Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byTiara Jersey Modified over 8 years ago
CGE TRAINING MATERIALS- VULNERABILITY AND ADAPTATION (V&A) ASSESSMENT
Chapter 2 Vulnerability and Adaptation Frameworks
Introduction, Planning and Adaptation Frameworks
PART 1: Introduction, Planning and Adaptation Frameworks
Objectives and Expectations
Having read this presentation in conjunction with the related handbook, the reader should: Recognize the rationale for the need for vulnerability and adaptation (V&A) assessments Be familiar with key terms, concepts and purposes of V&A assessments Identify the various options that can be taken into consideration when undertaking a V&A assessment Be able to use Planning and Adaptation Frameworks suited to respective national circumstances. 3
Some Introductory Remarks
Update of the Training Materials
The previous version (2005) is outdated and the updated version reflects the following: Important findings from IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) (2007) Significant update of methods, tools and data requirements for V&A assessment Experience from Parties in undertaking national communications The existing structure of the previous training material was maintained, to ensure continuity and consistency.
Update of the Training Materials: A Template Approach
Handbook Structure Chapter 1 Introduction Chapter 2
Planning, Including Selecting Vulnerability and Adaptation Frameworks Chapter 3 Baseline Socio-economic Scenarios Chapter 4 Climate Change Scenarios Chapter 5 Coastal Resources Chapter 6 Water Resources Chapter 7 Agriculture Chapter 8 Human Health Chapter 9 Integration, Mainstreaming, Monitoring and Evaluation Chapter 10 Communication of V&A Analysis in National Communications Chapter 11 Bibliography
Important Sources of Related Information
UNFCCC (2008) Resource guide for preparing the national communications of non-Annex I Parties (Modules 1-4) < s/2625.php> UNFCCC (2008) Compendium of methods and tools to evaluation impacts of, and vulnerability and adaptation to, climate change”: < and_adaptation/application/pdf/consolidated_version_updated_ pdf> UNDP-NCSP(2006) National Communications Support Programme Resource Kit. PROVIA Guidance on Assessing Vulnerability, Impacts and Adaptation to Climate Change, 2012 draft,
“To a Hammer, Everything Looks Like a Nail”
Methods or models do not provide answers, but can help us gain insights The first step is to consider the question(s) being asked. This slide was written to steer those conducting assessments away from being enamored with models. Models can be fun to apply but they can become an end in themselves. One has to always remember they are tools. The most important thing is the questions being asked. Then the appropriate methods should be selected to help in answering the questions.
Some Questions to Begin a V&A Assessment
What is of concern? Food production, water supply, health? Concerns may not be expressed in climate terms, e.g. extreme temperatures, but in terms of consequences of climate change for people. Who may be affected? How far into the future is of concern? Note: concerns may focus on current risks (which could be made worse by climate change). These are some of the key questions that should be answered at the beginning of an assessment. They will be useful for setting boundaries for the assessment and for determining what methods and approaches may be needed.
Some Questions to Begin a V&A Assessment
For what purpose is the assessment to be used? Raising awareness (education)? Policy making (e.g. to inform a particular decision). What kind of output is needed?
Additional Questions Before Starting the V&A Assessment
What resources are available to conduct the study? Money Staff Expertise Data Regional linkages Relationships with donors and development partners. How much time is available? These practical questions about resource availability are also important too. If time, money, or staffing is limited, there is less you can do. If you have more of them, you can do more.
Key Factors in Determining How to Conduct Your Study
You should not begin with the methods or models you have in hand, but with “the previous questions. Select methods and models that best help you answer the questions. Once you have determined the questions to be addressed and the availability of resources, then you can look at what methods and models are appropriate.
Different Questions May Lead to Different Approaches
Questions about how climate change may affect resources may lead to analysis of long-term impacts (e.g. out to 2100). Questions about adaptation may lead to analysis of vulnerability within a planning horizon (e.g. 5 to 50 years) The time frame being examined is also a very important matter. Those interested in understanding impacts of climate change ought to look over many decades, perhaps out to This is because climate change impacts become more easy to detect or differentiate from current climate variation in the long run. Those more interested in current vulnerability or adaptation strategies may wish to focus on the next few decades up to about This is generally because most policy makers would have difficulty planning for more than a few decades and some might even have difficulty planning for a few decades into the future.
Who is Asking the Question(s) May Determine How the Work is Done
Some may be content with research that is conducted by the researchers Others may wish for a hands-on approach: e.g. Involve stakeholders in conducting the analysis and also shaping outputs by helping with sectoral and geographic prioritization. How the analysis is done is also important. This is something that should be sorted out with stakeholders. For some, it is not important who does the analysis, as long as the stakeholders trust that it is being done well. Other stakeholders may wish to take an active role in conducting the analysis or have people they trust (e.g., have worked with previously) conduct the research. Either way, it is important to keep stakeholders involved, at least by keeping them informed about progress and interim results.
What information is needed?
Bottom Line: What information is needed? When is the information needed? Who needs the information? The key question is what information is needed and when is it needed. Trainers could ask participants to answer these questions or have a group conversation about them.
Impacts of Climate Change
Impact is typically the effect of climate change: For biological systems, it can be change in productivity, quality, population, or range For societal systems, it can be a change in income, morbidity, mortality, or other measure of well-being. Parry and Carter (1998) define impacts this way. Note that there a few formal definitions of “impacts of climate change.” The term “vulnerability” is more commonly used. The term “impacts” is often used more loosely.
Adaptation Adaptation refers to initiatives and measures to reduce the vulnerability of natural and human systems, against actual or expected climate change effects. Various types of adaptation exist, e.g. anticipatory and reactive, and autonomous and planned. Examples include: raising river or coastal dikes, the substitution of more temperature-shock resistant plants for sensitive ones, etc. (IPCC, 2007) This may not include “actual” (realized) or “expected” (future) changes in climate .
Two types of adaptation: Autonomous adaptation ( or reactive adaptation) tends to be what people and systems do as impacts of climate change become apparent Anticipatory (or proactive or planned) adaptation are measures taken to reduce potential risks of future climate change.
Adaptation Learning Cycle
Four broad iterative tasks of an adaptation learning cycle: Assessing climate change vulnerability and impacts Appraising adaptation and selection adaptation options Implementation adaptation options Monitoring and evaluating adaptation action and learning The process of adaptation is often framed in terms of an adaptation learning cycle Iterative learning is necessary due to the complex and often contested nature of adaptation challenges
Decision Trees: support the identification of critical tasks and methods
Empirically Based Methods
Empirically based methods refer to the gathering of observable data to formulate and test a hypothesis and come to a conclusion. These methods often require the commitment of substantial resources.
A theory-driven approach, makes use of existing theoretical insights into the nature and causes of vulnerability to select variables for inclusion, although in practice this necessarily occurs within the limits placed by data availability. This inevitably leads to subjectivity in the choice of indicators, but that can be addressed by ensuring all decisions are grounded in the existing literature and made fully transparent.
Characteristics of the Climate Hazards
Description Value Indication on critical tasks and appropriate methods Type Are risks due to current climate vulnerability? Yes/no (i.e. extreme event, slow-onset) If extreme events are considered, decisions may take into account current climate Observed trend Has a past trend been observed? Unknown, not knowable, clear direction, no direction If a past trend has been observed, then it is easier to motivate the affected actors to adapt. If the trend is unknown, collecting data is indicated Future impacts Given a scenario, can I compute impacts (or outcomes) If future impacts (or outcomes) can be computed, decision-making methods on future outcomes are appropriate. Climate change is the dominant risk factor Climate change is considered to be a major driver only if it is important relative to the other drivers involved If climate change is not the major driver, analysing climate change impacts is not a priority, focus on the other drivers or on factors that are internal to the AS.
Characteristics of the Affected Actors
Description Value Indication on critical tasks and appropriate methods Heterogeneity Degree difference in socio-economic characteristics between relevant actors High/low If degree of difference is high, options which require collective action may be difficult Group size Size of group affected by impacts and taking adaptive action Small/large If group size is small, collective action options may be more easily taken Damaged experienced Have actors suffered damage due to extreme weather events Yes/no If yes, it is necessary to focus on current risks Awareness of current risks Actors perception of risks from current vulnerability and extremes If low, risk communication and awareness raising are indicated Potential capacity Actors ability to take adaptation action, includes financial, human, and social capital If low, incentives may be considered to influence adaptation Actual capacity Actors actual capacity to act in situation, given possible cognitive and institutional barriers If actors have low actual capacity, institutional or behavioural analysis to identify cognitive and institutional barriers to action are indicated
Characteristics of the Adaptation Options
Description Value Indication on critical tasks and appropriate methods Relative costs Investment costs relative to actors annual income and capital stock. High/low If the costs are high, the ability to experiment and learn (through ex-post evaluation) may be reduced Investment horizon Time interval over which outcomes attributes can be attributed to an option and must be considered. Short/long If the horizon is long, then it is desirable to assess impacts, or include impacts in decision -making Flexibility Degree to which option can be adjusted, or changed. Institutional options tend to be more flexible than physical options Yes/no If option can be adjusted easily, then adaptive management may be appropriate Conflict Degree to which individual preferences and social welfare are in conflict If conflict is high, then institutional analysis may be necessary Complexity Number and degree of interdependency of variables that determine outcomes If the complexity is high, it is necessary to conduct detailed case studies and/or build models in order to understand and predict action-outcome linkages. If low, decisions can be made without expert knowledge
Identifying Tasks Based on Adaptation
The looped circles indicate that once a task has been identified and a method applied, the process should be repeated, based on the new adaptation situation to identify the next task. PROVIA (2012)
Impact and Capacity Analysis
Analyse future impacts or current state? Impact analysis Capacity analysis Private sector National prioritizing Resource constraints Time constraints Lack of data Large uncertainties Participatory setting The focus on impact analysis or capacity analysis, is often not determined by clear-cut criteria: Impact analysis may be more appropriate to identify priorities for national or regional adaptation interventions or deeper analysis Capacity analysis may be more appropriate to identifying and designing actions at local levels. PROVIA (2012)
High-order Decision Tree for Capacity Analysis
Capacity of whom? Organizational self- assessment Public Purpose of the analysis? Adaptive capacity indication Quick high-level screening in order to prioritize further analysis Private Public capacity analysis Identification of public adaptation options PROVIA (2012)
Analysing Impacts Analysing observed or expected impacts of climate change (with and without adaptation). Tasks and methods associated with this sub-task will be called impact-analytical approaches. Analysing the capacity to prevent, moderate or adapt to these impacts requires a diverse range of approaches including indicators, behaviour-analytical and institution-analytical approaches
Decision Tree to Identify Impact Analytical Tasks and Methods
Type Subtype Impact Projection Potential Impact Projection (PIP) Residual Impact Projection (RIP) Task Project future impacts of climate change Characteristics of Adaptation Strategies (AS) Interaction between the drivers and the study unit can be formally represented as a computational model. Given a scenario , impacts can be computed Theoretical assumptions People affected do not adapt. People affected adapt Adaptation can be formally represented by a computational model Steps taken 1. Selection of climate and socio-economic scenarios 2. Computation of the potential impacts of those scenarios 3. Evaluation of impacts using impact indicators 2. Selection of adaptation options and strategies 3. Computation of the impacts of the scenarios and the adaptation strategies 4. Evaluation of impacts using impact indicators Results achieved A list of propositions that map each scenario to an impact. Each proposition is interpreted in the following way: “When the world evolves according to scenario e and people don't adapt, the impact on will be i” A list of propositions that map each scenario to a residual impact. Each proposition is interpreted: "When the world evolves according to scenario e and one adapts according to strategy a, the impact on the vulnerable system will be i"
Impact-analytical Methods (continued)
Type Subtype Impact Projection Potential Impact Projection (PIP) Residual Impact Projection (RIP) Example Cases Dasgupta et al. (2007) address the question of what are the impacts of sea-level rise on developing countries. Impacts are projected for sea-level rise scenarios of 1 to 5 meter by overlaying data on land, population, agriculture, urban extent, wetlands and gross domestic product (GDP) with the inundation zones of the sea-level rise scenarios. They found that tens of millions of people will be displaced and economic damages will be severe but limited to a couple of countries Hinkel et al. (2010) address the question of what will be both the potential and the residual impacts of sea-level rise on coastal countries of the EU27. The authors use the DIVA model to project the impacts of various sea-level rise and socio-economic scenarios on the countries first without any adaptation (potential impacts) and then with an adaptation strategy (residual impacts) that raises dikes to protect against coastal flooding and nourishes beach to protect against coastal erosion. It is found that, while the potential impacts are substantial, adaptation reduces these impacts significantly by one or two orders of magnitude Issues involved Rarely understood that potential impacts will almost certainly not occur because adaptation will take place. For example, people living in the coastal zone are likely to move away before experiencing permanent flooding How to model adaptation? Model of adaptation (e.g. dumb, typical, smart and clairvoyant farmer) used has a significant indication on the results produced
Decision-tree: Choosing Tasks Relevant to Analysing Capacity
Decision-tree for choosing tasks relevant to analysing capacity from a public perspective in order to identify options PROVIA (2012)
Entry Point: Public Adaptation Problem in Which the Analyst Must Consider the Critical Tasks for Influence the Adaptation of Other (Private) Actors Inter-dependence Potential capacity of private actors Actual capacity of private Example Indication on the next task to carry out No High Low Public actor wanting to influence elderly people living in isolated areas, often alone threatened by heat waves Behaviour analysis addressing the question: How the capacity of the vulnerable actors to address the risk could be increased. As the actual capacity of the vulnerable actors is low, awareness raising or behaviour and institutional analysis are indicated Public actor wanting to influence Tuscan wine farmers threatened by gradual change in mean temperature As the vulnerable actors have capacity to address risks but are not aware of it, the next task would be risk communication or awareness raising (risk communication, training, TV ads) Yes Farmers using a shared and already scarce groundwater resource that is declining under climate change Institutional analysis addressing the question what kind of institutional arrangements may resolve conflict Public actor wanting to influence farmers so that they keep migration corridors open in order to allow species to migrate and thus maintain biodiversity Appraising economic incentives. As actors may not have capacity to address the potential loss of biodiversity on their own due to lack of financial incentive to do so, addressing the problem may be a question of designing appropriate economic incentives e.g. through agri-environmental schemes
Decision Tree Institution-analytical Tasks
Decision-tree for Choosing the General Approach to Decision-making
Empirical Methods Empirically based methods refer to the gathering of observable data to formulate and test a hypothesis and come to a conclusion(s). These methods require often substantial resources to be committed.
Methods for Selecting an Option From a Set
Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) Cost-effective analysis (CEA) Multi-criteria analysis (MCA). The criteria for selecting between CBA, CEA and MCA are based on which outcome attributes are of interest to the decision maker. If all attributes can be assigned one common attribute of money, then CBA is appropriate. If only one of the attributes cannot be assigned as a money attribute, then CEA is appropriate. When two or more attributes cannot be assigned a common monetary attribute (and also cannot be expressed in one common attribute) MCA is appropriate.
Selecting an Appropriate Decision-making Method Based on Characteristics of the Adaptation Situation
Are there risks due to current climate variability? Does the set of options include only short-term/ flexible options? Given a scenario, can I compute the outcome of a given option? Relative costs of options Example Next task indicated. Yes n/r High Agriculture threatened by drought, options = (several drought-resistant crops) CBA, MCA No Forestry threatened by forest fires, options = (emergency response options; planting different tree species ) Coasts threatened by floods. options = (protect, retreat, spread risk) Robust decision-making on current and futures outcomes Biodiversity is threatened as species habitats shifts decrease in area, and may not permit migration due to lack of corridors. options = (maintain habitat corridors, agri-environmental schemes, national park) Robust decision-making on future options
Selecting an Appropriate Decision-making Method Based on Characteristics of the Adaptation Situation (continued) Are there risks due to current climate variability? Does the set of options include only short-term/ flexible options? Given a scenario, can I compute the outcome of a given option? Relative costs of options Example Next task indicated. No Yes High Agriculture threatened by drought, Options = (improving irrigation) Ski lift operators threatened by decreasing snow fall. options = (summer tourism, artificial snow-making, give up) Robust decision-making on current and future outcomes n/r Not known Extreme event risk in central Europe As the direction of the trend in risks is not clear, adaptation action is not required
Vulnerability and Adaptation Frameworks
PART 2: Vulnerability and Adaptation Frameworks
Overview of Frameworks
Description of some vulnerability and adaptation (V&A) frameworks One size does not fit all Select a framework or method that best suits: The questions being asked Who is asking them What kind of answers are needed What resources, time data and technical support are available Have you used one before. This section briefly reviews a number of V&A frameworks. No single framework will be appropriate for all circumstances. Users should consider different frameworks and select one that best suits the bullets in the slide. Users may also wish to select different components of different frameworks, as long as the whole enables the questions identified at the beginning of the assessment to be addressed.
“Start with the end in mind”
Two Types of Frameworks
Impacts: Also known as “first generation” or “top down” Adaptation: Also known as “second generation” or “bottom up”. We can divide the V&A frameworks into two categories: “impacts” and “adaptation.” These particular terms have not been widely used; more common are the terms listed in the sub-bullets.
The Top-down Approach versus the Bottom-up Approach
Source: Dessai and Hulme, 2004. Dessai and Hulme point out differences between bottom up (adaptation) and top down (impacts) frameworks. The differences include: Focus. Bottom up tend to focus on social vulnerabilities; top down tend to at least start with analysis of biophysical impacts, e.g., change in crop yields, runoff, or sea level rise. Scale. Bottom up tend to focus on smaller geographic scales, whereas top down tend to focus on larger geographic scale impacts. Time Horizon. Bottom up tend to address past and near term risks or concerns, while top down tend to address longer tem risks, e.g., fifty to one hundred years in the future.
Tend to look out many decades (to 2100 or beyond)
Impacts Frameworks These frameworks are driven by the need to understand long-term consequences: Tend to look out many decades (to 2100 or beyond) Tend to be scenario driven Impacts frameworks focus on consequences of climate change. They look out many decades to capture more significant change in climate (the further from the present the greater the change in climate). They also tend to rely on scenarios, e.g., from climate models. One of the reasons for examining long-term consequences, particularly in the first generation frameworks, was to inform policy makers about the potential consequences of continued GHG emissions. Given the lifetime of carbon dioxide (the main GHG) in the atmosphere, it makes sense to look out as far as a century.
These frameworks are driven by the following: The need to supply useful information to stakeholders: They tend to address near-term concerns Often address climate variability and change Emphasis is on the socio-economic context Stakeholder identification of issues and involvement in process: Bring in analysis as necessary and appropriate Can use consultative/consensus-building techniques. Adaptation frameworks tend to address more near term concerns such as vulnerability to climate variability. Socioeconomic context (e.g., sustainable livelihoods) is very important. They also tend to involve stakeholders more than the impacts frameworks.
Adaptation Continuum (Source: McGray et al., (2007) in Klein and Persson, 2008)
Adaptation Continuum (Source: McGray et al., 2007)
U.S. Country Studies Program (1993 -1999)
Impacts Frameworks IPCC Seven Steps (1994) UNEP Handbook (1998) U.S. Country Studies Program ( ) We will review these three “impacts” frameworks. The were created in the early to mid-1990s.
Basic Structure for Impacts Frameworks
The basic structure for the impacts frameworks is presented here. The assessment begins with development of baseline scenarios. These are scenarios of changes in socioeconomic conditions, such as population, income (gross domestic product or GDP), technologies, institutions, and environmental conditions. As baseline conditions change, so too can vulnerability (e.g., by changing exposure, sensitivity, or adaptive capacity). Scenarios of climate change are then developed and applied. The first analysis of impacts is typically on biophysical impacts such as amount of land potentially inundated by sea level rise, change in crop yields, change in runoff, etc. If the impacts on society are being examined, the next analysis is on the effects of climate change on society. Often, this is the consequence of biophysical changes In considering the impacts on society, autonomous adaptation should be taken into account (because people will most likely attempt to adapt to climate change). In addition, integration of impacts across related systems and sectors (e.g., examine not just in water supply, but how it would affect related sectors such as agriculture, but also examine change in demand for water). The result of all of this is estimation of vulnerability of a system. Purposeful (or proactive) adaptations can then be examined. These may be changes in baseline conditions to anticipate potential impacts of climate change.
Assess biophysical and socio-economic impacts
IPCC Seven Steps Define the problem Select the method Test the method Select scenarios Assess biophysical and socio-economic impacts Assess autonomous adjustments Evaluate adaptation strategies. IPCC Seven steps were developed by Tim Carter and colleagues (1994). It was the first attempt to define a process for assessing vulnerability to climate change. Sources: Carter et al., 1994; Parry and Carter, 1998.
U.S. Country Studies Program
Provided detailed guidance on specific methods: Coastal resources Agriculture Livestock Water resources Vegetation Human health Wildlife Fisheries Adaptation Publications. The U.S. Country Studies Program (USCSP) ran in the early to mid-1990s. The USCSP worked with more than 50 developing countries and countries in transition on GHG inventories, V&A, and mitigation strategies. More than 40 countries assessed vulnerability and adaptation. Detailed guidance was provided on assessment methods for all of the sectors listed. The guidance applied to only one method per sector. Sources: Benioff and Warren (eds.) [addresses assessment of adaptation]; Benioff et al. (eds.) [contains guidance on impacts assessment for all the sectors listed].
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Handbook
Presents overviews of methods: It is a source for information on different methods Does not provide detailed guidance. Topics include: Climate change scenarios Socio-economic scenarios. The UNEP Handbook was intended to provide information about a number of methods so users could compare methods and choose among them. Unlike the USCSP guidance, it did not provide details on how to apply individual methods. The topics include the two listed here and the topics on the next slide.
UNEP Handbook (continued)
Integration Adaptation Water resources Coastal zones Agriculture Rangeland and livestock Human health Energy Forests Biodiversity Fisheries Feenstra et al. (eds.), 1998.
Second Generation Adaptation Frameworks
United nations Development Programme (UNDP): Adaptation Policy Framework (2005) Toolkit for Designing Climate Change Adaptation Initiatives (2010) National Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPA) Guidance USAID Adapting to Climate Variability and Change (2007) Community Vulnerability Frameworks. These are some of the main frameworks that can be considered to be “second generation,” “bottom-up,” or “adaptation” frameworks.
UNDP Adaptation Policy Framework (2005)
The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Adaptation Policy Framework (APF) is the first of the “second generation” frameworks. It was developed to place much more emphasis on current vulnerabilities to climate variability than were the “first generation” frameworks. Thus, assessing current vulnerability (to current climate risks) is the second step in the framework. The framework also emphasizes continued stakeholder involvement in the assessment process. The APF can be downloaded at It is also published in: Lim et al. (eds.) 2005.
UNDP Adaptation Policy Framework (continued)
Contains technical papers on the following: Scoping and designing an adaptation project Engaging stakeholders in the adaptation process Assessing vulnerability for climate adaptation Assessing current climate risks Assessing future climate risks Assessing current and changing socio-economic conditions Assessing and enhancing adaptive capacity Formulating an adaptation strategy Continuing the adaptation process. The technical papers provide more details on specific aspects of the framework. Each number in the slide corresponds to the number of the technical paper.
UNDP Adaptation Toolkit (2010)
National Adaptation Programmes of Action
NAPA Guidance National Adaptation Programmes of Action Least developed countries (LDCs) identify and rank proposed measures to adapt to climate change Decision 28/CP.7 The National Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPA) is the one guidance that comes out of the Convention process. It is tied to allocation of adaptation funds under the Convention. NAPAs were approved at COP-7 (in Marrakech).
NAPA Process The NAPA process emphasizes building on existing assessments, undertaking a national consultative process, and setting priorities for adaptation projects to address urgent vulnerabilities.
NAPA Guidance (continued)
The guidance document provides the framework for developing NAPAs It discusses the following: Objectives and characteristics of NAPA’s guiding elements Process Structure. The NAPA guidance can be obtained at
NAPA Guidance (continued)
Outcome of COP17 Durban This guidance document, is not designed to replace NAPAs It is designed to allow all developing countries (not just LDCs as per NAPAs) to plan and implement medium-to long-term adaptation initiatives Support for the NAP process will be provided through a Global Support Programme (GSP) for implementation in the second half of 2012.
Differences Between the NAPA and NAP process
(Source: Draft NAP Global Support Programme (GSP), submission to the GEF 2012)
USAID Framework USAID Adapting to climate variability and change; A guidance manual for development planning
USAID Framework USAID Adapting to climate variability and change; A guidance manual for development planning
Risk is defined as: The chance of something happening that will have an impact on objectives So risk is positive and negative And….must be a risk to something (a management objective).
(Source: AdaptiveFutures, 2011)
(Source: Australian Government, 2006)
Four NGO Local and Community Frameworks
Sourced from: See chapter for more details
Selecting a Framework We are not recommending use of a particular framework: Different frameworks are appropriate for different needs What is needed in the long run is the integration of climate change predictions and adaptation with a baseline of vulnerability. The frameworks are divided between adaptation and impacts. What is desirable is if these approaches can be merged in a manner that can begin with vulnerabilities (which often are based in the present) but can integrate long-term risks from climate change.
Selecting a Framework: Guiding Questions
What is of concern – food production, water supply, health, ecosystem loss? (Concerns may be expressed not in climate terms (e.g. extreme temperature) but in consequences of climate impacts for people (e.g. drought, flood, malnutrition) Are there places (areas) that may be particularly vulnerable that may need specific risk assessments? Who may be affected – where are they and what groups in society? How far into the future is the concern? For what purpose is the assessment to be used – raising awareness (education), policymaking? What kind of output is needed?
Application of Frameworks
Projects often take longer and cost more than originally thought (or proposed) Be careful about complex frameworks You may only get through the first few steps before running out of time or funds Think about how a sectoral project will be run to promote consistency Think about integrating sectoral assessments at the end.
Key Factors in Determining How to Conduct Your Study
You should not begin with the methods or models you have in hand, but with the important questions Select methods and models that best help you answer the questions.
© 2023 SlidePlayer.com Inc.
All rights reserved.