Adapting to Climate Change and Variability through Integrated Vulnerability Assessment

and Planning

Sunil K. Regmi, Man B Biswokarma

and

Judy Oglethorpe

12 January 2015

PRESENTATION OUTLINE

Introduction

Materials and

Methods

Results and

discussion

Lessons and way forward

Introduction • Sustainable development

Catching up growth

• Planetary boundaries:

Climate change, ocean

acidification, land use,

biodiversity loss

• Climate change had

jeopardize the country’s

ambition of graduating to

become a middle income

country by 2022

Source: https://www.coursera.org/learn/sustainabledevelopment1/outline

Materials and Methods

• Study area, and data Collected

• 393 communities with 87,000 HH involved

• 290 adaptation at community level and 30 at VDC level

• Landscape level Vulnerability Assessments: Two landscapes

Vulnerability assessment and adaptation planning methods

Assess vulnerability and resilience at landscape level

Assess the underlying causes of poverty and vulnerability

Climate vulnerability and capacity assessment

Formulation of adaptation plan at community, village development committee levels

Climate change sensitization

Results: Outreach and Hazards

• Extended Outreach: 176,456 persons received climate change related training in the 2 landscapes through TOT approach adapted.

• Climatic Hazards: Flood, Drought, landslide

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Flood Drought Hail Landslide Cold andheat waves

Percentage of respondents (N=73)

Results: Adaptation planning approach and practices

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

UCPVA

Unit selected

Eco and Com Asessment

Local adaptation measures

Alternative adaptation

Prioritization

Service provider Analysis

Integrated planning

Monitoring system

Mainstreaming

Percentage of respondents (N=73)

Results: Prioritized adaptation options and its early effectiveness

Adaptation measures Effectiveness

Flood Construction of green check dams, irrigation channel and plastic ponds, health and sanitation, plantation, early warning system

Protection of crops and livestock,

Drought Promotion of dry land farming with drought resistant agricultural crops and varieties, Multiple use of water,

Availability of water for irrigation and drinking was enhanced

Landslide Land terracing with tree planting in bunds and Bioengineering measures

Loss of human life and damage to property reduced

Source: Field survey, Hariyo Ban, 2014

Results: Best adaptation planning practices

Bottom-up, inclusive, responsive and flexible approaches including top down information sharing.

Process follows participatory and logical steps

Monitoring, reflection and learning

Effectiveness of adaptation activities

Enhancing adaptive capacity

Targeting the most degraded ecosystems and vulnerable communities

Partnership with multiple development partners

Integration into local planning process

Source: Field survey, Hariyo Ban, 2014

Results: Policy gaps • Institutional framework

for adaptation

• Ground realities

• Coordinating body at district level

• Adaptation planning and local government

• Policies on adaptation planning

Learning from integrated adaptation planning

• Solid foundation • Effective in reaching extended

beneficiaries • Targeting on women, poor and

vulnerable effective • High degree of ownership • Requires ability to work across multiple

sectors • Flexibility • Scenario planning • Multiple ecosystem level • Best scientific information needed

Adaptation and development activities may look like development and conservation activity.

Downscaling climate data in Nepal

Adaptation Knowledge gap

Different frameworks on CCA, DRR and EFLG

Policy gaps for adaptation planning

Monitoring adaptation effectiveness

Challenges

Way forward • Enhancing knowledge and skills on

adaptation planning • Mainstreaming of adaptation • Support for making environment

friendly communities • Scaling up adaptation experience • Policy engagement with right holder • Networking of institutions • Monitoring community and ecosystems

resilience building

Acknowledgement • Community members of the selected sites for

sharing their responses

• Related government officials for the support provided

• Members of survey team for collecting field information

• Consortium partners (WWF, CARE, FECOFUN and NTNC) for coordination and full support

This paper is made possible by the generous support of the

American people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The contents of this

presentation are the responsibility of World Wildlife Fund, Inc., and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States

Government.