Jakarta – March 2006 Bottom up approaches to V&A assessment: Practical considerations Youssef Nassef Head, Adaptation Sub-programme UNFCCC Secretariat

Jakarta – March 2006 Two Types of Frameworks Top-down –Impacts, Also known as “first generation”, scenario-based Bottom up –Vulnerability, adaptation, “second generation”

Jakarta – March 2006 Different ways to view the approaches From Dessai and Hulme, 2004

Jakarta – March 2006 Another angle for top-down Climate Change Scenario Biophysical Impacts Socio-Economic Impacts Adaptations to Impacts Residual or Net Impacts

Jakarta – March and for bottom-up Future Adaptive Capacity Current Adaptive Capacity Current Exposure Future Exposure Climate Science Social Science Current Vulnerability Future Vulnerability Current Vulnerability

Jakarta – March 2006 Another perspective (SPREP) Top-down: Planning and institutional arrangements Capacity building initiatives Transfer of technologies and assessment Implementation mechanisms Bottom-up: Enhancing local capacity Community and Private Sector assessment initiatives Incorporating traditional knowledge Community and Private-Sector implementation mechanisms

Jakarta – March 2006 Proposed integrated approach (SPREP) Planning and Options - National consultations A Capacity Building Tool-Box for Adaptation Integrated Community and Private Sector Level Assessment Implementation - Utilising mechanisms and undertaking pilot projects.

Jakarta – March 2006 Top-down approachBottom-up approach Local data Indicators Global/national models and data Indicators Local policymaking National policymaking downscalingaggregating Another view of integration (Cicero Norway)

Jakarta – March 2006 UNFCCC approaches INCs: mostly top-down assessments NAPAs: Bottom-up SNC: UNFCCC User manual on the guidelines encourages the use of any approach for V&A assessment that suits the country (including APF, NAPA, etc).

Jakarta – March 2006 Support mechanisms through the UNFCCC process Expert groups (CGE, LEG, EGTT) SBSTA work programme on adaptation Funding channels Related issues (capacity-building, Article 6, Article 4.8 & 4.9)

Jakarta – March 2006 The SBSTA work programme Targets both top-down and bottom-up level. Includes promoting: Development and dissemination of methodologies and tools for impact and vulnerability assessments, such as rapid assessments and bottom-up approaches, including as they apply to sustainable development Understanding impacts of, and vulnerability to, climate change, current and future climate variability and extreme events, and the implications for sustainable development Availability of information on socio-economic aspects of climate change and improving integration of socio-economic information into V&A assessments Collection, analysis and dissemination of information on past and current practical adaptation actions and measures, e.g. local and indigenous knowledge

Jakarta – March 2006 The NAPA “steps”

Jakarta – March 2006 Lessons from NAPAs A first attempt at practical “bottom-up” adaptation action – to be funded from the LDC Fund administered by GEF. Basis: Need for prioritized adaptation actions to address urgent/immediate needs of vulnerable communities. Need for adaptation assessment under existing uncertainty regarding future climate change. Prioritization: CBA, MCA, Consensus approach

Jakarta – March 2006 Basis of the NAPA context Focus on enhancing adaptive capacity. Take into account current vulnerability and existing coping strategies at grassroots level, and build upon that to identify priority activities. Produce action-oriented programme, to be easily understood by policy-level decision-makers. Recognize that the grassroots community is the main stakeholder, thus community-level consultations should be an important input to the process.

Jakarta – March 2006 Urgent and immediate needs – those whose further delay could increase vulnerability, and/or lead to increased costs at a later stage. Use of existing information – no new research needed. Input from local communities on existing coping strategies. Action-oriented and country-driven approach. Simplicity – easy to understand. NAPAs – Unique characteristics:

Jakarta – March 2006 Examples of activities Sample projects from Bangladesh NAPA: Construction of flood shelters ($5 million) Enhancing resilience of urban infrastructure and industries to cc impacts, including floods and cyclones ($2 million) Exploring options for insurance and other emergency preparedness measures to cope with climatic disasters ($2 million) Sample projects from Samoa NAPA: Community water purification programmes ($125K) Alternative water storage programmes ($150K) Forest fire implementation strategy ($140K)

Jakarta – March 2006 The missing link Regional synergy Documenting indigenous adaptation

Jakarta – March 2006 Documenting community-level action UNFCCC database on local coping strategies – Development process: 1.Designing questionnaire; 2.Surveying relevant research institutions, NGOs, universities, relevant experts; 3.Literature research; 4.Evaluation of local coping strategies regarding: effectiveness, transferability/ replicability, local ownership/buy-in, appropriateness and sustainability; 5.Inclusion in database.

Jakarta – March 2006 Relevant examples In response to tropical cyclones: –Community-based disaster preparedness and early warning in the Philippines –Cyclone preparedness programme in Bangladesh –Typhoon preparedness in Japan In response to floods: –Flood preparedness programmes in Nepal, and Thailand –Post-flood rehabilitation programme in Bangladesh –Mitigating GLOF effects in Nepal In response to droughts: –Indigenous forecasting in India

Jakarta – March 2006 Screen shots Searching by hazard

Jakarta – March 2006 …and by impact

Jakarta – March 2006 Overview screen

Jakarta – March 2006 Thank you