Jakarta – March 2006
Bottom up approaches toV&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 ChangeScenario
BiophysicalImpacts
Socio-EconomicImpacts
Adaptationsto Impacts
Residual orNet Impacts
Jakarta – March 2006
..and for bottom-up
FutureAdaptive Capacity
CurrentAdaptiveCapacity
CurrentExposure
FutureExposure
ClimateScience
SocialScience
CurrentVulnerability
FutureVulnerability
CurrentVulnerability
Jakarta – March 2006
Another perspective (SPREP)Top-down:• Planning and institutional arrangements• Capacity building initiatives• Transfer of technologies and assessment• Implementation mechanismsBottom-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 approach Bottom-up approach
Local dataLocal data
IndicatorsIndicators
Global/national models and dataGlobal/national models and data
IndicatorsIndicatorsLocal
policymakingLocal
policymaking
National policymaking
National policymaking
downscaling aggregating
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 –
<http://maindb.unfccc.int/public/adaptation/>
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