How to make science inform policy and actions? This is probably one of the most common questions development organizations are grappling with. This question is particularly relevant for those of us working on climate change adaptation. To make a difference, global and regional climate projections must complement local knowledge to transform local actions.
Promoting climate resilience in the Greater Mekong Subregion
A lot of interesting work is taking place in the Greater Mekong Subregion (GMS) to bridge the science-policy gap in adaptation. My program, the Greater Mekong Subregion (GMS) Core Environment Program (CEP) of the ADB, aims to strengthen environmental planning, biodiversity conservation, landscape management, and climate resilience in the subregion. For adaptation, we are collaborating with partners to understand the potential impacts of climate change on the people, economy and natural resources of the GMS. Working with forest-dependent communities living in transboundary biodiversity landscapes, our goal is to promote investments in adaptation that help improve the climate resilience of local communities as well as the ecosystems that support them.
Villagers learn new farming techniques taught by an agricultural specialist in Pa Pang village. Photo by Justin Mott.
Despite different initiatives, it is interesting to see that adaptation thinking in the GMS is converging. Most organizations: i) recognize that climate pressures on livelihoods must be analyzed alongside non-climatic pressures; ii) use climate projections as a start point, but shift the focus from predicting the impact to understanding drivers of vulnerability; iii) increasingly make use of scenario-based analysis in vulnerability assessment; iv) perceive adaptation as a multi-partner, multi-sector, multi-scale process; and v) look for solutions that are good for both people and nature. In terms of actual progress on the ground, however, most projects are still at the stage of vulnerability assessment and identification of adaptation options. Real operational projects are relatively limited.
Practical, participatory vulnerability assessment frameworks are key
A key to identify and implement adaptation actions is to develop a climate vulnerability assessment framework which is simple, practical, and participatory. The framework should help non-technical persons use available scientific information to formulate a future context under which changing variables that contribute to a community’s vulnerability can be analyzed. Assessment outcomes can then be used to inform key stakeholders and support the mainstreaming of adaptation in community development planning.
Building on existing assessment methodologies, we have tried (and are still trying!) to develop such a framework in the context of the GMS. The assessment framework was tested in selected communities in Lao People’s Democratic Republic (Lao PDR), Thailand and Viet Nam from 2011 to 2012. These communities are located within biodiversity landscapes within each country and represent different livelihood contexts, ranging from upland subsistence agriculture (Lao PDR), to commercially-oriented agriculture (Thailand), to highland agricultural ethnic minorities (Viet Nam). A combination of poverty and reliance on rain-fed agriculture and natural resources make all of them particularly vulnerable to a changing climate.
The pilot assessment identified common elements among adaptation strategies for all of the communities. They are (i) livelihood diversification, (ii) improved land and risk management practices, (iii) financing resources for alternative livelihoods, and (iv) transfer of knowledge to farmers in transition from the reliance on upland rice. In addition, the alignment of forestry and biodiversity conservation policies has great potential to enhance adaptive capacity and promote ecosystem-based adaptation among these communities.
During the rice harvest in Laos. Photo by the author.
Take “no-regret” actions now
We have also gained from the assessment experience several lessons learned, and perhaps some early insights, on methodological issues. First, it seems clear that planning for climate change requires a move away from a “predict-then-act” approach and towards a “no-regret” approach. The latter calls for an understanding of drivers of vulnerability and investments in resilience that would be justifiable under a wide range of climate scenarios or even in the absence of climate change. The “no-regret” approach does not depend on detailed climate projections.
Second, participatory approaches are essential for climate vulnerability assessment at the community level. Participatory tools help fill information gaps and validate a community’s climate and non-climate concerns. Community participation in the assessment process ensures a joint visualization of future scenarios and selection of context-appropriate adaptation options. It will also ensure greater ownership in the implementation of adaptation strategies.
In addition, ecosystem-based and community-based approaches are needed to formulate a climate change adaptation strategy for natural resource dependent communities. Vulnerability assessments in rural communities should not only consider agricultural activities but also the broader ecosystems that support agricultural production and other aspects of community livelihoods. The role that ecosystems and related services play in the livelihoods of rural communities must be analyzed.
All of the findings and recommendations are summarized in the report entitled “Climate Change and Rural Communities in the Greater Mekong Subregion: A Framework for Assessing Vulnerability and Adaptation Options”. We hope that the report will stimulate further discussion among practitioners and researchers to improve the assessment framework as a tool to support climate change adaptation planning in the GMS and beyond.
Ornsaran Pomme Manuamorn coordinates climate change adaptation activities of the GMS Core Environment Program, and is the author of the report “Climate change and rural communities in the GMS: A framework for Assessing Vulnerability and Adaptation Options.”
Comments are closed.