between different types of organizations and relevant sectors.

Policy relevance

Capacity for CCA within Cambodian health and water sectors was perceived to be very constrained across a range of interdependent factors. Increasing funding was ranked as the highest priority for building capacity for CCA; however, governance factors such as ‘improved cooperation’ were also ranked highly. Improving stakeholders' awareness of the availability of adaptation funds and resources, and their responsiveness to funding criteria, is an important implication of our research, as is improving the mobilization of local resources and the private sector. To address the issue of weak cooperation among stakeholders, improving the coordination function of the National Climate Change Committee (NCCC) regarding stakeholder engagement and capacity building is crucial. Ensuring that CCA activities are based on sound information and knowledge from across different disciplines and, importantly, include the perspectives of vulnerable people themselves, ultimately underpins and supports the realization of the above priorities.

Keywords:

• Cambodia
• capacity
• climate change adaptation
• governance
• health sector
• water sector

1. Introduction

Least Developed Countries (LDCs) such as Cambodia, the study site for this research, face great capacity challenges in the development and implementation of climate change adaptation (CCA) policies, with much development assistance failing to ensure that adaptation continues beyond the cessation of assistance (Willems & Baumert, 2003). Cambodia is considered to be an LDC by the UN and has been characterized as having the lowest climate change adaptive capacity among Southeast Asian countries due to its poor technologies, lack of infrastructure, and poor socio-economic conditions (Yusuf & Francisco, 2009). In 2009, nearly 23% of the population was reported to be living below the poverty line, with a high concentration of people living very near the poverty line (Royal Government of Cambodia [RGC], 2013). According to the Cambodian Socio-Economic Survey of 2007, 78% of rural employees then worked in the agricultural sector, which comprises crop production, livestock, farming, and fishing (RGC, 2008a), all highly climate-sensitive livelihoods.

Cambodia also has a very high prevalence of communicable diseases, partly due to its tropical climate. According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), the rates of malaria incidence and mortality in Cambodia in 2007 were 2.96 per 1000 and 1.68 per 100,000, respectively, which are relatively high compared to other countries in the Greater Mekong subregion (WHO, 2010). The prevalence of communicable diseases in Cambodia has been exacerbated by a combination of weak socio-economic conditions and poor infrastructure and services, featuring malnutrition, inadequacy of the rural water supply and sanitation services, as well as a poor health-care system and poor-quality housing and living environments (RGC, 2008b). Diarrhoeal diseases, for example, are particularly prevalent during flood periods, when people are evacuated to safer areas and live in crowded conditions without well-resourced evacuation centres, proper water and sanitation systems, or nutritious food (Humanitarian Response Forum, 2013; Tran, 2011). Thus, improvements in the evacuation procedures, the health-care system, water supply, and sanitation facilities, as well as a reduction in exposure to extreme climatic catastrophes, are critical priorities for both public health and human development more generally.

The existing health and human development challenges are likely to be exacerbated by climate change (Berry, Bowen, & Kjellstrom, 2010; Confalonieri et al., 2007; Costello et al., 2009; McMichael et al., 2003; McMichael, Friel, Corvolan, & Nyong, 2008). As such, the government in Cambodia has progressively come to focus its attention on this issue. Cambodia signed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 1995 and the Kyoto Protocol in 2002. A Climate Change Office was established in 2003 within the Ministry of Environment (MOE) to coordinate climate change-related commitments (MOE, 2003). The office was subsequently elevated to the Department of Climate Change (CCD) in 2009, with an expanded mandate (RGC, 2009b). The National Climate Change Committee was established in 2006 with 19 members, all high-level decision makers from relevant government organizations (RGC, 2006b), with a view to enhancing cooperation between relevant organizations in implementing the UNFCCC. The above changes have been crucial in the development of CCA works within the Cambodian health and water sectors (Bowen, Miller, Dany, McMichael, & Friel, 2013).

Considering the critical development challenges LDCs confront, mainstreaming CCA within sustainable development policy has emerged as an influential policy goal and discourse (Halsnæs, Shukla, & Garg, 2008; Huq et al., 2004). A number of preconditions have been identified for successful mainstreaming of CCA works, which include good management of human and financial resources (Willems & Baumert, 2003) and an enabling policy framework (The WB Institute, n.d.). This in turn supports the implementation of climate-informed programmes and projects. A Cambodian national programme of action on climate change (NAPA) was completed in 2006 and identified a number of high-priority projects for addressing climate vulnerability in both health and non-health (water, agriculture, and coastal zone) sectors (RGC, 2006a). Presently, a Cambodian Climate Change Strategic Plan, together with Sectoral Climate Change Strategic Plans including health and water, are under development (Am, Cuccillato, Nkem, & Chevillard, 2013; CCD, 2013a). With the emergence of this policy and institutional framework for CCA and the anticipated increase in the level of development assistance, an investigation of capacity is timely.

Capacity is critical to every phase of policy, from inception to implementation and evaluation, and strengthening capacity is an essential aspect of CCA. Institutional capacity has been described as an ability to mobilize existing institutions to address new policy issues, such as climate change (Willems, 2004). Capacity can be considered the enabling environment within which individuals and organizations can interact to implement adaptation (Willems & Baumert, 2003). As such, a lack of institutional capacity can inhibit the realization of policy objectives. Also, if the gap between existing and required capacity for any adaptation action is too large, the realization of that action becomes impossible (Willems & Baumert, 2003). Engle (2011) argues that less attention has been given to the concept of adaptive capacity, compared with the related concepts of vulnerability and resilience, due to the latent nature of the concept and difficulties associated with assessing it. Engle further argues that there are even fewer studies that have assessed capacity in practice. An understanding of the level of existing capacities gives a better idea of priority capacity-building actions to be undertaken, so an assessment of capacity gaps and needs is useful for efforts to reduce vulnerability to climate change (World Bank Institute., n.d.a).

Assessing the institutional capacity to adapt needs to take into account the characteristics of adaptation and will differ depending on whether the focus of concern is on national policy and funding priorities, community-based initiatives, or some other form of adaptation, such as household livelihood decision making or adaptation technology transfer. Adaptation is generally defined as necessary adjustments to enhance a system's capacity so that it can cope better with climate stresses in the long term (Brooks, 2003; Füssel, 2005; IPCC, 2007; Preston & Stafford-Smith, 2009). Adaptation takes different forms depending on the purpose, context, and scale of particular actions, whether at the household, community, sector, region, or country scale. Smit and Wandel (2006) highlight a number of ways in which adaptation activities can be classified, including the timing (e.g. anticipatory, reactive), intent (e.g. autonomous, planned), form (e.g. technological, institutional), and degree of adjustment required by the system. Pelling (2011) provides a more comprehensive typology for the classification of adaptation, considering the degree of collaboration, focus, forethought, phasing, and scope of impact. UNFCCC (2006) makes an important note that adaptation is not a new intervention, but rather a continuation of ongoing processes, and should be occurring across all socio-economic sectors. So, having an understanding of, and building on, existing knowledge, skills, and networks to strengthen adaptation to climate change helps to ensure that adaptation activities are appropriate and sustainable.

There are a number of factors influencing adaptive capacity. Smit and Wandel (2006), in their review of the literature, identify the following factors: managerial ability; access to financial, technological, and information resources; infrastructure; the institutional environment within which adaptations occur; political influence; and kinship networks. They stress that such factors are interdependent and highly context-specific. Attention on institutional aspects of adaptive capacity in the literature focuses particularly on the quality of cooperation and decision making. Lebel, Nikitina, and Manuta (2006), in their study of flood risk, put emphasis on relationships among actors as central to institutional capacity, stressing the importance of capacity for deliberation and negotiation, capacity to mobilize and coordinate, capacity to implement, and capacity to evaluate. The World Bank Institute (n.d.b) also indicates the importance of coordination issues and bureaucracy in adaptation planning. In addition, an ability to manage human and financial resources to solve problems is a common dimension of capacity – a particular constraint in developing countries (Willems, 2004).

Climate-related information, as in the form of vulnerability assessments (VAs) and related data, is considered the foundation for adaptation planning and climate-proofing decision making (Carter et al., 2007; Lebel, Foran, Garden, & Manuta, 2009; Linham & Nicholls, 2010; Preston & Stafford-Smith, 2009; UNFCCC, 2006; Veraart & Bakker, 2009). Lebel et al. (2006) also underline the quality, availability, and sharing of such information in a timely manner as core technical challenges in reducing the risks of flood disasters, which are also apparent in the field of CCA. A particular challenge regarding the planning of CCA is the necessity to consider present and future climate vulnerabilities (Füssel, 2007; Moss et al., 2008; Preston & Stafford-Smith, 2009; UNFCCC, 2006; Veraart & Bakker, 2009).

This study was purposely designed to consider institutional capacity for planned adaptation to climate change at the national level within the Cambodian health and water sectors. The focus on institutional capacity to adapt at this scale is warranted considering the early stage of planned adaptation in Cambodia, the influence of central-level institutions in determining adaptation policy and funding priorities, and the prominence of overseas development assistance in formal adaptation planning. The study examines four areas of institutional capacity: access to financial resources; cooperation and coordination amongst stakeholders; availability and quality of information on vulnerability and adaptation to climate change; and level of understanding of climate change vulnerability and adaptation of stakeholders.

The study aims to assist Cambodian policy makers in framing CCA policies and funding mechanisms in ways that are more consistent with existing institutional capacity so as to improve the likelihood that policies and actions are appropriate to the Cambodian context of vulnerability to climate change, and are both achievable and sustainable in the long term. This article reports on one aspect of a larger study evaluating factors that influence the development of adaptation measures in the health and water sectors in Cambodia.

2. Methods

A total of 44 in-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted between April and August 2010 with 32 different organizations. The majority of interviews (41) were conducted in the capital of Cambodia, Phnom Penh, and the remaining were conducted in Ratanakiri, a province in northeast Cambodia. The informants were purposively sampled, using expert sampling and snowball approaches, particularly drawing upon the expert knowledge and professional networks of the primary author. A broad range of informants were selected from a number of sectors due to their cross-cutting nature of CCA; however, informants with responsibilities in the health and water sectors were particularly targeted for recruitment due to the high sensitivity of these sectors to the impacts of climate change.

The organizations interviewed were categorized in two ways: (1) by organization type, either government or non-governmental organization (which encompassed all organizations that were not tied to government and included traditional NGOs such as the Red Cross and Oxfam, research organizations, as well as non-government actors such as the development banks and UN agencies); (2) by their primary sectoral focus, with organizations classified according to their official mandate. Of the 32 organizations interviewed, 17 were NGOs and 15 were government organizations. Half of the organizations interviewed focused predominantly on water, health, agriculture, or disaster risk management, and the remainder were not sector-specific, tending to focus on multiple sectors (e.g. bilateral and multilateral development partners, community development organizations, etc.) and were therefore identified as cross-cutting. Table 1 presents the numbers of informants by different sectors and organization type.

Table 1 Stakeholders stratified by sector and organization type

Type of organizations	Health	Water	Agriculture	Disaster	Cross-cutting	Subtotal
Government organizations	6	5	1	2	8	22
Non-government organizations	1	1	3	2	12	19
Subtotal	7	6	4	4	20	41

The roles of informants in their organizations varied from project implementation and management roles to networking and strategy development. All informants held senior positions within their organizations, with less than half of the informants interviewed having fewer than five years of experience working in their current organization.

There were differences in the types of activities that organizations undertook across the different sectors. Specific projects or programmes identified included climate change projects such as the development of the First National Communication, the National Adaptation Plan of Action, a knowledge attitude and climate change programme, and a disaster risk reduction and CCA project. Of the 32 organizations interviewed, three government departments and two NGOs specifically identified climate change as being an aspect of their main activities. Informants identified activities that focused on collaborative work, including information sharing and advocacy work, network coordination, and capacity building. Based on informants' descriptions, organizations' climate change-related activities were classified into knowledge generation, adaptation, mitigation, negotiation, and funding. Of the sample, half worked on knowledge generation activities related to climate change. Thirty informants reported working on adaptation activities, with only four of them reporting that they were also involved in mitigation and/or negotiation, or funding.

Interviews were conducted by the research team using an interview guide (see Box 1), digitally recorded, and transcribed and translated into English (where necessary) for analysis. Qualitative data were organized into themes using N-Vivo 7. Following this initial coding of themes, subthemes were inductively extracted from the data based on patterns embedded within them. The quantitative information was analysed to produce descriptive statistics. The results are presented in the following sections for each question, first describing the whole sample, then stratifying the sample into sectors (health, water, disaster, agriculture, and cross-cutting) and organizations (government and non-government). Ethics approval for the study was obtained from the Australian National University's Human Research Ethics Committee (Protocol no. 2009/468).

Box 1 Interview guide capacities for Implementing CCA works within the Cambodian health and water sectors.

3. Results

This article assesses key capacity issues for carrying out CCA within the Cambodian health and water sectors: financial resources, cooperation, information, and stakeholders' understanding and training opportunities according to research informants' observations and perceptions. This section presents findings on these capacity issues as well as priority rankings of these capacity issues.

3.1. Financial resources

Financial resources were measured in terms of ‘adequacy versus inadequacy’ of organizational budgets for implementing key CCA priority activities.

Nearly 60% of informants reported that they did not have adequate funding to implement climate change priority activities. More government organizations (78%) than NGOs (44%) reported this financial inadequacy. The sector-based analysis did not show any clear differences between sectors. The majority of informants in every sector except the cross-cutting sector (100% for agriculture, 75% for disaster risk management, 67% for health, 60% for water, and 50% for cross-cutting) indicated that they did not have adequate funding for climate change priorities within their organizations.

3.2. Cooperation among adaptation stakeholders

‘Cooperation’ was investigated through informants' own observations and perceptions of cooperation, with the term deliberately broad to capture all aspects of cooperation (financial, technical, etc.).

The level of cooperation between organizations was generally identified as not being strong enough and requiring further strengthening. One stakeholder from the health sector stated, ‘We only have limited cooperation with climate change related organisations’, while another informant from the water sector commented that CCA works in Cambodia remain sector-wide, which is not adequate for cross-cutting issues such as CCA. It was emphasized that most of the climate change-related activities were concentrated at the MOE, despite it being a cross-cutting issue. The lack of community-level participation in the CCA process (both policy and programme development) was also highlighted by one informant from an NGO.

Half of the informants from the water sector emphasized that climate change impacts upon every sector and it is a cross-cutting issue, so it requires cooperation among different sectors. The informants further suggested that water-related activities also need to be organized in a more cooperative manner among relevant ministries given its cross-cutting nature. Furthermore, a need for transboundary cooperation was also mentioned by two informants from a government organization and an NGO, reflecting the geographic position of much of the country and key resources within the international transboundary basin of the Mekong River.

Slightly more than half of informants from the health sector also indicated insufficient levels of cooperation between climate change-related organizations and health departments, particularly in relation to financial matters. One health informant stated, ‘Cooperation at a technical level was not an issue among government organisations; however, financial cooperation was difficult.’ The informant reported that their organization received assistance from the WHO for CCA-related capacity building; however, there was no funding support for implementing CCA-related health projects. A need for support from top policy makers was also underlined by the health sector informants. One informant stated, ‘If there is a strong political support, CCA works within health sector can be moved forward.’ The informant indicated that it is important to send the message (climate change has impacts on health) to the Prime Minister in order for him to recognize the importance of promoting CCA works within the health sector.

About 60% of the non-government informants identified a weak level of cooperation between development partners and relevant government departments. One informant stated that ‘It is very difficult to work with Cambodian high level officials’, while another informant reported that some government ministries (e.g. the Ministry of Commerce) were reluctant to be involved in CCA works. One NGO's experience indicated that cooperation with the MOE was smooth, yet work with the Ministry of Health (MOH) needed additional assistance and facilitation. Furthermore, the roles of the National Climate Change Committee (NCCC), CCD, and development partners were reported as not clearly defined. The lack of responsibility of NCCC in facilitating good cooperation amongst stakeholders, especially between government and non-government organizations, was commented upon by three non-government informants. One informant said, ‘Unlike in many countries, the Cambodian Climate Change Committee is less cooperative.’

Research informants identified a number of reasons that caused weak cooperation among CCA stakeholders. Distrust was mentioned by four informants as one of the reasons for a lack of cooperation between NGOs and government departments. One non-government informant stated that ‘NGOs actually do not oppose the government; we [NGOs] just want to ensure that the country is developed towards meeting its sustainable development goals.’ The participant further observed that government organizations perceived the funding procedures of donors as overly restrictive, stressing that ‘Government officials don't like funding procedures’, thus they feel reluctant to apply for funding support. This suggests that the capacity of agencies to meet the (at times) complex application procedures and associated financial accountability standards warrants attention. One government informant from the health sector, on the other hand, viewed the issue as a mismatch in the priorities of government organizations and funding agencies, saying that ‘Although donors have started to talk about climate change, they have their own policy agenda to follow.’ The informant was probably referring to the lack of support for CCA in the health sector. For instance, the focus of the Pilot Program on Climate Resilience (PPCR) is only on the water and agricultural sectors. Although there are many competing demands for limited health resources, the informant further noted that, despite the attention on CCA, a lack of funding for implementing key CCA works is one of the key challenges in fostering cooperation on this issue, explaining that government organizations have only limited budgets for implementing their key priority activities. This observation was reinforced by another informant reporting that relevant line ministries were happy to participate in the CCA project supported by the Mekong River Commission through the Cambodian National Mekong Committee as this promised some funding. Additionally, it was also reported that there was evidence of stronger cooperation emerging following shocks such as Cyclone Ketsana in 2009, when funding was subsequently made available.

Despite the general reporting of low levels of cooperation across sectors and organizations, some 30% of informants noted that cooperation has improved over time. An increasing number of positive partnerships among relevant government ministries and more dialogue between donors and governmental ministries have been observed. This can be seen by one informant's reporting of the MOE's implementation of a climate change-related project in cooperation with the Ministry of Water Resources and Meteorology, and the establishment of a project committee. An increasing connection between the MOE and MOH was also observed as an increased participation by health officials in CCA-related consultations, workshops, and conferences (e.g. dissemination workshops on VA as part of the second national communication to the UNFCCC, and the national climate change forum) organized by the CCD. Additionally, one non-government informant indicated that the government (referring to the MOE) has played an important role and was successful in bringing relevant organizations together, establishing the NCCC, and developing joint proposals with the UN and funding agencies. In line with this, another government informant indicated a good level of cooperation with the UN Development Programme (UNDP).

Similarly, informants from NGOs (especially funding agencies) claimed that cooperation among development partners was very good, and there was a high level of interest in climate change issues among them. It was reported that the UNDP has coordinated and facilitated the development of a joint statement on cooperation for climate change, as well as organizing regular meetings for the leading donor organizations, such as the World Bank (WB), the Swedish International Development Agency (Sida), the Danish International Development Agency (Danida), the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), and the Asian Development Bank (ADB), with the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) recently joining the process.

Most informants from disaster-related organizations reported cooperation amongst themselves to be generally good and claimed that the disaster risk reduction forum was a good model for integrating different organizations. The forum met regularly and was chaired by a government organization, the National Committee for Disaster Management, with civil society organizations comprising the majority of the membership base. In addition, the forum linked to other fora such as climate change, and water and sanitation, strengthening the wider potential for cooperation.

3.3. Quality and detail of information on vulnerability and adaptation

Informants were asked whether the quality and detail of local vulnerability and adaptation information was ‘sufficient’ or ‘insufficient’ to inform their policies, plans, programmes, and/or projects in the health and water sectors. Informants were also asked to comment on sharing and accessing information.

The quality and detail of information on vulnerability and adaptation were identified by the majority of informants as insufficient in both the health and water sectors (83% and 79%, respectively). One informant said, ‘The government does not produce enough information (in general)’, while another informant commented that ‘We need sector specific information on climate change impacts and adaptation; the available information is very general.’ On the whole, more government than non-government informants reported that there was an insufficient level of quality and detail of vulnerability and adaptation information available (Figure 1). Accessing information from government organizations was also reported to be difficult. Despite a lack of information, research informants indicated that many vulnerability and adaptation assessment reports were not read because they were produced in the English language and were not easily understood. It is important to note here that many senior government officials were educated only in the national language of Khmer, and thus cannot read any reports written in English. Perhaps for this reason, more government informants reported insufficient information in general. The predominance of English-language resources and studies underlines the strong presence of aid agencies and foreign experts in CCA in Cambodia. In terms of sectoral differences, informants from the agriculture and water sectors regarded the vulnerability and adaptation information relating to health and water sectors more insufficient than informants from other sectors.

Figure 1 Assessment of quality and details of V&A information by government and non-government stakeholders

Informants from health-related government and non-government organizations indicated that the information on vulnerability and adaptation in the health sector was very limited and general. Similarly, government and non-government informants from the non-health sectors also indicated that climate change and health information was not easily available and information sharing was very narrow, mainly within individual organizations.

In relation to the water sector, it was reported that the information available was mainly related to irrigation systems, with some information relating to droughts. Furthermore, it was noted that the information on irrigation was based on the current climate conditions. It was mentioned that future climate change scenarios should be taken into account as they may cause different vulnerabilities (e.g. future floods may be different in timing and magnitude to current ones).

The vulnerability and adaptation information that was available was reported as being very general in nature, so further studies for sector-specific information were highlighted as being in great demand. Specific detailed and scientific information needs mentioned by informants included the impacts of increasing temperature on surface water quality and hydrological levels; the impacts of climate changes on crops, especially rice production; and the impacts of climate change on human health (e.g. malaria and dengue fever). Developing flood maps of flood-prone areas was also indicated as necessary. On the other hand, another government informant gave higher priority to project implementation at the grass-roots level rather than producing additional information. Yet, this informant acknowledged the need to interlink knowledge and implementation, ‘it is just like a car, we cannot separate any part from it in order for it to function.’

Despite the need to produce more vulnerability and adaptation assessments, updating some relevant reports such as the NAPA document published in 2006 (RGC, 2006a) as a reaction to the changing social and environmental conditions was also suggested. Informants also emphasized that only very limited climate change considerations were integrated into recent government policy and strategy documents on agriculture and water resources: e.g. the Strategic Development Plan on Water Resources and Meteorology to contribute to the implementation of the updated National Strategic Development Plan 2009–2013 (RGC, 2009a); the Strategy for Agriculture and Water 2010–2013 (RGC, 2010b); the Agriculture Sector Strategic Development Plan 2006–2010 (RGC, 2005); and the National Strategic Development Plan Update 2009–2013 (RGC, 2010a). This lack of attention on climate change reflects a lack of consistency regarding the government's climate change strategy.

3.4. Understanding of vulnerability and adaptation

The level of stakeholders' understanding of the information about vulnerability and adaptation within the health and water sectors was measured by informants' assessment according to a typical Likert three-point scale of ‘very good’, ‘good’, and ‘fair’.¹

The general understanding of vulnerability and adaptation for the health and water sectors was assessed by informants as being limited. However, the level of understanding of vulnerability and adaptation within the water sector was perceived to be better than in the health sector (Figure 2). Of the informants, 10% reported a ‘very good’ understanding on vulnerability and adaptation in relation to the water sector, whereas no informants reported having a ‘very good’ understanding on vulnerability and adaptation in the health sector.

Figure 2 Level of understanding of V&A in the health and water sectors by government and non-government organisations

The level of understanding of vulnerability and adaptation in relation to the health sector differed considerably between informants from government and non-government organizations. Three-quarters (75%) of government informants reported a ‘fair’ understanding on vulnerability and adaptation in the health sector, compared with less than half (40%) of non-government informants. However, the level of understanding on vulnerability and adaptation within the water sector was not substantially different between the two groups of informants (Figure 2). An analysis of the level of understanding of vulnerability and adaptation in the water sector by different groups of informants did not indicate any major differences among them.

3.5. Organizational training in vulnerability and adaptation to climate change

Training activities on any aspect of climate change, either received or delivered, were asked about in order to map out existing capacity-building activities on the ground and to improve the understanding of capacity gaps and needs. Stakeholders involved in delivering training were also identified to improve understanding on local climate-related scientific networks.

Capacity-building and awareness-raising activities were found to be limited. About 40% of informants confirmed that their institutions had received some relevant training, although it was not necessarily specific to climate change. The training received was mainly in the fields of disaster management, sustainable development, and the environment, and generally in the form of workshops. Three informants indicated having received training abroad; although none of the health informants indicated having received overseas training. There was no substantial difference in terms of training opportunities between government and non-government organizations or among organizations working in the different sectors.

A range of organizations were identified as providing training, including relevant government ministries, UN and multilateral agencies, as well as civil society organizations. The MOE, as part of its role in formulating the NAPA, was identified as a lead training agent on climate change matters. Training on climate change (causes, impacts, vulnerability, adaptation, and mitigation) was reported as being delivered nationwide for provincial officials of relevant ministries. Furthermore, it was reported that the WHO provided technical support and capacity building around climate change and health to national-level officials of health-related departments. This training was reported to be replicated twice to provincial health officials. Also, the Asian Disaster Preparedness Center was identified as having conducted training in relation to disaster risk reduction. In addition, the ADB organized training in Thailand, with participation from one informant from the water sector. The Institute of Development Studies was also identified as providing training on climate change impacts on children. Specific training on climate change impacts on different sectors, and respective adaptation measures for different geographical locations, was highlighted as an important activity by the majority (55%) of informants.

3.6. Priority ranking

Informants were asked to prioritize the following capacity issues for CCA activities – increased funding, improved cooperation, improved information on vulnerability, training on vulnerability, improved information on adaptation, and training on adaptation – in terms of their importance for adaptation works. A simple ranking scale from 1 to 6 was used, where 1 was least important and 6 was most important. A total of 36 informants, of whom half were from government organizations, participated in this priority-ranking exercise.

Figure 3 presents the ranking levels of the priority issues by all informants. As indicated in the figure, ‘increased funding’ was ranked as the highest priority issue for CCA works in the Cambodian health and water sectors, followed by ‘improved coordination.’

Figure 3 Ranking of priority capacity issues by stakeholders

More government (44%) than non-government (28%) informants nominated ‘increased funding’ as their highest priority, which corresponds with their responses in the previous question on financial resources. Nevertheless, some 30% of the government and non-government informants also ranked this variable as their lowest priority.

More non-government (28%) than government (17%) informants prioritized ‘improved coordination’, reflecting their responses in relation to the earlier cooperation questions, which identified a low level of cooperation among stakeholders. However, there were more non-government respondents than government respondents (22% of non-government respondents vs. 11% of government respondents) who ranked this variable as their lowest priority.

Nearly 20% of informants viewed ‘improving information on vulnerability’ as the most important issue for CCA work compared to only 3% of informants who prioritized ‘improving information on adaptation’. Approximately two-thirds of informants ranked ‘improved information on vulnerability’ between 1 and 3, which was the highest proportion compared to other variables in this study (Figure 3). Overall, training and improved information on adaptation were ranked as the lowest priorities.

4. Discussion

This study shows that the capacities measured for carrying out works on CCA within the Cambodian health and water sectors have been very constrained. All four areas that were investigated in this study – (1) financial resources, (2) cooperation and coordination of stakeholders, (3) availability and quality of information on vulnerability and adaptation to climate change, and (4) the level of understanding of climate change vulnerability and adaptation – were highlighted as warranting further strengthening in order to support CCA activities in Cambodia. In addition, the priority areas were identified as (in order of priority) funding, cooperation, information and training on vulnerability, and information and training on adaptation.

4.1. Financial resources

The finding that most government informants (78%) reported a lack of financial resources to implement CCA as a priority activity was not surprising, given that Cambodia is an LDC and that national budgets are limited. The lack of financial support has restricted the opportunity for the government ministries to make changes to current plans in order to respond better to new information and climate stresses. The likely increase in overseas development assistance and additional adaptation-specific funding gives more hope in addressing this concern. It is important for Cambodian government and non-government stakeholders to be aware of the availability of adaptation funds and resources both locally and internationally, and be in a position to meet the criteria to apply for such funds. This is an obvious priority to target future capacity-building efforts. Furthermore, informants also indicated that the private sector is another potential source of financial support for climate-change-related activities. The role of the private sector in climate-change-related works in Cambodia has been seen more clearly in the field of mitigation, especially through Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects, but limited in adaption works, so further investigation is necessary.

With this aim, overseas development assistance has recently been provided to Cambodia to develop a local CCA Trust Fund (a multidonor support facility from the EU, Sida, Danida, and UNDP). This provided total funding of about US$9 million for a three-year (2010–2012) pilot phase (Thy, 2011). The Trust Fund has been executed by the Cambodian Climate Change Alliance (CCCA) sitting within the CCD, with assistance from UNDP during the pilot phase. The development of this CCA Trust Fund has provided funding opportunities to implement CCA projects. During the pilot phase, the Trust Fund supported 20 adaptation projects covering a wide range of adaptation fields from government, non-government, and academic organizations (CCD, 2013b).

The majority of the Trust Fund-funded projects are from government organizations. Of the 20 projects funded, nine have been implemented by government organizations, eight by NGOs in partnership with local-government organizations (i.e. local government, provincial departments, and district offices), and three by local universities in partnership with government organizations at either national or subnational levels. This may be due to the Trust Fund being executed by a government organization (the CCD); this means that language is not a barrier, so government officials can communicate effectively regarding the tender processes. Moreover, the Trust Fund has a simpler funding procedure than other funding agencies, which is more favourable to Cambodian government officials, who are not used to a high level of formality. This progress may mean that the perception of government organizations that donors' funding procedures are too restrictive has been addressed by the CCA Trust Fund's funding mechanism.

Although funding accessibility has improved under the pilot phase of the Trust Fund, the issues relating to funding identified by this study remains relevant and should be taken into account in the development of the local CCA financial framework (Beloe, 2013). Given that most CCA programmes and projects in Cambodia are in the pilot phase, further investigations relating to the funding mechanisms should be undertaken, covering the funding mechanisms of the Trust Fund and other key funding agencies, especially the Pilot Program on Climate Change Resilience implemented by the ADB and WB. Capacity strengthening of relevant officials on fundraising and proposal writing, as well as overall financial accountability, is a basic requirement of funding agencies and requires continued support and attention.

With increasing global adaptation funds, research informants have raised a number of issues regarding the effective use of adaptation-related resources, an issue connected with developing the local climate change funding framework. Four research participants from government ministries suggested that CCA funds should be allocated to every sector given the fact that most adaptation funds are currently concentrated at the MOE. Although this is a reasonable request considering the cross-cutting nature of adaptation, Cambodia should prioritize the agriculture, water, and health sectors (the sectors that were included in the NAPA), given the limited funding available. This is because Cambodia is an agrarian country with the majority (about 80%) of its population living in rural areas that are highly dependent on rain-fed agriculture and natural resources. Also, being a poor country located in a tropical region, Cambodia has suffered from a high prevalence of many communicable diseases, including malaria, dengue fever, and diarrhoea, and has a poor health-care system. Accordingly, the health sector should also be highly prioritized.

Another concern relating to funding issues that was raised by informants was the importance of ensuring that funds are used to respond to and target the needs of local communities and those most vulnerable. This issue is a concern because there has been limited engagement of communities in adaptation works, as observed by the research informants. This is an important finding, suggesting that priority should also be given to actual CCA project implementation. Further investigation of community-based adaptation approaches should be undertaken in order to efficiently and effectively assist vulnerable communities. VAs that are embedded within processes of stakeholder consultation and participation are key to eliciting such information to guide and prioritize decision making (Miller & Bowen, 2013).

4.2. Coordination and cooperation among CCA stakeholders

Cooperation was identified as a challenge, with distrust influencing poor cooperation among CCA stakeholders. A number of issues may be attributed to this, including funding competition (especially among government organizations); the restrictive requirements of funding agencies (with which many Cambodian government officials are unfamiliar); the mismatch in policies of funding organizations vs. government organizations; and the inequitable allocation of CCA resources across sectors and types of organization. Additionally, the weakness of the NCCC in facilitating good cooperation was often reported, which is a clear issue for concern given that its role is to provide direction and guidance on CCA policy and activities across a variety of sectors.

Despite the widespread reporting of low levels of cooperation across sectors and organizations, and the lack of community participation in adaptation activities, some informants noted that cooperation has improved over time. For instance, there was evidence of stronger cooperation emerging following extreme weather events such as Cyclone Ketsana in 2009, when funding was subsequently made available. More CCA partnerships have also emerged under the support of the Trust Fund. These notions reinforce the finding that a lack of funding is one of the main causes of poor cooperation among stakeholders, as there is little financial incentive to foster partnerships. Additionally, the UNDP has coordinated and facilitated the development of a joint statement on cooperation for climate change, as well as organizing regular meetings for the leading donor organizations, including the WB, Sida, Danida, JICA, and ADB. This has resulted in more harmonization in CCA resources (e.g. the development of the Trust Fund), which promotes cooperation among CCA stakeholders.

Therefore, although the availability of adaptation funds is important for fostering cooperation among CCA stakeholders, an appropriate coordination framework, especially the proper functionality of the NCCC, is imperative for facilitating and harmonizing CCA works. The ongoing development of Sectoral Climate Change Strategic Plans with support from the Trust Fund may also facilitate harmonization among stakeholders, giving them specific CCA focuses for their sector. It is vital that the ongoing development of the local adaptation funding framework consults these Climate Change Sectoral Strategic Plans.

Building capacity and raising awareness within relevant organizations were two elements mentioned by some 10% of informants as a mechanism for improving cooperation among CCA stakeholders. This may be because capacity building as a process provides an opportunity for stakeholders from different organizations to meet and build relationships, and thus foster cooperation rather than competition. However, this kind of cooperation may have happened only at individual levels (especially among technical officials) rather than at an organizational level. In sectors that traditionally have required greater cross-sectoral coordination, such as water and disasters, there does appear to be a stronger tradition of cooperation, which to some extent is also reflected in the greater level of cooperation among stakeholders from these sectors. Nonetheless, the relative ease of cooperation at the technical level is likely to provide promising opportunities for expanding the scope of such cooperation among CCA stakeholders to other areas, such as adaptation planning.

4.3. Information and stakeholders' understanding of vulnerability and adaptation to climate change

Information and understanding on CCA was reported to continue to be at a very basic and general level. Information needs to respond to sector-specific needs, address social as well as physical aspects, and be more widely available in the national language. Although this low reported level of information and understanding may reflect some informants' poor understanding of the issues, there is a paucity of good quality studies and data available (in Khmer) on the basic dimensions of climate change vulnerability as well as on specific issues. It was indicated by informants that more information dissemination based on stronger evidence would help to influence political will. For instance, an ability to demonstrate the relationship between climate change and disease would potentially influence political will, particularly within the upper echelons of the MOH. A local study, Vulnerability and Adaptation Assessment to Climate Change in Cambodia in 2001, has examined the impacts of climate change on malaria incidents in Cambodia. The study found that the variation in malaria incidents in Cambodia from 1996 to 1999 was explained by 29% of wet season rainfall and 19% of mean temperature (RGC, 2001). However, this local study investigated only a short period (four years) of historical data, so further research is warranted.

In addition, communication strategies to effectively disseminate research results to policy makers, planners, and practitioners need to be examined. There is increasing focus on the concept of co-production of CCA knowledge (between research and policy), given the fact that although adaptation research has advanced well internationally it has been neither sufficient nor efficient enough to guide adaptation works (Preston, Mustelin, & Maloney, 2013). The concept of knowledge co-production is well aligned with the concept of adaptation research, a social and joint learning process among CCA stakeholders. This joint learning process could potentially result, in addition to absorption of the knowledge, in the building of cooperation and trust among CCA stakeholders. The suggestion is of particular relevance to Cambodia due to the low level of stakeholders' understanding of VA, which poses challenges regarding making use of information meaningfully. A proper understanding of VA methods is, however, imperative, as the process of vulnerability assessment remains new for many informants.

Although the level of understanding of vulnerability and the availability of information was reported as limited, people were still reasonably active in both government and NGO sectors, and this can be seen as a positive step for the future. This finding indicates that people were not restrained in implementing CCA works by the inadequacy of information and limited awareness of CCA. Yet, to be efficient and effective, and to target the most vulnerable people, regions, and sectors, there is a need for work to be based on good information and knowledge from across different disciplines and to include the perspectives of vulnerable people themselves. This is one of the next steps for CCA work in Cambodia.

To enable the development of more informed and evidenced-based decision making on adaptation, there is a need to improve understanding on local climate change impacts and vulnerabilities for different sectors, social groups, and geographical areas. Scientific information, especially the linkages between changing climate variables in the context of climate change (i.e. increasing temperature, changing in rainfall amount and patterns, and variation in humidity) and water quality and availability, crop production (especially rice yield), and human diseases (communicable diseases in particular) that are sensitive to the changing climate is necessary for informing CCA policies, strategies, plans, programmes, and projects. Capacity building therefore needs to go beyond providing general information relating to climate change and climate change vulnerability, reinforcing the need for capacity building among local researchers. An emphasis on empirical research is required, including methods of understanding the way in which climate change impacts different sectors, yet scientific certainty may not always be possible in the context of climate change, hence the need for both the co-production of knowledge and deliberation in adaptation decision making.

Surprisingly, none of the local higher education institutions were reported as contributing to capacity development. This may be due to the universities not having sufficient resources for research and outreach projects that participate in the implementation of CCA, as well as the limited allocation of CCA resources to universities to enable them to participate in the CCA process. An absence of this important stakeholder in capacity-building activities and potentially the entire adaptation process highlights the inadequacy of current institutional arrangements and reveals a clear opportunity for supporting future capacity. Given the fact that the government of Cambodia does not provide any financial support for research work, funding agencies should consider providing financial support to selected public universities to set up some climate-change-related research programmes that could be undertaken in partnership with key stakeholders and vulnerable communities.

5. Limitations of the study

It is acknowledged that there are a number of factors identified in the literature that were not investigated in this study. In addition, there are methodological limitations associated with the study's reliance on informants' own observations and perceptions of capacity – reflecting a particular challenge associated with researching adaptive capacity (Engle, 2011). Future research should incorporate other stakeholders', especially community stakeholders', evaluations of the efficiency and efficacy of organizations and the perceived success by which adaptation actions are implemented.

6. Conclusion

The study has shown that the capacity issues around financial resources, cooperation, information, and stakeholders' understanding and training opportunities relating to CCA remain constrained and interconnected. Associated challenges and recommendations to addressing the capacity issues are summarized in Table 2. Some of these lessons and recommendations may also be appropriate for other countries such as the Lao People's Democratic Republic, which have similar socio-economic and political conditions and face similar challenges.

Table 2 Key challenges associated with CCA capacity in Cambodia and potential responses

Key challenges	Potential responses
Financial resources
Insufficient funding for CCA priority activities	Cambodian CCA stakeholders should be aware of the availability of adaptation funds and resources both locally and internationally, and be responsive to funding criteria
Limited capacity of government agencies to meet complex funding application procedures and associated financial accountability standards	Relevant officials should be given capacity strengthening on fundraising and proposal writing, as well as overall financial accountability
	Expansion of the development of the adaptation Trust Fund is helpful in harmonizing CCA resources as well as facilitating participation from government ministries/departments
Cooperation among CCA stakeholders
CCA resources are concentrated with the MOECCA activities remain not cross-sectoralPoorly defined roles among CCD, NCCC, and development partners as well as a lack of responsibility for NCCCDistrust, especially between government and non-government organizationsLack of political support for the health sectorLimited engagement of communities in adaptation works as well as a lack of CCA project implementation on the ground	An appropriate coordination framework should be developed, especially the proper functionality of the NCCC, to facilitate CCA works; intermediaries should be developed to facilitate the building of relationships among stakeholders; all CCA projects should include stakeholder engagement and capacity-building components in order to support relationship buildingImproved communication on climate change health impacts at higher decision-making levels in health and at the Prime Ministerial level to build political supportPriority should be given to actual CCA projects implementation, wherein communities are engaged as part of the knowledge production and implementation of adaptation actions
Information and stakeholders' understanding of VA
VA information for both the health and water sectors is insufficient and of a general nature	More VA studies should be undertaken to respond to sector-specific needs, with study reports written in the national language and made more widely available
VA reports were mainly produced in English and not easy to understand	Training on VA methods should be provided to improve stakeholders' understanding, especially those who are involved in generating the information
Sharing of information, especially within the health sector, was very narrow and only within specific networks	Funding agencies should consider providing financial support to selected public universities to set up some climate-change-related research programmes that could be undertaken in partnership with key stakeholders and vulnerable communities
Stakeholders’ understanding of VA is limited, and training provided has so far been quite limited and not climate-change-specific	Capacity building should go beyond providing general information relating to climate change and climate change vulnerability; the task of capacity building should be allocated to local higher education institutions and be undertaken in partnership with appropriate stakeholders and communities
Limited participation of local universities in CCA capacity-building efforts	Overall, CCA works should be based on good information and knowledge from across different disciplines and include the perspectives of vulnerable people themselves

Among the priority issues, financial resources and cooperation were highly prioritized by the research informants. These two issues, as highlighted in the literature on adaptive capacity (Smit & Wandel, 2006) are interlinked. Financial resources are important to foster cooperation among CCA stakeholders in Cambodia, but unless good cooperation prevails, stakeholders will remain unwilling to share adaptation resources. Intermediaries may be helpful in building relationships among stakeholders. The intermediaries may vary from case to case; however, CCA projects that include an element of stakeholder engagement would be useful to support relationship building.

The study suggests a lack of integration between science, policy, and the implementation of CCA initiatives in Cambodia. This is concerning, because without robust information to inform policies and implementation, the outcome may not just be less effective and efficient CCA activities, but also a potential for maladaptation (Barnett & O'Neill, 2010).

The missing role of higher education institutions (local universities and research institutes) in adaptation works must be addressed. Although local universities need to be strengthened – especially in terms of research skills, English language skills, and the financial resources to undertake more scientific research (Kian-Woon et al., 2010) – this, together with more locally oriented assessments, perhaps form the most appropriate and viable mechanisms to move forward in the co-production of knowledge on vulnerability and adaptation in Cambodia. The Third World Academy of Sciences also argues that countries have to invest in building science and technology to be able to achieve successful development (TWAS, 2004).

Notes

1 This is a typical Likert three-point scale approach, using generally understood measurements. Given that we were interviewing educated professionals it was assumed that they would be familiar with these definitions of ‘very good’, ‘good’, and ‘fair’ in the context of vulnerability and adaptation in the health and water sectors.