bottom up approaches to v&a assessment: practical considerations

Jakarta – March 2006

Bottom up approaches toV&A assessment:

Practical considerations

Youssef Nassef

Head, Adaptation Sub-programme

UNFCCC Secretariat

[email protected]


Two Types of Frameworks

•Top-down–Impacts, Also known as “first generation”, scenario-based

•Bottom up –Vulnerability, adaptation, “second generation”


Different ways to view the approaches

From Dessai and Hulme, 2004


Another angle for top-down

Climate ChangeScenario

BiophysicalImpacts

Socio-EconomicImpacts

Adaptationsto Impacts

Residual orNet Impacts


..and for bottom-up

FutureAdaptive Capacity

CurrentAdaptiveCapacity

CurrentExposure

FutureExposure

ClimateScience

SocialScience

CurrentVulnerability

FutureVulnerability

CurrentVulnerability


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


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.


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)


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).


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)


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


The NAPA “steps”


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


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.


• 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:


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)


The missing link

• Regional synergy• Documenting indigenous adaptation


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.


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


Screen shots

Searching by hazard


…and by impact


Overview screen


Thank you

bottom up approaches to v&a assessment: practical considerations

Documents