December 2016

Learning from Participatory Vulnerability

Assessments – key to identifying Ecosystem based

Adaptation options

Ali Raza Rizvi, Edmund Barrow, Florencia Zapata, Anelí Gómez, Karen Podvin, Sophie Kutegeka, Richard Gafabusa, and Anu Adhikari

2

Learning from Participatory Vulnerability Assessments – key to identifying Ecosystem based Adaptation options1

Ali Raza Rizvi2, Edmund Barrow2, Florencia Zapata3, Anelí Gomez3, Karen Podvin2, Sophie Kutegeka2, Richard Gafabusa2, and Anu Adhikari2

1. Introduction The accelerating rate of climate change causes catastrophic effects globally that impact human

livelihoods, economies and ability to sustain populations all over the world. The effects of climate change,

such as rising sea level and species loss, have led to the decline of ecosystems that threaten the wellbeing

of human societies. Ecosystem-based Adaptation (EbA) is an approach to enhance human resilience to

climate change, through the use of biodiversity conservation and ecosystem management. This approach

aims to reduce ecosystem vulnerability, impacts of climate change on biodiversity, as well as increase the

capacity of the ecosystem for resilience. Healthy ecosystems are more resilient and can better resist the

negative effects of climate change, thus supporting human societies that depend on them directly (e.g.

for food, water) and indirectly (e.g. for removal of pollutants, carbon storage). Assessments of ecosystems

are vital in order to measure and target appropriate areas and efficiently use resources for EbA projects.

Vulnerability Assessments (VAs) are a useful tool to measure the stability of a particular ecosystem as well

as the vulnerability of human communities. It has proven to be essential in the planning and

implementation of EbA projects that foster adaptation and mitigation to deal with the negative impacts

of climate change.

Participatory planning combines the involvement of field experts and local community members in order

to obtain reliable information on the ecosystem(s) and communities of focus. Community perceptions of

local climate related problems allow communities, practitioners and policy makers, to directly address

community impacts, through the process of vulnerability assessments. VAs use a combination of

qualitative and quantitative data to understand how socio-ecological systems respond to climate change.

Rapid rural appraisal involves experts working with local communities and working together to better

understand the local situation and problems they are facing, as well as working together to identify

solutions based on local priorities and knowledge with the support of scientific information and

technologies, through methods such as, transect walks, focus group discussions, and seasonal trends. Part

1 This paper has been developed based on the Flagship Mountain EbA project implemented globally by UNEP, UNDP and IUCN with funding from the BMUB Climate Initiative of the German Government. 2 International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). 3 The Mountain Institute (TMI), IUCN’s implementing partner in Peru.

3

of the EbA process, the no-regret approach, focuses on maximizing positive and minimizing negative

aspects of nature based adaptation strategies and options (ref. IUCN EbA Technical Paper No-regret

Actions Lima Cop 20). The combination of community input and diagnosis, expert observations and

analysis and data allow for an accurate assessment of a community’s resilience to climate change,

resulting in effective and efficient subsequent adaptation.

Introduction to Peru The Nor Yauyos-Cochas Landscape Reserve (NYCLR) is located in the Andean highlands in the southern

part of the Lima and Junín regions and is one of the two landscape reserves in the System of Protected

Natural Areas (SINANPE). Its main goal is to conserve the Cañete and Pachacayo River watersheds

(important rivers for hydroelectricity), which include various ecosystems in an area of great landscape

beauty and unique value (INRENA, 2006).

The reserve has an area of 221,268.48 ha, of which 62.1% is located in the Cañete River watershed and

37.9% in the Cochas-Pachacayo basin (MINAM, 2011). The NYCLR’s geomorphology is dominated by

landscapes with high mountains (between 2,000 and 5,800 meters above sea level), steep slopes and

hillsides, as well as deep valleys (MINAM, 2011).

There are 19 communities located within the limits of the reserve, divided into 12 districts, with around

14,919 inhabitants (INEI, 2007). This reserve is mainly classified as a direct-use protected area, in which

natural resource extraction and use are allowed ‒ such as grasslands for pastoralism activities which is the

main livelihood, and water resources for hydropower ‒ primarily by the local populations in the areas

defined in the management plan (Q’Apiriy, 2012). It falls within IUCN’s protected area category V4. Land

tenure in the reserve is mostly communal; private farms are obtained by communal landholders’

agreements, inheritance, or estate sale and purchase (INRENA, 2006). Land use is according to the

reserve’s guidelines.

The community of Canchayllo is located in the Jauja Province, Junín Region (Map 1). Founded in 1942, the

community has around 800 inhabitants; it has an area of 7,650 ha ranging between 3600 m and 5700 m

above sea level. Their main livelihood is livestock farming (mainly sheep), although many families

supplement their income with other activities (e.g. employment with nearby hydro-electric company).

The community is part of the Cochas-Pachacayo watershed, which drains into the Mantaro River (TMI,

2014c).

The community of Miraflores is located in the Yauyos Province, Lima Region (Map 1). Founded in 1925, it

covers an area of 17,385 hectares ranging between 3,000 m and 5,400 m above sea level and belongs to

the Cañete River watershed. It has around 100 inhabitants. Their main livelihood is cattle farming,

together with small scale cultivated agriculture. In this community, there is a high level of migration and

a low birth rate (TMI, 2014a).

4 ‘A protected area where the interaction of people and nature over time has produced an area of distinct character with significant ecological, biological, cultural and scenic value: and where safeguarding the integrity of this interaction is vital to protecting and sustaining the area and its associated nature conservation and other values’ (IUCN, 2014).

4

Figure 1. Map of the Nor Yauyos-Cochas Landscape Reserve where the Mountain EbA Project is implemented in Peru; Canchayllo and Miraflores communities are where the no-regret adaptation measures have been implemented (IUCN, 2014).

As these communities rely primarily on livestock farming and subsistence agriculture for their livelihoods,

access to water and pastures is essential. According to local stakeholders, the reserve has been

experiencing increasing pressures, mainly due to grassland overuse by the local people and changes in

precipitation patterns. Low agricultural production, especially of native crops, associated with the loss of

traditional knowledge and the lack of market access has led to the migration of the local population,

especially youth. This migration (especially high during the 1980s and 1990s), along with other market-

driven factors, led many households to shift from a livelihood consisting of a variety of agricultural

activities towards less labour-intensive cattle farming. This shift towards cattle farming, along with weak

community organization and dense cattle distribution5, is causing degradation of the native grassland

ecosystem in certain areas (Podvin et al., 2015).

According to the Vulnerability Impact Assessment (VIA) for the NYCLR and its buffer area6, there is a high

level of uncertainty regarding climate trends and future scenarios for the Reserve (FDA, 2013). The most

precise projections indicate that temperatures will increase between 0.61°C and 1.12°C between 2011

and 2030. Trends indicate no changes in annual rainfall, but changes in precipitation patterns will occur,

as well as a reduction in surface water runoff (Ibid, 2013). The potential scenarios for the NYCLR suggest

changes in hydrological patterns that may affect grassland and water resources, which are vital for

livestock-dependent communities.

5 In addition to this, a number of households have migrated to the cities, but have bought cattle and have their family members taking care of them in the reserve, which has increased the livestock population.

6 Conducted as part of the Mountain EbA Project in Peru and led by UNEP (See FDA, 2013).

5

The Mountain EbA Project has been implemented in the NYCLR since 2012. Its aim is to reduce the

vulnerability of the reserve’s populations to climate change and increase their capacity for resilience

through the EbA7 approach (Mountain EbA Project, 2014). As part of component 3, related to the design

and implementation of EbA measures and capacity building activities on the ground, IUCN, in alliance with

its implementing partner, The Mountain Institute (TMI) have been implementing no-regret8 EbA measures

in the communities of Canchayllo and Miraflores within the NYCLR.

Why this participatory process in Peru? If we expect to design an effective adaptation measure, we have to give locals the leadership in the

process of understanding and analysing their situation, identifying and designing the measures and

developing them. This ownership of the process is essential in order to gain both effectiveness and

sustainability. Role of external practitioners and scientists is mostly that of facilitators and to share

scientific and knowledge and technologies. We consider these premises to be relevant not only in Peru,

but elsewhere. However, some reasons as why implementers in Peru chose participatory approaches

include:

Firstly, it was discussed among partners, that using participatory approaches will allow re-valuing local

and traditional knowledge, as well as ensuring the project activities uptake among local stakeholder. In

this sense, the socio-ecological systems approach used as the main guiding framework, proposes that the

landscape and their management are the result of joined environmental and social processes, which

highlights the need to work using a participatory process.

Secondly, the team based its decisions and actions based on the no-regret measures concept: measures

that are worthwhile and yield positive outcomes (i.e. socio-economic and environmental benefits) under

any climatic scenario; also, they have to be based on community priorities and vulnerability perceptions;

they act as starters for building trust with communities; and, they don’t require exhaustive assessment.

In this sense, the best way to build trust with communities is through participatory approach where the

measures are designed jointly, where community perceptions and priorities are included.

7 Ecosystem-based adaptation (EbA) is defined as the use of biodiversity and ecosystem services as part of an overall adaptation strategy that aims to be cost-effective and generate social, economic and cultural co-benefits while contributing to the conservation of biodiversity. It integrates the sustainable management, conservation and restoration of ecosystems to provide services that help people to adapt to the adverse effects of climate change (CBD, 2009). Its purpose is to maintain and increase resilience and reduce the vulnerability of ecosystems and people facing the impacts of climate change. In EbA, the role of ecosystems and the traditional knowledge of local communities are crucial to the development of climate change adaptation measures and the reduction of the impacts of extreme weather events. EbA activities that are appropriately planned and designed can improve livelihoods, food security, and disaster risk reduction (DRR), as well as promote the conservation of biodiversity and carbon sequestration (Ibid, 2009).

8 Working definition of no-regret actions by UNEP, UNDP, and IUCN under the Mountain EbA Project is “measures taken by communities [and/or facilitated by organisations] which do not worsen vulnerabilities to climate change or which increase adaptive capacities and measures that will always have a positive impact on livelihoods and ecosystems regardless of how the climate changes”.

6

Thirdly, considering the local communities and district municipalities within the Reserve have direct use

over the land, and with land use guidelines from the protected area, any proposed actions in the Reserve

should be implemented using a bottom-up approach.

Fourthly, TMI’s knowledge and capacities in participatory approaches and methods in mountain

ecosystems (with experiences in other areas in Peru) also was one of the reasons to choose for these

approaches since the early phases of the project. Besides this rich experience, added on IUCN’s experience

in other tools with participatory approaches that were proposed/discussed in these early stages, project

partners moved forward with the participatory approach path for the selection, design and

implementation of the no-regret measures.

Introduction to Nepal Panchase area belongs to Kaski, Parbat and Syangja districts of Gandaki and Dhawalagiri zone of Nepal

and is located in mid hill regions of the country. It is situated between the longitudes 830 44' 11" to 830

58' 13" E and the latitudes 280 08' 36" to 280 18' 25" N in Western Development Region of Nepal, and

around 165 kilometres south-west (273°) of the capital Kathmandu. The altitude varies from 815 m above

sea level (asl) at Harpan River to 2517 m asl at the peak of Panchase hill. The land is characterized by many

steep gorges and slope varies from 30 per cent more than 100 per cent (CBS, 2011).

Panchase, a mountainous area rich in socio-cultural and natural values is comprised of 17 Village

Development Committees with a total population of 62,001 out of which 27,406 is male and 34,595

female residing in 15,964 households (MoFSC/EbA, 2013). Brahmin, Chhetri, Gurung and Dalit are the

major castes ethnic groups in the 17 VDCs of Panchase (CBS, 2011). The Gurung communities inhabit a

higher elevation, while the Brahmins and Chhetris reside at lower elevations. The majority of the

inhabitants in Kaski are Gurung, whereas in Syangja and Parbat, the majority are Brahmins and Chhetris.

There are more than 15 ethnic groups, each with its unique culture and social values. Subsistence farming

and livestock rearing are the integral part of their livelihood. The literacy rate is above 65 per cent. There

are total 104 Community Forest Users Groups (CFUGs) in Panchase. People here mainly speak Nepali, with

spatters of indigenous languages like Magar, Gurung etc. The migration rate of the area has been

increasing, with mainly the younger generation migrating to the United Kingdom and gulf countries as

well as in-land city centres, in search of employment and incomes.

The Panchase area has high climatic variation resulting from variation in altitude i.e. subtropical,

temperate monsoon, cool temperate. The area is rich in natural and socio-cultural resources but

vulnerable from climate change, with negative impacts on forests, water resources, agriculture and

biodiversity. Observing the past trend in the area climate change pattern has been changing in the area,

where temperature has increased along with changes in pattern and intensity of rainfall, and frequency

and intensity of extreme weather event. Over the last 30 years (1981-2011), the maximum and minimum

average temperature has increased by 0.81°c and 0.2°c, whereas winter rainfall has decreased from 30

mm to 17 mm per day, and total rainfall days has decreased from 135 to 120 days (shah et al 2012). These

patterns will have profound adverse impacts on agriculture, forest, water ecosystems and overall

livelihoods of the community.

7

Whereas in the agriculture ecosystems there is a decrease in crop productivity, quite changing in cropping

calendar, pest and disease infestation and invasion of invasive species in agricultural lands. Beside this,

most of the agricultural land is left permanently fallow mainly due to labour shortage from the result of

outmigration. Similarly, in the forest ecosystem there is a shift of the tree line, changes in species

composition, appearance of new species, increase incidence of forests’ fires, invasive plant species

invasions, etc., as well as fragmentation of habitats from natural disasters, especially floods and landslides.

Likewise, unplanned infrastructure development, particularly rural road construction from the forest

areas further escalates the problem of deforestation and forest degradation. Furthermore, freshwater is

undoubtedly a valuable natural resource that has a crucial role in the livelihood and advancement of

economic development. In recent years it has been realized that freshwater and the freshwater ecosystem

has been degraded due to many anthropogenic activities, for example, over exploitation of natural

resources, encroachment in water bodies (river, stream, lake, and underground resources), changes in

land use, advancement in industries and technology etc. Climate change in other side has greater threat

in the availability of freshwater especially drying of natural springs and wetlands and less ground water

recharges that keeps the ecosystem services intact.

Why this participatory process in Nepal? Effective project implementation and completion requires cooperation and participation of all

stakeholders, at all stages of the project cycle. In light of this, the participatory process has been adopted

at all stages of the project, from participatory planning to joint activities. This helps all the stakeholders

to not only understand the issues, but also for everyone (especially the poor and marginalized) to be more

involved in project activities. This kind of participation also improves motivation, leaning and self-

realization and ownership, all of which will contribute to effective implementation.

The project has been working closely with key government ministries and departments. The Ministry of

Forests and Soil Conservation (MoFSC) has been taking lead in implementation through its Department of

Forests (DoF). The Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment (MoSTE) has been coordinating the

project outcomes with other climate change adaptation results at the national level. Likewise, the Ministry

of Agriculture Development (MoAD) has been providing support in the implementation at the field level

through relevant departments and local government bodies. To date the project has been working closely

with the local organisations and committees of Panchase, and build on the previous and on-going work

being done in the area supported by different organisations.

For the effective implementation of activities the project has the provision of some structural

arrangements, such as at the national level a Project Executive Board (PEB) as a decision making body of

the project and a Project Management Unit (PMU) to oversee the overall project activities. Similarly, at

the local level there is provision of a Regional level Project Coordination Committee to reinforce

ownership of District Line Agencies, partner organisations and local government and project field office

for day to day management of the project activities. The PEB has been taking necessary management and

policy decisions needed for the effective implementation of project activities; the PEB approves work

plans and budget, reviews progress and provides support for project implementation. The PEB has

8

consisted of representatives from the MoFSC, MoAD, MoSTE, UNEP, IUCN and UNDP. The DoF through

the MoFSC nominated Deputy Director General/Chief of Planning and Monitoring Division of DoF as a NPD

for the project and has been playing the Executive role in the Project Board.

Introduction to Uganda The Mount Elgon ecosystem straddles the border between Kenya and Uganda with its highest peak lying

in Uganda. Mt. Elgon —the seventh highest mountain in Africa— is an extinct volcano, its base covering

an area of approximately 4,000 km2 and its height is over 2,000m above the surrounding ground, rising to

4,321m above sea level. It constitutes a major catchment area, with its many tributaries draining into the

major rivers that lead to three large water bodies: Lakes Victoria, Turkana (in Kenya) and Kyoga. The

drainage to Lakes Victoria and Kyoga finally joins the River Nile System (IUCN, 2005). Major rivers

originating from the Mt Elgon ecosystem on the Ugandan side include: Simu, Bukwa, Sipi, Sironko,

Manafwa; while the Kenyan side is drained mainly by Kimothon, Mbere, Kaptega, Sosio, Kibusi, Kyube,

Rongai, Kassawai, Kabewlyan and Malikisi. Two big rivers from Mt. Elgon mark the border between

Uganda and Kenya namely, Suam to the north and Lwakaka to the south (MUIENR and NMK 2005). It also

contains habitats that support unique and diverse fauna and flora. Mt. Elgon supports many species of

extreme conservation importance by virtue of their rarity and/or limited distributions (IUCN, 2005). Thirty-

seven faunal species in the area have been classified as "globally threatened" thus making the area a

priority for species conservation. Four broad classes of vegetation occupy different altitudinal zones on

Mt. Elgon.

The region is home to Mt. Elgon National Park in both Uganda and Kenya sides of the mountain. The main

economic activity in the Mt. Elgon region is agriculture, employing about 82 per cent of the population

with significant sections of the population participating in coffee production. The rest of the population

is employed in the industry and services sector. The region is characterized by high levels of poverty,

unemployment and diseases (e.g. HIV/AIDs, malaria), and is particularly vulnerable to climate change

impacts, including floods, droughts, and landslides.

Out of the eight districts within the Mt. Elgon ecosystem on the Uganda side, Kapchorwa and Kween were

identified for the project interventions. The selection was based on earlier lessons and experiences, which

revealed the two districts as hotspots within the landscape.

9

Figure 2. Map of Mt Elgon region

Why this participatory process in Uganda? IUCN Uganda applied a participatory approach to ensure that all relevant stakeholders especially the

communities and policy makers are fully and equally involved in the process from the initial stages, for

ownership and sustainability of the project. In order to achieve this, IUCN conducted stakeholder mapping

and analysis to identify and understand the relevant actors with a stake in the project, their interests,

expectations, level of understanding, and influence. This enabled the project to prioritize and put in place

the right communication channels and entry points.

The implementation approach of the project is centred on enhancing awareness and creating a forum for

various actors and groups to fully and equally participate in making decisions about the project activities

and level of engagement. The selection of this approach was based on previous experiences where

powerful groups would position themselves to access the relevant project information, skills and benefits,

preventing the less powerful from being involved in the decision-making processes, and even actual

implementation of the project activities on the ground. In addition, given the fact that this is a climate

change project, the participatory process promoted the inclusion of the less powerful sections of society,

especially women, the very poor and youth, who are more at risk and less able to adapt.

Through the participatory process, IUCN was able to integrate local knowledge in climate change analyses

of vulnerability and adaptive capacity. By doing this, local people were given an opportunity to articulate

and enhance their own knowledge and understanding, and to plan actions for all-inclusive

implementation of the project activities. Beyond the communities, the relevant local government

departments were engaged to ensure better coordination and harmonization of activities within districts.

International boundary

District boundary

Catchment boundary

I Mt Elgon National Park (Uganda)

I Namatale Central Forest

Reserve j Mt Elgon National Park

Source: Andreas Brodbeck

10

Because of this involvement right from the onset, the local governments took responsibility and ensured

that the project was integrated in their government plans.

In addition, the coordination meetings between the districts called for better harmonization of the

interventions within the Mt. Elgon landscape to ensure concerted efforts, which would then lead to a

more resilient ecosystem and livelihoods. This led to the birth of the Mt. Elgon Stakeholders forum (MESF)

with the overall aim of providing a platform for coordinating the scattered interventions within the

ecosystem. The forum provides an opportunity for considering Mt. Elgon at a landscape level where

various stakeholders get a common understanding of the issues within their landscape, how they affect

or are affected by the various interventions, and hence the various inter-linkages within the landscapes,

which then guide strategic interventions. Through this forum, partners have been able to share

information, and to understand the inter-linkages imbedded in partners’ programmes on issues such as

markets, governance, restoration, and ecological perspectives.

The forum has also empowered stakeholders to underscore the economic and ecological perspectives in

and across the landscape, and provide a platform for diverse stakeholders to work together for a common

cause. In addition to the participation through the forum, the project ensured effective participation at

the national level through co-opting the National policy committee on climate change as the project

steering committee. This was a strategic move to ensure that all the relevant government institutions

directly influence and participate in the design and implementation of the project. With this level of

engagement, there was assurance that the lessons and experiences from the project would directly feed

into the relevant national policy processes.

2. Approaches and Tools used

Global Introduction IPCC (2001) has defined vulnerability in the context of climate change as the degree to which a system is

susceptible to, or unable to cope with, adverse effects of climate change, including climate variability and

extremes. It is an outcome of the intersection of exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity" (IPCC, 2007).

While considering the vulnerability natural scientists and engineers consider in terms of physical exposure

to extreme events and their adverse outcomes, social scientists consider it in terms of socio-political

factors, which differentially impede certain groups in the face of external shocks and the absence of

entitlement to resources (Adger, 2006).

Information vital to vulnerability assessments consists of: (1) the knowledge of the people experiencing

climate variability (and in some cases even climate change), their perceptions of vulnerability and where

changes are experienced; (2) the available literature on change trends and/or databases on a wide scale

extreme events (much of it available on the Internet); and (3) experts opinion on climate change and

major resources affected that have priority for the population.

Integrating this knowledge requires managing participatory, interdisciplinary and trans-disciplinary

approaches and methodologies, allowing establishing a dialogue between the various actors, knowledge

11

and cultures. Understanding the unique context and culture of each community, its land and society, and

their knowledge and codes which are expressed in the specific context of a particular community helps us

to estimate how a measure will work and the challenges of its implementation or sustainability along the

process.

Tools and approaches used in Peru The conceptual framework used for this program is the socio-ecosystem approach (used by TMI in their

work), in which the landscape and its management are the result of ecological and social processes

governed by changing variables (both fast and slow), which require integrated management to address

both social and ecological dimensions (Chapin et al., 2009).

The implementation process of the no-regret EbA measures in Peru followed a participatory approach, in

order to identify and design adaptation measures responding to vulnerability perceptions and priorities

of the communities of Canchayllo and Miraflores, while seeking to strengthen decision-making capacities

of local partners to manage their land and resources. In practice, this participatory approach resulted in

an initial phase of consultation, diagnosis and design with local people.

Over a period of eight months (April to November 2013) TMI led the process and involved local

researchers (designated community members with skills and knowledge in grassland and water aspects),

community members; local authorities; specialists in grasslands, hydrology, archaeology, anthropology

and production systems; NYCLR’s staff and Mt. EbA project partners. The measure was presented to

SERNANP and was validated by the community in a communal assembly.

The consultation, diagnosis and design process of the measure was according to local priorities and

interests, the criteria for EbA and no-regret measures, and the priorities and objectives of the NYCLR.

Initially, consultations with local villagers were made through workshops and field visits to meet their own

interpretation of their vulnerability and to identify preliminary proposals to address that vulnerability.

The preliminary proposals were selected and prioritized with local people based on a set of criteria: ability

to reduce local vulnerability, additionality, population’s interests, potential sustainability and cost-

effectiveness (TMI, 2013). The preliminary proposals from both communities were aimed at improving

the water availability in the upper area, and grassland and livestock management. These preliminary

proposals were then analysed by a group of specialists, who recommended the development of an early

stage of diagnosis, selection and design of adaptation measures before implementation (Ibid.).

Consequently, TMI developed the methodology to carry out an “Integrated Participatory Rural Appraisal”

(IPRA) for the design of the no-regret measures (TMI, 2014b). This methodology aimed to design an

adaptation measure based on local interests and scientific knowledge. In addition, it also aimed to lay the

foundations for the next stages of the project, beginning a process of social learning focused on local

empowerment: "Our view is that men and women in the community strengthen their ability to think and

act in groups, see the results of their actions and make corrections " (TMI, 2014b:5).

The methodological framework for the no-regret measures implementation was a Participatory Action

Research (Greenwood and Levin, 1998; Gonsalves, J. et al, 2005). Specifically, the IPRA methodology took

elements from the Rapid Rural Appraisal and Participatory Rural Appraisal (Chambers, 1997; Townsley,

1996). The term "integrated" refers to (1) the stated objective of mainstreaming multiple disciplines and

12

specialists’ perspectives with the view of local actors and (2) also to integrate conceptual attributes of EbA

and no-regret actions.

The process was based on the premise of following a "simple" strategy, consistent with the no-regret

measures approach. Therefore, replicable, inexpensive and accessible methods were used. A

workshop/seminar approach was used in which external and local specialists shared their knowledge and

perspectives to the debate, which resulted in a proposal and design of adaptation measures in "co-

authorship" (Zapata et al., 2013). The main IPRA methods and tools included field visits, the development

of timelines, calendars of activities and trend lines, interviews, focus groups, participant observation,

among others.

The IPRA aimed to generate information that would identify and design adaptation measures so that: they

ensure the provision of ecosystem services; generate multiple and comprehensive benefits for the entire

ecosystem and communities; reduce the ecosystem and populations vulnerability, reduce their exposure

and sensitivity levels; and respond to climate trends in the area, either on the basis of the available

scientific information and/or perceptions of the local population (Zapata et al., 2013).

Photos showing the IPRA studies and process (© TMI& IUCN 2013).

13

Table 1. Studies and methods by specialization used during the IPRA (TMI, 2014b).

Hydrology Productive Systems Agrostology-soil

science

Archaeology Anthropology St

ud

ies

• Define the basin

• Water availability

• Water balance

• Channels

• Legal Procedures

• Proposals and design of

a no-regret measure for

water management.

• Analysis of the

measures’ impacts on the

hydrological system

• Agro-ecological

recognition

• Agricultural and

livestock production

systems

characterization

• Climate change

analysis

• Robust or no-regret

proposals

• Analysis of the

measures’ impacts in

the on farming

systems

• Vegetation and

rainfall

rapid assessment

• Define carrying

capacity

• Soil and vegetation

characterization

• Map with slopes and

vegetation overlay

• Define how

collective resource

management works;

strengthen common

good organization

• Map other initiatives

and programs

• Proposals and design

of measure for

grassland

management

Analysis of the

measures’ impacts on

grasslands

Field work:

• Archaeological

survey

• Review and

registration of

private

collections

Office work

• Intra-site

analysis

• Inter-site

analysis

• Resource

analysis

• Laboratory

study

• Support the

development

and

considerations

for the no-regret

measure design

• Analysis of the

measures’

impacts in the on

the

archaeological

remains.

Memory

climate

• Understand

the role of

migrants in the

management

of natural

resources

•

Socia

l organization

• Map of

actors.

• Facilitate

knowledge

dialogue

between

community

and external

specialist.

Me

tho

ds

• Flows

• Historical climatic Data

• Range PP / T °

• Evapotranspiration

• Location of possible

water infrastructure

• Observation of the

rotation system

• Geocoding

• Workshop with

community members

• Production calendar

• Surveys

• Water and soil

analysis

• Count crops with low

water consumption

• Recognition of local

knowledge

technologies for

production systems

• Observation of

conformation and

organization of

producers

• Livestock calendar

• Organizational chart

• Validation workshop

• Identify and

map sites and

features

• Interviews with

people

• Records :

- Planimetry

- Pictures

- Topography

• Interviews

• Interviews

• Workshops

with

community

members.

14

Tools and approaches used in Nepal EbA project activities have been started in three watersheds, representing each district and Village

Development Committee (VDC) (one VDC from each watershed and district) of Panchase area (i.e.

BhadaureTamagi from Hapran,Khola watershed of Kaski, WangsighDeurali from AndhiKhola watershed of

Syangja and Chitre from Rati Khola watershed of Parbat district). The VDCs were selected using

participatory methods, employing the following site selection criteria: a) ecosystem services are

vulnerable to climate change; b) human wellbeing is highly dependent on ecosystem services; c) EbA

options are available and will be acceptable to local communities for implementation; d) partners are

ready and have the institutional capacity to implement the available EbA options; and e) potential for

scaling up lessons exists. For the identification or finalization of initial pilot VDCs, a series of consultation

meetings with different stakeholders were conducted. Furthermore, a simple ranking exercise was done

at the district level, as well as a cross sectional transect walk, direct field observations and focus group

discussions (FGD) with community people for six most vulnerable sites were done, which provided further

detailed analysis based on input from stakeholders. The different sites were analysed against the

information gathered from field observation, stakeholder consultation, FGDs and indicators and a matrix

ranking exercise were undertaken. Some local level indicators, such as areas more prone to disasters,

ecosystem more vulnerable, high climate change impact areas and non-climatic stresses etc. were also

taken into consideration for analysis.

A literature review led to the decision of

conducting a participatory community

based vulnerability assessment. In Nepal,

vulnerability is exacerbated by poverty,

caste, and gender and many individuals

struggle to recover from the damage that

external issues such as extreme climate

events cause (Mustafa, 1998; McCarthy,

2001). The concept of vulnerability was

considered while selecting EbA option’s to

understand how ecosystems,

communities, institutions and social

relationships will be affected by climate

change. Climatic and non-climatic,

physical and socio political factors were considered in assessing the vulnerability of the Panchase area.

The major tools applied for vulnerability assessment was Community based Vulnerability Assessment

(CbVA), which assesses local climate change or exposure, effect of climate change or sensitivity, adaptive

capacity and interpretation of vulnerability. The major approaches followed included participatory,

integrative, consultative, gender sensitive and interactive. The specific participatory methods used for the

assessment were scoping, rapid vulnerability assessment, district level and field level consultations, key

informant interviews, priority ranking, focus group discussion, hazard mapping, historical trend analysis,

seasonal calendar, and resource mapping. The information collected from the different tools were

15

compiled and critically analysed by the stakeholders and project team to finalise the site for

implementation of no-regret EbA measures. The analysis attempts to reduce social and ecological

vulnerability, as the poor people from rural Nepal are the most vulnerable to severe climate change and

degradation of ecosystem services.

Tools and approaches used in Uganda Several participatory tools were applied to support stakeholder involvement in the selection of hotspots,

joint planning and implementation of agreed interventions as described below.

The Climate Vulnerability and Capacity Analysis (CVCA) framework

The CVCA methodology provides a framework for analysing vulnerability and capacity to adapt to climate

change at the community level9. It recognizes the need for local actors to drive their own future, hence

prioritizing local knowledge on climate risks and adaptation strategies in the data gathering and analysis

process. IUCN chose to apply this framework because of the various tools and processes it provides to

collect, organize and analyse vulnerability and adaptive capacity.

Through this tool, IUCN was able to combine community knowledge and scientific data to yield greater

understanding about local impacts of climate change.

Application of the CVCA framework was also crucial

in building the capacity of local governments to

undertake vulnerability assessments. Given the

relevance of the study to the local governments, a

team, which included staff from the district

planning and natural resources departments, were

trained on how to apply the CVCA tools for

community consultations and data collection.

These formed part of the facilitators and greatly

enriched the study because of their expert

knowledge and appreciation of the issues within

the districts.

The Community-Based Risk Screening Tool: Adaptation and Livelihoods (CRiSTAL)

In order to complement the community perceptions which had been generated using CVCA, a deliberate

choice was made to apply CRiSTAL. CRiSTAL10 is a decision support tool, which provides a logical, user-

friendly process to help users better understand the links between climate-related risks, people’s

livelihoods and project activities.

9 Climate Vulnerability and Capacity Analysis Handbook. 10 The tool was developed jointly by IISD, IUCN, the Stockholm Environment Institute in Noston (SEI-US) and the Swiss Foundation for Development and International Cooperation

16

The most important aspect of applying CRiSTAL is that it provided a platform for all key actors to build a

common understanding of the climate issues and a strong ownership of the solutions proposed, because

it is based on local needs and priorities11. Key to the project was that it provided insights about the no-

regret activities that needed to be implemented in the project, as discussed and agreed with the affected

communities and their leaders.

Forests – Poverty linkages toolkit

The Forests-Poverty linkages toolkit12 provides a framework, fieldwork methods and analytic tools to

understand and communicate the contribution of forests to the incomes of rural natural resource

dependent households.

IUCN applied this toolkit as a means of understanding the contribution of the Mt. Elgon forest products

to peoples’ livelihoods, and evaluate the different ways of how the goods and services were being

impacted, in order to inform the project interventions. Six tools were used as rapid appraisal methods to

gather information and economic as well as other contributions from forests to households, especially the

poor in the selected sites.

Application of the toolkit was instrumental in providing insights into the potential role of forests in

reducing poverty and vulnerability, and policy options for improving the contribution of forests to rural

livelihoods. The tool also provided an opportunity to solicit community views and contributions regarding

potential solutions to the issues increasing their vulnerability and how they can be addressed. IUCN has

used this toolkit as a monitoring tool for regular reflections with the community, in terms of gauging the

changes in their livelihoods as a result of the interventions proposed at the beginning of the project.

Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping

A rapid GIS mapping was undertaken to generate baselines, upon which no-regret activities would be

developed while awaiting the main Vulnerability Impact Assessment. From the GIS mapping, soil and land

degradation maps were developed, along with catchment delineation for the main rivers. In general, the

GIS mapping supported the generation of no-regret activities through providing specific information

about the quality of soils, water, land and providing projections. For example, agriculture expansion,

deforestation and grazing were identified as the key causes of soil degradation in the area. Light and

strong degrees of degradation were very frequent, making the region strongly affected by soil

degradation.

The GIS mapping made a number of recommendations, upon which most of the no-regret activities were

generated. These included creation of buffer zones along main rivers, integrated watershed management

and agroforestry systems on farmlands. A combination of tools and methodologies were applied to dig

out key areas of concern and livelihood issues that needed intervention. From the application of tools, it

was clear how the various ecosystem goods and services that were supporting people to adapt, were

11 CRISTAL stories; www.iisd.org 12 The toolkit was developed by PROFOR (Program on Forests), a multi-donor partnership formed to pursue a shared goal of enhancing forests’ contribution to poverty reduction, sustainable development and protection of environmental services.

17

negatively getting impacted by changing climate. The tools also provided a deeper understanding of the

areas that were more vulnerable and the kinds of interventions that were required to support their

resilience. These formed the basis of the no-regret activities, which were picked up by the project for

implementation.

3. Description of what was done

Peru To carry out the IPRA, an interdisciplinary team consisting of external researchers and a team of local

researchers, including community specialists and park rangers, was formed. In addition, there was a

scientific coordinator who helped in the integration of diverse knowledge and collective analysis (TMI,

2014b).

The IPRA was held between July and November 2013 and focused on the two issues prioritized by the

community during the consultation phase: improve water availability and distribution in the upper area,

and improve grassland and livestock management.

The IPRA began with an intense period of office work that included the selection and hiring of a team of

external specialists known as ‘external researchers’ (hydrologist, anthropologist, archaeologist, grassland

specialist, production systems specialist and scientific coordinator); also, forming a group of local

researchers, literature review, procurement of equipment and materials, meetings and workshops.

The field phase, involving the work of external specialists, local researchers and specialists, and reserve’s

rangers, took place for five days in each community, focusing on the community’s pre-selected areas (TMI,

2014c and 2014d). Soil and water quality samples were taken and a quick grassland survey was carried

out; in addition, information was obtained from the IPRA’s tools (e.g. timeline, event calendar, trend lines,

and organizational system).

Both communities pre-selected sites of communal interest in which they wanted to implement adaptation

measures. Local researchers presented each site, explaining their interest and the environmental, social

and economic context. Several in situ conversations and walks were conducted to gather information

from each pre-selected site. Each external researcher collected necessary data, which was then used as

input to be analysed and discussed with the aim of gathering final selection criteria for site

implementation. In addition, there were opportunities for debate and collective reflection at the end of

each day, to analyse the proposed measures from various perspectives (technical, contribution to

ecosystem services, robustness, sustainability, cost, duration, feasibility, contributions to climate change,

among others) (Ibid.).

After the field trip, there was another phase of office work to analyse the results and make the preliminary

design of the measure, including internal workshops of the project team and outside researchers and

larger workshops with the participation of local researchers, NYCLR representatives and EbA project

partners (Ibid.).

Table 2. Main studies carried out during the IPRA in Canchayllo and Miraflores.

18

Study People leading the process

Rapid Hydrological diagnosis to characterize watersheds and water

ecosystem services they provide (Cárdenas, 2013)

Aldo Cardenas

Agrostological-soil science inventory (Ñaupari et al., 2013) Javier Ñaupari, Enrique Flores and Bill

Yalli from LEUP - UNALM

Archaeological reconnaissance of micro-channels and dams

(Ramírez & Herrera, 2013)

Favio Ramirez and Alexander Herrera

Ethnographic study, gathering local knowledge on climate, water

management and grasslands (Segura, 2013)

Elmer Segura and Jorge Recharte

Production systems study (Ruiz, 2013) Jose Ruiz

As noted, the studies were the result of collaborative work of external specialists with local researchers,

the fruit of a ‘knowledge dialogue' (‘diálogo de saberes’ in Spanish).

Photos showing what was done during the IPRA (©TMI, 2013).

Nepal Data collected from participatory methods were compiled and analysed with respect to environmental,

socio-economic and cultural impacts of identified no-regret EbA measures by the project team, local

community and stakeholder support, to identify the most suitable and relevant no-regret EbA measures

with respect to identified sites. Based on the findings of the Community based Vulnerability Assessment,

a set of adaption strategies and options were identified at the VDC level. The options were then analysed

from the lens of EbA and major EbA principles, such as public choice, multiple benefits etc. The results

were presented and validated by local partner

organisations, local stakeholders, and project

partners within the Panchase Ecosystem.

Initially, three watersheds: Harpan Khola

(Bhadaure Tamagi VDC) from Kaski, Rati Khola

(Chitre VDC) from Parbat and Andhi Khola

(Wangsing Deurali VDC) from Syangja district

were selected, and the following year the area

has been expanded to other VDCs i.e. Chapakot,

Kaksikot and Sarangkot VDCs of Kaski, Arthar

Dandakharka and Ramja Deurali VDCs of Parbat

and Bangefatake, Aarukharka and Bhatkhola

19

VDCs of Syangja district. The rapid vulnerability analysis showed the Syangjaas vulnerable to water

resources, focusing subsequent activities on water resources. The following no-regret EbA options were

implemented in these VDCs (Table 3). Table 3. No-regret EbA options implemented in the selected VDCs in Nepal.

Districts VDC No-regret EbA measures

Kaski BhadaureTamagi Pond conservation

Water source protection

Broom grass plantation along the roadside

Demonstration of bioengineering

In situ conservation of indigenous species such as Cythea species,

Lautsalla, Nagbeli (Lycopodium phlegmaria), Chiraito

(Swertiachirayita), Rhododendron (Rhododendron anthopogon) etc.

Improvement of livestock shed

Promotion of Ecotourism such as Home stay promotion

Establishment of new bio-gas plant and repair and maintenance of

old bio-gas plants

Promotion of Bee farming

Improvement of dishwashing places

Improvement of organic manure and organic farming

Promotion of agro-forestry

Establishment of biodiversity garden

Establishment of Tea and Coffee nursery

Establishment of Agriculture nursery

Plantation of Tea and Coffee seedlings

Community Biodiversity Registration

Soil nutrient test and improvement

Establishment of information center and museum

Parbat Chitre Pond conservation

Water source protection

Improvement of livestock shed

Promotion of Ecotourism such as Home stay promotion

Establishment of bio-gas plants

Promotion of Bee farming

Promotion of agro-forestry

In situ conservation of indigenous species such as Cythea species,

Cythea species, Lautsalla, Nagbeli (Lycopodium phlegmaria),

Chiraito (Swertiachirayita), Rhododendron (Rhododendron

anthopogon) etc.

Improvement of dishwashing places

Community Biodiversity Registration

Soil nutrient test and improvement

Establishment of information center

Syangja WangsinghDeurali Pond conservation

Water source protection

20

Broom grass plantation along the roadside and public land

Improvement of livestock shed

Establishment of bio-gas plants

Improvement of dishwashing places

Integrated Soil Nutrient Management and demonstration of

Integrated Plant Nutrient System (IPNS)

Promotion of Bee farming

Promotion of agro-forestry

Conservation of indigenous and local agricultural crop species

Promotion of Improved Smokeless Cook stove

Improvement of organic manure and organic farming

Soil nutrient test and improvement

Community Biodiversity Registration

Uganda i. Stakeholder Mapping and Analysis

At the beginning of the project, a stakeholder mapping and analysis was undertaken to ensure that all the

project activities target the intended beneficiaries at the grassroots level, as well as relevant actors, at the

national and sub-national level. Given the fact that this project was expected to demonstrate through

pilots at the grassroots level, there was a need to identify key players, including partners undertaking

similar interventions, community leaders and champions. It was through this process of mapping that the

need to organise and merge existing community groups evolved, because community members and their

leaders felt they already had loose structures, both formal and informal that could be supported for better

implementation of the interventions. This helped in avoiding duplication and instead building on already

existing systems and structures to bring positive change through filling gaps, and enhancing strengths. At

the sub-national level, the need to harmonise interventions within Mt. Elgon also emerged through this

stakeholder mapping process. It is this process that led to the formation of the Mt. Elgon Stakeholders

Forum, which has been very instrumental in coordinating interventions and sharing lessons and

experiences.

ii. Joint planning meetings

In addition to the inception meetings, which were convened to launch the project both at the national

and sub-national levels, a joint planning meeting was organized to ensure direct involvement of relevant

21

stakeholders in the project. The meetings brought

together local civil society groups, local governments,

private sectors and representatives from central

government. This meeting provided an opportunity for

partners to understand the project specifics including

planned activities, budget and visits to the target sites.

This process facilitated a discussion of the various roles

and responsibilities that would be played by different

partners during implementation of the project, including

both direct and indirect contribution. The key outcome

of the meeting was a shared understanding of the

project objectives and the expected contribution from each partner. In addition, the meeting proposed

key stakeholders to be involved in the direct implementation of the project, to ensure effective

participation of all relevant actors. A district implementation and sustainability plan was developed to

guide direct involvement of the local governments in the implementation of the project activities.

iii. Visioning

Following the stakeholder mapping and analysis

conducted during the initial inception and

planning meetings, IUCN engaged the relevant

stakeholder in a visioning process. This was in

form of focused discussions around people’s

dreams for the future of the EbA project in

relation to the changes they would like to see in

their landscape and changes to their

livelihoods. This was done at various levels,

starting with the overall visioning of all the

stakeholders and then site level visioning for

each of the micro-catchments that were

selected.

At the site level, communities were facilitated

to discuss their current situation with regards to

natural resources, linkages between the Mt.

Elgon landscape and their livelihoods, what they would like to change and how it they should change

within a specified period of time. The discussions were focused on the positives and opened up people’s

minds to other ways of overcoming problems, rather than the standard ways. A case in point is the

participatory reflection and visioning among the Sanzara communities, focusing on the realities of climate

change and the need to work together as a parish, with a shared vision to address the climate related

challenges being faced.

22

iv. Participatory development of implementation plans for the no-regret activities

As a result of the planning activities described above, plans for the no-regret activities were developed as summarized below (Table 4):

Table 4. No-regret activities developed in Mt. Elgon, Uganda.

Site No-regret activities implemented

Sanzara parish Establishment of tree nurseries for capacity building and

landscape restoration

Construction of a gravity flow scheme to provide water for

irrigation and domestic use

Riverbank Rehabilitation along Sipi

Agroforestry on farmlands

Soil and water conservation structures

Promoting climate smart agriculture

Kaptokwoi catchment Soil and water conservation structures

Promotion of the Community Environment Conservation Fund to

promote forest landscape restoration

Riverbank rehabilitation of the Kaptokwoi river

Promoting Agroforestry

Promotion of bee-keeping in and outside the protected area

Ngenge catchment in Benet Sub-

country

Soil and water conservation structures

Promotion of the Community Environment Conservation Fund to

promote forest landscape restoration

Riverbank rehabilitation of the Ngenge river

Promoting Agroforestry

23

4. Discussion- key learning, key challenges

Peru Main results from the IPRA process in Canchayllo

The main findings of the IPRA13 (2013) showed that people perceive that water is declining and there is a

high degree of concern regarding its future availability. One of the community’s priorities is to have water

in the communal farm and in troughs for animals. The Chacara Lake has a capacity of 70 L/s in October,

but its dam leaked and the channel that brings water to the farm was out of use since 1973. The lack of

manpower and the topography make it extremely difficult to repair and maintain the current channel. As

a result, the population needs better community organization for water management.

With regards to grasslands, the upper part (communal farm) is under-grazed (in fair to good condition),

while the middle zones (Pumapanca and Yanaututo) are over-grazed (poor to regular condition)(TMI,

2014c).

There has been a weakening of social organization for grassland management, with the regulations that

limit the number of animals not being met. While there is no defined organization for water management,

there is interest in creating one. A large percentage of the population prefers working in mining or

hydroelectric companies rather than in farming; however, there are groups of families who are experts in

livestock management (60 families are directly dependent on livestock). There is interest of some young

people to continue with livestock (young people working in the mining sector are buying sheep with their

surplus). Grazing in the upper area is lower because it does not have the amenities that the lower area

has (especially electricity). The community has few technicians and little technical capacity to manage

grasslands, livestock and water. There is interest in strengthening community organizations and in

supporting the development of the communal farm, identified as a common good from which everyone

benefits (TMI, 2014c).

The initial emphasis from the community was on the infrastructure component, consisting of the eave

repair in the Chakara Lake, and rehabilitation of the Chacara-Jutupuquio channel for water storage and

use during the dry season for wetland forming and watering troughs in the area of collective management

called La Granja (the farm). This area is underutilized due to lack of water in the dry season, and therefore

the grasslands are in better condition in the neighboring Yanaututo and Pumapanca areas, where the

grasslands are over pastured. The reflection process during the IPRA led to community members stating

their enthusiasm, created by the infrastructure component, and the need to strengthen skills, knowledge

and community organizations to improve the management of communal land and water management,

grasslands and livestock not only in the farm but in the surrounding Pumapanca and Yanaututo areas and

in their community. In short, through the IPRA, it was proposed to the community to integrate elements

of the measure in a grasslands and water management plan, as an exercise to organize their land in the

context of climate change (TMI, 2014c).

13 These were results from the IPRA back in 2013, from which the measures have been designed and implemented until October 2105; therefore, the results show the initial conditions in both communities.

24

Main results from the IPRA process in Miraflores

The IPRA showed the contrast of a community with complex systems of land management that is in a

deep demographic and productive crisis, and according to local perception, aggravated by climatic

stresses. The production system consists of eight high areas for different types of livestock; a high

agricultural area in rainfed called Aysha and irrigated soils called Maguay that includes two types of use:

maizal and canchía. Maguay land −for maize production− and Aysha rotation fields −for planting tubers

and grains− are being abandoned as a result of outmigration for the past four decades. Irrigation of

cornfields has deteriorated because the custom of "cleaning the ditches" is being abandoned due to the

demographic change. However, grasslands in the upper areas remain over-grazed because it’s feasible to

have pastors or family members supporting the grazing activities. In this context, part of the community

opts for a specialization strategy in dairy farming and the conversion of high corn and rotational fields into

alfalfa and improved mixed pasture grasses (thus reducing the systems’ diversity); meanwhile another

group of people committed to more diversified strategies are seeking support from the community to use

abandoned cornfields for promoting tourism, but are faced with limiting labour force, market and conflicts

over land ownership (TMI, 2014d).

In this rural community the IPRA allowed the definition by consensus of a set of measures: the extension

and conservation of wetlands in the Yanacancha Lake, to repair and expand the Yanacancha-Curiuna-

Huaquis channel deriving water from these lakes to a native grassland area, and improved community

native grassland and water management. The second part of the measure proposed (finally not

implemented), which consisted in developing the irrigation system and the conversion of Aysha land in

paddocks for dairy farming in the area called Larawcancha, reflects the community’s adaptation trends

and the dairy farming specialization in the lower area. With regards to this second measure, it was agreed

upon to initiate a process of reflection in the community to ensure that action takes into consideration

the communal crisis mentioned before (TMI, 2014d). 14 The proposal for Lawracancha was not

implemented because of a lack of consensus and viability.

After the IPRA, and jointly with the NYCLR, the community and the project, it was agreed to fence an area

of 2.4 km in the Curiuna-Pampalpa area; this allowed to consolidate and to strengthen the first part of

the infrastructure actions and to improve the grassland condition due to a better community livestock

management and rotation.

Lessons learned from the IPRA process in Canchayllo and Miraflores

The design of no-regret measures with a socio-ecosystem approach poses the challenge of

integrating social, environmental and economic variables. It involves looking beyond the technical

specialties and making socio-ecosystem proposals that meet the direct needs of the communities.

14The second part of the measure (not defined during the IPRA; bur later in July 2015 agreed with the Reserve, he community and the project) was to fence 2.8 km in a production area of Aysha, so the grass would be sectorized as well as the cattle farming and the agricultural production Aysha area would be protected. This would provide another sector for cattle rotation. Also, it was decided to extend the water pipe that reached Curiuna for additional 2.4 km in areas known as Pampalpa and Tuntinia. The water finally reaches two troughs, one located within the enclosure and the other one outside. This would improve the water distribution and therefore livestock implying the grassland condition recovery.

25

The IPRA is a comprehensive process that enabled the team to know more about the

communities’ context, dynamics and governance in greater depth (not only focused on climate

change vulnerabilities and impacts but rather with a broader approach).

The effort to develop the IPRA methodology, based on existing methodologies and adapted to the

communities’ context, was vital for the communities ownership and commitment in the

measures’ implementation; these processes of developing and adapting methodologies are key

in participatory processes (for instance, in these early stages of vulnerabilities and impacts

assessments within climate change adaptation initiatives). To illustrate this, 45% of the budget for

the infrastructure component was a community investment in the case of Canchayllo,

demonstrating their empowerment, interest and contribution as co-partner in the designed

measure.

The joint work between local researchers (local knowledgeable and experts) and external

researchers allowed collection of the population's interpretation of local vulnerability and the

ability to build proposals responding to these.

Facilitating a knowledge dialogue (local and scientific knowledge) was crucial for proper design of

the measure. Thus, it was important to have an interdisciplinary team trained in participatory

methodologies. Equally vital was facilitating the process, allowing the integration of information

for the design of a measure having a positive impact on the socio-ecosystem under any climate

scenario.

The methodology allowed building relationships of trust with communities, empowerment in the

design of the measure and thus having their commitment and responsibility in implementing the

measures.

The IPRA was a milestone in the beginning of the participatory process in the design and

implementation of the no-regret measures; for instance, during the fieldwork and workshops with

local researchers, the process of involvement and local ownership began and continued for the

rest of the project.

This process generated groundwork for the next stages of the project, beginning a process of

social learning focused on strengthening local capacities and knowledge.

The time and resources to develop the IPRA depend on the level of detail in which the assessment

is made (Dourojeanni et al., 2015); sometimes additional studies are required. For instance, in the

case of Canchayllo a hydrogeological study was later carried out to deepen the understanding of

hydrogeological characteristics and dynamics, followed by an analysis of the green-grey

infrastructure measure already in place (Hidroandes, 2015).

The information generated by the VIA as part of the project confirmed and complimented the

IPRA information (Dourojeanni et al., 2015), corroborating the effectiveness and validity of IPRA

methodology.

By addressing the relevance of local knowledge and participation, the IPRA contributed to the

communities’ empowerment, as well as strengthening of the NYCLR governance.

By involving the NYCLR team, the IPRA allowed designing measures with components that

support/are aligned to the Reserve’s conservation goals.

26

Besides these lessons that were quite positive, we also had some important lessons that became apparent

during the systematization process, especially in the case of Canchayllo (Zapata et al. 2015). For instance:

It would have been necessary to deepen and broaden the social assessment to better understand not only

the current situation but also the past and present conflicts, tensions, trends and other local aspirations

that were not so obvious during the IPRA, such as the interest of some Canchayllo people in developing

mining activities, which complicated the project scenario. Moreover, since we are working on EbA, it

would have been useful to map the percentage of the local population dependent on ecosystem services.

That would have allowed us to be aware that in Miraflores more than 70% of the population depends on

the ecosystem services, while Canchayllo is only around 40%. This information would have allowed us to

develop a better strategy in the case of Canchayllo. Even more, this is key information in order to select

EbA sites of work; having a better understanding of the context and ecosystem services dependence could

have made us question the selection of Canchayllo as a pilot site.

Nepal Some key lessons learned and challenges of EbA include: participatory approaches followed throughout

site selection, planning, design, validation, implementation of activities and delivering the results on the

ground, is a key factor to deliver bottom-up activities that empower and enhance the ownership and

involvement of local communities in the project. Capacity development in EbA is crucial at different levels

as it becomes difficult to consult with the stakeholders on specific elements of EbA and criteria for EbA

activities. Thus, it is crucial to have multidisciplinary teams comprised of local stakeholders, researchers,

community representatives and technical experts to define the no-regret measures and further analyse

selected no-regret measures and their potential impacts on society and the environment. Some of the no-

regret activities can be easily identified without vulnerability assessments, as these activities directly

address climate change impacts, such as drought, whereas some activities will need research, which can

indicate whether potential EbA activities/options could be recommended. Furthermore, the participatory

approach has been playing an important role in helping communities, stakeholders and researchers to

reach a common understanding of local vulnerabilities to climate change and possible adaptation

strategies.

A combination of different approaches such as participatory, integrative, consultative, gender sensitive

and interactive would be more useful and effective for identification and implementation of no-regret

EbA measures. Gender, social inclusion, access to resources and rights are also integral parts for the

successful implementation of any activities, particularly using the participatory approach.

Uganda The rural communities are very knowledgeable about the critical issues affecting them, including the

solutions to address those challenges. However, they feel left out in decision making as most projects are

designed and activities pre-determined without their prior engagement. It is very important to recognise

the value of local knowledge and use it to make decisions. In Uganda, the main VIA confirmed the hotspots

and interventions that had earlier been identified through rapid assessments and the IUCN participatory

processes. The VIA has helped the project to strengthen the EbA aspects from the ecosystem angle, and

the catchment approach. This confirmed the wealth of knowledge and skills within the community, and

27

the need to take advantage of these. As a result, there has been sustained engagement, with a high rate

of adoption and scaling up in all the IUCN sites in Kapchorwa and Kween districts.

A number of assessments have been conducted in Mt. Elgon, with various interventions already in place,

being coordinated by various partners. The process of applying the poverty-forests linkages toolkit

involved collection of all existing interventions and data about the landscape, community consultations

and discussions with the relevant local government officials, NGO partners and local leaders. This process

revealed a number of existing interventions and the need to harmonize them all. Through this assessment,

it was revealed that most of the interventions were mainly focusing on the livelihood support in general,

and promoting natural resource management. EbA was therefore seen to provide an opportunity for

strengthening ecosystem management aspects and also coordinating all the interventions within the

landscape. As a result, the Mt. Elgon Stakeholders Forum was formulated to harmonize and coordinate all

the interventions within the Mt. Elgon landscape. The forum provides a platform for partners to share

lessons and experiences, and also act as a one-stop Centre for information about Mt. Elgon interventions.

The case studies from Peru, Nepal and Uganda all demonstrate the importance of the EbA participatory

planning process in addressing climate change impacts on communities. Common to all case studies is

the importance of involving the community throughout the entire planning, implementation and

monitoring process. First-hand experiences of the impacts of climate change from community members

enhances the understanding of the community’s needs and allows for the appropriate measures to take

place that will directly address and benefit the specific community. Using a multifaceted approach —that

is participatory, consultative, integrative and interactive— yields greater success in understanding and

addressing the community. An interdisciplinary team incorporating the skills and knowledge of both local

and external researchers, local stakeholders and community representatives enhance the participatory

process. The key challenge faced was implementing a truly integrated approach that simultaneously

addresses social, economic and environmental variables.

5. Conclusions

Peru

The IPRA supported that the no-regret adaptation measures selected by the communities of Miraflores

and Canchayllo were associated with the communities’ own social processes. The measures’

infrastructure component, in both cases, is a short-term intervention to be associated with opportunities

and action to strengthen local organizations and to consider collectively in long term adaptation

strategies.

In addition, the IPRA participatory approach fosters reflection-action-reflection cycles that contribute to

the landscape’s governance in the NYCLR promoting (i) participation, through local researchers and their

organizations who should be prepared to influence (ii) the conservation policies direction and design in

the NYCLR territory, (iii) a better understanding of local interests and perspectives for management

28

decisions and (iv) the definition of responsibilities of each party (community, local government and

protected area) and monitor compliance with those obligations (Q'apiriy 2012). In this regard, an

important finding in the IPRAs validation stage was compromising that the proposed no-regret measures

is integrated in the best possible way in the long-term NYCLR’s planning process and contribute to the

strategy’s institutionalization.

Nepal Under combined pressure of climatic change and non-climatic stress on the natural resources, the natural

environment in Nepal has steadily degraded, affecting ecosystem services. Impacts of climate change are

especially visible on various sectors across different ecosystems. Environmental and ecosystem services

sustainability are under serious threat, making climate change one of the main emerging issues faced by

the ecosystem. To overcome the effect of climate change impacts, different no-regret measures were

implemented in the Panchase region of Nepal. The key drivers of ecosystem vulnerability are both climatic

and non-climatic stresses. Implementing EbA options by considering only climatic stress would not

increase the resilience of the ecosystem. Therefore, both drivers were focused upon.

Capacity development on ecosystem adaptation is very crucial at different levels as it becomes very

difficult to convince stakeholders on specific elements of EbA and why certain activities are not EbA. The

rapid and community based vulnerability assessment is sufficient to identify the most vulnerable and no-

regret EbA options. Some of the no-regret activities can be easily identified from participatory approaches

without detail vulnerability assessment, as these activities directly address climate change impacts.

Stakeholder participation is crucial at all stages of the assessment and identification of no-regret EbA

options. Among the different actors in the participatory approaches, local communities were

fundamental. Additionally, participation of local communities increases the ownership and responsibility

towards the decision of what, how and where adaptation measures should be implemented, which lead

or guide the experts and researchers for further refinement of the options. Community participation

further ensures the social, cultural, political, economic and ecological relevance of the area. Similarly, for

the sustainability and policy influence of the results, the participation of local government and political

stakeholders from the beginning of the implementation (i.e. planning, designing, monitoring and

evaluation) is a necessity.

Uganda EbA options provide a range of benefits to communities, but this needs to be clearly defined and

understood for collective action and ownership. To most of the community members, these ecosystem

goods and services are freely provided by nature and they are “here to stay”. The process of helping them

think through the trends, the changes and what needs to be done helps in changing that mind-set. Lack

of this leads to laxity among community members due to the common notion that “what belongs to

everybody belongs to nobody”. When all community members are involved in the planning and design of

activities, both the roles and responsibilities and the benefits to individuals and households are clarified,

allowing people to be sure about their stake in the interventions.

29

Radio is an important tool for creating awareness, enhancing participation and ownership of processes

and interventions. This is because there are certain categories of people within the communities who are

interested in the programmes but never get the time to participate in the community meetings and

trainings. Through radio, a number of people have been able to learn and take on the interventions, even

beyond the project sites.

Sustained community involvement and implementation of desired changes requires continuous and in-

depth social assessment. This is needed in order to build trust and to better understand the key,

underlying social dynamics and issues that have resulted in current behaviours and actions. Such

assessment is often complicated by the very dynamic nature of peoples’ attitudes. IUCN’s work, with and

through local partners, to informally unearth some of these issues has helped the project to adjust

accordingly and ensure that it remains on track.

Take home messages As climate change is creating significant impacts around the world, Ecosystem based Adaptation aims to

address climate-related needs of communities and increase their resilience to climate change impacts,

without compromising the environment. In several communities, such as those involved in the featured

case studies in Peru, Nepal, and Uganda, community livelihoods depend on utilization of the environment.

Ecosystem services, such as drinking water, fertile soil and healthy grasslands support the locals, many of

whom rely on these sources for farming, agriculture, and livestock rearing. As in the Peru case study,

restored grassland ecosystems and healthy water system, combined with better grassland and livestock

management, supports the local, daily life. Because a healthy ecosystem is vital for such communities,

addressing climate change impacts that threaten these resources is of extreme importance, and can even

prove to be lifesaving.

Through a participatory planning, no-regret approach, Ecosystem based Adaptation can increase the

resilience of ecosystems against climate change impacts. The most effective way to do so is through the

integration of social, economic, environmental and climatic factors, which fosters a socio-economic

approach to increasing community resilience. An understanding of the community specific context,

dynamics and governance is essential in implementing the appropriate adaptation program. By involving

local and expert researchers, local stakeholders, and community representatives in an interdisciplinary

team, the direct needs of the community may be addressed. Using participatory planning that also utilizes

integrative, consultative, interactive and gender sensitive approaches, maximizes success in achieving a

common understanding and reaching a common goal. The case studies in Peru, Nepal and Uganda have

shown that Participatory Vulnerability Assessments serve as successful and meaningful methods in

implementing approaches to increase the resilience of communities to climate change.

References

Banana A.Y., Byakagaba, P., Russell, A.J.M., Waiswa, D and Bomuhangi A. 2014. A review of Uganda’s national policies relevant to climate change adaptation and mitigation: Insights from Mount Elgon. Working Paper 157. Bogor, Indonesia: CIFOR.

30

Bhattarai K, R Maren IE and Chaudhary RP. 2012. Medicinal plant knowledge of the Panchase region in the Middle Hills of the Nepalese Himalayas. BankoJankari vol.21 no 2

Cárdenas, P. A. 2013.Reporte del especialista en hidrología. Diagnóstico Rural Participativo Integrado para el diseño de medidas robustas de adaptación al cambio climático en las comunidades campesinas de Canchayllo y Miraflores (Reserva Paisajística Nor-Yauyos Cochas - Perú). Lima: Instituto de Montaña. Documento interno.

CARE International. 2009. Climate Vulnerability and Capacity Analysis Handbook (2009).

Central Bureau of Statistics, CBS. 2011. Nepal Living Standard Survey 2010/11.Retrieved from http://cbs.gov.np/?p=158. First edition

Chambers, R. 1997. Whose Reality Counts? Putting the First Last. London: ITDG Publishing. 297 p.

Chapin, F. S., G. P. Kofinas, and C. Folke. (Eds). 2009. Principles of ecosystem stewardship: resilience-based natural resource management in a changing world. New York: Springer Science and Business Media.

CRiSTAL helps farmers adapt to drought on the slopes of Mount Elgon, Uganda, By Julie Karami-Dekens (IISD) and Sophie Kutegeka (IUCN); Article on www.iisd.org.

Dekens J, Kutegeka S, Bagyenda R, et al (2013); Climate Risk Management for Sustainable Crop production in Uganda: Rakai and Kapchowa districts (IISD).

Dourojeanni, P., E. Fernandez-Baca, S. Giada, J Leslie, K. Podvin and F. Zapata. (in press) Vulnerability assessments for Ecosystem based Adaptation: Lessons from the Nor Yauyos Cochas Landscape Reserve in Peru. In Climate Change Adaptation Strategies: An upstream – downstream lens, eds. Huggel, C., Salzmann, N., Ziervogel, G., & Nussbaumer, S. Springer.

Enviro-Impact ad Management consults. 2004. Baseline survey on the use of natural resources in Mt Elgon ecosystem.

Fundación para el Desarrollo Agrario (FDA). 2013. Estudio de la Vulnerabilidad e Impacto del Cambio Climático sobre la Reserva Paisajística Nor Yauyos Cochas, Perú (VIA RPNYC). Elaborado en el marco de la colaboración interinstitucional CDC-FEP-Universidad Nacional Agraria La Molina, Escuela de Ingeniería de Antioquía y IRI-EICES-Columbia University. Lima: PNUMA. Informe 4.

Government of Uganda. 2009. National Development Plan 2010/11 – 2014/15.

Government of Uganda (2009); The State of Uganda Population Report, 2009: Addressing the Effects of Climate Change on Migration Patterns and Women (Funded by UNFPA Uganda).

Gonsalves, J. et al (eds). 2005. Participatory Research and Development for Sustainable Agriculture and Natural Resource Management: A Sourcebook. International Potato Center-Users' Perspectives With Agricultural Research and Development, Laguna, Philippines and International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada.

Greenwood, Davydd; and Levin, Morten. 1998. An Introduction to Action Research. California: SagePublications.

HidroAndes Consultores S.A.C. 2015. Informe Final “Estudio hidrogeológico Conceptual del Área de influencia del Proyecto Chacara-Jutipuquio”– Fase I”. Preparado para UICN y el IM.

MoFSC/EbA. 2013. Ecosystem and ecosystem services of Panchase. An overview: based on baseline and socio-economic survey.

31

Mumba Musonda, et al. 2015. Ecosystem based adaptation (EbA) of African Mountain Ecosystems – Experiences from Mount Elgon, Uganda.

Mustafa, D. 1998. Structural causes of vulnerability to flood hazard in Pakistan.Economic Geography

Ñaupari, J; Flores, E; Yalli, B. 2013. Reporte del especialista en agrosto-edafología. Diagnóstico Rural Participativo Integrado para el diseño de medidas robustas de adaptación al cambio climático en las comunidades campesinas de Canchayllo y Miraflores (Reserva Paisajística Nor-Yauyos Cochas - Perú). Lima: Laboratorio de Ecología y Utilización de Pastizales de la Universidad Nacional Agraria La Molina; Instituto de Montaña. Documento interno.

Podvin, K., Cordero, D. y Gómez, A. 2014. Climate Change Adaptation in the Peruvian Andes: implementing no-regret measures in the Nor Yauyos-Cochas Landscape Reserve. In: Murti, R. &Buyck, C. (ed.). (2014). Safe Havens: Protected Areas for Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. https://portals.iucn.org/library/node/44887.

PROFOR. Poverty-Forests Linkages toolkit, Overview and National Level engagement. http://www.profor.info/sites/profor.info/files/Overview_FINAL_0.pdf

Q’Apiriy Consulting. 2012. Análisis de la problemática y planteamiento de propuestas para la correcta adopción de roles y funciones de los actoresvinculados a la gestión de la NYCLR. Informe Final. Consultoría encargada por el Patronato de la Reserva Paisajística Nor Yauyos-Cochas (NYCLR).

Ramírez, M. F; Herrera, W.A. 2013. Reporte del especialista en arqueología. Diagnóstico Rural Participativo Integrado para el diseño de medidas robustas de adaptación al cambio climático en las comunidades campesinas de Canchayllo y Miraflores (Reserva Paisajística Nor-Yauyos Cochas - Perú). Lima: Instituto de Montaña. Documento interno.

Ruiz, C. J. 2013. Reporte del especialista en sistemas productivos. Diagnóstico Rural Participativo Integrado para el diseño de medidas robustas de adaptación al cambio climático en las comunidades campesinas de Canchayllo y Miraflores (Reserva Paisajística Nor-Yauyos Cochas - Perú). Lima: Instituto de Montaña. Documento interno.

Segura, J. E. 2013. Reporte del especialista en organización social y cultura. Diagnóstico Rural Participativo Integrado para el diseño de medidas robustas de adaptación al cambio climático en las comunidades campesinas de Canchayllo y Miraflores (Reserva Paisajística Nor-Yauyos Cochas - Perú). Lima: Instituto de Montaña. Documento interno.

Shah. R., Adhikari. A & Khanal, R . 2012. “Scoping of Piloting Ecosystem Based Adaptation in Pahchase” A Report. IUCN, Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal.

The International Institute for Sustainable Development. 2012; Community-based Risk Screening Tool – Adaptation and Livelihoods.

TMI (The Mountain Institute). 2013. Consultoría para la definición de medidas de adaptación “no-regrets” al cambio climático. Reporte final. 48 p.

TMI (The Mountain Institute). 2014a. The Mountain Institute Report on Action Learning for Mountain EbA Project, Perú / RPNYC. First cycle of Action Learning. Internal Report.10 p.

TMI (The Mountain Institute). 2014b. Diagnóstico Rural Participativo Integrado para el Diseño de Medidas Robusta. Diseño de Medidas de Adaptación Robustas al Cambio Climático en las comunidades campesinas de Canchayllo y Miraflores (Reserva Paisajística Nor-Yauyos Cochas). Internal Report.

TMI (The Mountain Institute). 2014c. “Diseño preliminar de la medida robusta de adaptación al cambio climático en la Comunidad Campesina de Canchayllo - Reserva Paisajística Nor-Yauyos Cochas:

32

Ampliación y conservación de humedales y gestión comunal de praderas nativas”. Internal Report. 28 p.

TMI (The Mountain Institute). 2014d. “Diseño preliminar de la medida robusta de adaptación al cambio climático en la Comunidad Campesina de Miraflores - Reserva Paisajística Nor-Yauyos Cochas: Ampliación y conservación de humedales y gestión comunal de praderas nativas”. Internal Report. 41 p.

Townsley, P. 1996. Rapid rural appraisal, participatory rural appraisal and aquaculture. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper.No. 358. Rome: FAO. 109p.

UKCIP (Climate Impacts Programme). (2007). Identifying Adaptation Options. Available at: http://www.ukcip.org.uk/wordpress/wp-content/PDFs/ID_Adapt_options.pdf (28-07-2015).

Zapata, F.; Recharte, J.; y Gómez, A. 2013. “Diagnóstico Participativo Integrado para el Diseño de Medidas Robustas”. Presentación para la reunión de trabajo para el diseño metodológico del Diagnóstico Rural Participativo Integrado.

Zapata, F., Torres, M., Gómez, A. y Podvin, K. 2015. "Informe de sistematización de la experiencia: Implementación de las medidas robustas de adaptación al cambio climático en las comunidades campesinas de Canchayllo y Miraflores (Reserva Paisajística Nor Yauyos Cochas)". Documento interno. Instituto de Montaña y UICN.