DECISION SUPPORT FRAMEWORK
Landscape Vulnerability Decision Support Framework Landscape Vulnerability Decision Support Framework This Landscape Vulnerability Decision Support Framework (DSF) has been prepared by the OneWorld Sustainable Investments team on the Transforming Landscapes for Resilience and Development in Northern and Southern Zambia (TRALARD-Zam) project, under the auspices of the Pilot Program for Climate Resilience (PPCR). The PPCR is a targeted program with dedicated multi-donor funding that, in Zambia, has the overall objective of mainstreaming climate resilience into core development planning. This DSF was based on research conducted between October and December 2017. Feedback from participants in the Provincial Participatory Analysis Workshop held 21st-23rd November, 2017 has been incorporated wherever possible. In addition, this document draws on and is supported by the Technical Background Document (TBD), which comprises material developed in the earlier phases of this project and the ‘sister’ Landscape Vulnerability Risk Assessment Baseline project. Finally, this DSF draws on material developed for the Strengthening Climate Resilience in the Kafue Sub-Basin (SCRiKA) project, particularly the Training Manual, which was carried out during 2016.
Citation Petrie, B., Rawlins, J., Tsilik, P., Chapman, A., Kalaba, J. (2018). Transforming Landscapes for Resilience and Development in Northern and Southern Zambia (TRALARD-Zam) Project: Landscape Vulnerability Decision Support Framework. OneWorld Sustainable Investments. Cape Town, South Africa Acknowledgements We would like to thank representatives of the World Bank and the Zambian PPCR Implementation Unit for their support of and inputs to this project. We also thank the participants of the TRALARD-Northern Zambia Provincial Participatory Analysis Workshop, held in Mansa, Luapula Province (21st–23rd November 2017), for their valuable insights and inputs towards this Landscape Vulnerability Decision Support Framework, and the process of its validation. Special thanks to the Reference Group, appointed at the Mansa workshop as representative of the broader group of participants and who have provided inputs and validation of this Framework. We would also like to thank Rob Davies and Tim Wroblewski, habitat INFO, for their valuable technical assistance with Geographic Information Systems (GIS)-based mapping in support of this project. We also thank Morgan Katati for his help with stakeholder facilitation and support.
18 January 2018
COMPILED BY:
OneWorld Sustainable Investments (OneWorld) is a climate and development consultancy and partner based in South Africa and operating across the African continent. OneWorld produces applied research, strategy development, policy analysis, thought leadership and interventions towards resilient development together with its partners and programme beneficiaries. For more information, see www.oneworldgroup.co.za. Disclaimer The development of this material was funded by the World Bank. However, the views expressed do not necessarily reflect the official policies or views of the World Bank or the PPCR. While reasonable efforts have been made to ensure that the contents of this publication are factually correct, the World Bank does not take responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of its contents and shall not be liable for loss or damage that may be occasioned directly or indirectly through the use of, or reliance on, the contents of this publication.
Photographic credits Dania Petrik; Thobeka Poswa; Ninara/Flikr.com; Jonathan Rawlins; Felix Kalaba
Design Peter Bosman ([email protected])
Table of Contents
List of figures, tables and case studies ... iv Abbreviations and Acronyms ... v Introduction ... 1
DECISION STEP 1 Understanding Climate Risk and Vulnerability – Status Quo ... 9
DECISION STEP 2 Strengthening Adaptive Capacity ... 21
DECISION STEP 3 Cause and Effect Pathways... 29
DECISION STEP 4 Identifying Possible Interventions for Climate Resilience ... 35
DECISION STEP 5 Understanding Climate Risk and Vulnerability – Climate Futures ... 43
DECISION STEP 6 Priority Analysis ... 55
DECISION STEP 7 Developing Sustainable Projects ... 63
Glossary of terminology ... 74 Annexures ... 79 Annexures 1 to 6 (provided on Dropbox) 1. Technical Background Document 2. Notes for Facilitators 3. Book of Inputs: Indicators of Exposure 4. Book of Inputs: Indicators of Sensitivity 5. Book of Inputs: Indicators of Adaptive Capacity 6. Indicator weighting tool spreadsheet
References and Bibliography ... 86
DROPBOX DIGITAL REPOSITORY The Annexures are stored online and are accessible via Dropbox at the following URL: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/eks2ek0qwzxylqc/AADkCmtz4mDmVR2Ehpyihs-Ra?dl=0 In addition, Annexure 2, Notes for facilitators, appears at the end of this document.
CONTENTS iii List of Figures List of Tables Fig 0.1 Interlinked Decision Steps of the Decision Table 1.1 Indicators of Exposure ...12 Support Framework ... 3 Table 1.2. Indicators of Sensitivity ... 13 Figure 1.1. A model of the constituents of Table 1.3. Indicators of Adaptive Capacity ... 14 vulnerability, after the IPCC (2007) ... 11 Table 2.1. Types of Indicators of Adaptive Figure 1.2. Northern Zambia Exposure ... 12 Capacity ... 25 Figure 1.3. Northern Zambia Sensitivity ... 13 Table 7.1. Key Elements of Successful Adaptation Figure 1.4. Northern Zambia Adaptive Capacity ... 14 Projects ... 66 Figure 1.5. Northern Zambia Potential Impact ... 15 Figure 1.6. Northern Zambia Vulnerability ... 16 List of Case Studies Figure 2.1. The 1st–to-4th Order Impact Assessment Case study 1.1. Chiengi, Lunga, Mafinga and Senga Framework evaluates the cascading impacts of Hill ... 17 climate change ... 22 Case study 2.1. How gender equality impacts Figure 2.2. 4th-to-1st Order Impact Assessment for adaptive capacity ... 26 the ‘Lights at Night’ Intervention ... 23 Case study 3.1. Mafinga District and forest Figure 2.3. 4th-to-1st Order Impact Assessment of degradation: Applying the 1st-to-4th Order Impact Increased Gender Equality ... 26 Assessment Tool ... 30 Figure 3.1 Outcomes of the 1st-4th Order Impact Case study 4.1. Mafinga District and deforestation: Assessment in Mafinga District ... 30 Interventions for building resilience ... 38 Figure 4.1. Northern Zambia Potential Impact Case study 6.1. Maize and Maladaptation in (problem areas) ... 39 Zambia ...56 Figure 4.2. Template: Table of Interventions ... 41 Case study 6.2. Entry Points in the Zambian Forestry Figure 5.1. Map of 2050 Projected Exposure for Sector: REDD+ Programme ...58 Northern Zambia ... 45 Case study 6.3. Afforestation in Northern Figure 5.2. Map of 2050 Projected Sensitivity for Zambia ... 60 Northern Zambia ... 46 Case study 6.3. Project implementation: the Figure 5.3. Map of 2050 Projected Adaptive Capacity Lukangaba Joint Forest Management Project ... 71 for Northern Zambia ... 47 Figure 5.4. Map of 2050 Projected Potential Impact for Northern Zambia ... 48 Figure 5.5. Map of 2050 Projected Vulnerability for Northern Zambia ... 49 Figure 6.1. Maize vulnerability in the Kafue Sub-Basin ... 57 Figure 6.2. 4th-to-1st Order Intervention Impact Assessment: Afforestation Initiatives ... 60 Figure 7.1. Project Lifecycle or Logframe – key components ... 64 Figure 7.2. The logical flow of a project lifecycle ... 68 Figure 7.3. The Logical Framework (“logframe”) tool ... 71
iv VULNERABILITY DECISION SUPPORT FRAMEWORK Abbreviations and Acronyms
DSF Decision Support Framework ENSO El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) GIS Geographical Information Systems IICCS Interim Inter-Ministerial Climate Change Secretariat IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change JFM Joint Forest Management NAPA National Adaptation Plan of Action NLTV National Long-term Vision 2030 NPCC National Policy on Climate Change NCCRS National Climate Change Response Strategy M&E Monitoring and evaluation REDD+ Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries R&V Risk and Vulnerability SCRiKA Strengthening Climate Resilience in the Kafue Sub-basin project TBD Technical Background Document, supporting TRALARD-Zam Transforming Landscapes for Resilience and Development in Northern and Southern Zambia project UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change VRA Vulnerability and Risk Assessment
LISTS OF FIGURES • TABLES • CASE STUDIES v
vi VULNERABILITY DECISION SUPPORT FRAMEWORK Introduction
The Landscape Considering the rural population and poverty dynamics and reliance on the agriculture and fisheries Vulnerability Decision sector in the Northern Region compared to the rest of Support Framework Zambia, it is likely that social and economic costs of climate change will be higher in the North. This Landscape Vulnerability Decision Support Against this background, the Government of Framework (DSF) provides a systematic and integrated Zambia has identified the importance of incorporating process for making decisions to support climate climate change into development processes. Through resilience in Northern Zambia. The DSF comprises a the current publication, the Government is targeting number of tools, along with guidelines and exercises, the Northern Region, through the lens of landscape that together, constitute the process for making vulnerability. However, climate change is a complex informed, evidence-based decisions. and incomplete science that cannot provide absolute Target audience answers to the questions: This DSF has been written for decision-makers, What sectors and livelihoods are the most vulnerable? policy makers and other stakeholders, including What are the best interventions to mitigate climate communities. The DSF is designed to be used in a change impacts and build resilience? workshop setting and is designed for participatory analysis. Annexure 2 provides Notes for Facilitators This DSF has been developed to provide local with practical support for using and applying the decision-makers and policy-makers, as well as DSF. communities and end-users, with a means to answer these questions themselves, through a cooperative Background learning experience as outlined in this document. The background process and methodology Socio-economic impacts of long-term climate captured here (including activities and information) change and short-term weather variability (including has been developed by the OneWorld team over a extreme events) are projected to be severe for Zambia number of years. The material in this framework as a whole. Economic sectors that largely depend was validated during the three-day Provincial on climate conditions, most notably agriculture, Participatory Analysis Workshop held in Mansa, fisheries and forestry, are increasingly subject to the Luapula Province, from the 21st-23rd of November impacts of climate change (IPCC, 2014). For the 2017. The vulnerability maps included here were most part, impacts of climate change are projected developed under the ‘sister’ Vulnerability and Risk to disproportionately affect rural communities. Assessment (VRA) project.
INTRODUCTION 1 The landscape approach and stakeholder-led decision-making processes are The landscape approach is a framework for making more likely to receive sufficient buy-in and long-term landscape-level conservation and management commitment to projects as they are being implemented decisions. This has arisen in part from an increasing bottom-up and the communal benefits become acceptance that sectoral approaches to land more evident. Thus, it is imperative that a landscape management are insufficient to meet global challenges approach towards environmental management and such as poverty alleviation, biodiversity conservation climate change adaptation facilitates the co-creation and food production. The landscape approach helps of knowledge, co-development of solutions and the to reach decisions about the advisability of identified co-implementation and monitoring of interventions interventions (such as a dam or reforestation across the science-policy-practice interface. activities), and to facilitate the planning, negotiation and implementation of activities across the landscape in a holistic manner. The Technical As such, a Landscape Approach is broadly Background Document defined as a framework to integrate policy and practice for multiple land uses, within a given area, This Decision Support Framework (DSF) is based to ensure equitable and sustainable use of land on and supported by four preceding reports, which while strengthening measures to mitigate and adapt provided the scientific analysis and evidence and the to climate change. Sayer et al. (2012) outline 10 participatory processes that this DSF reflects. These principles for a landscape approach to reconciling documents have been integrated into a Technical competing land uses: Background Document (TBD, Annexure 1), which PP Continual learning and adaptive management accompanies this publication. Occasionally, the PP Entry points of common concern DSF (e.g. in Decision Step 4) requires workshop PP Multiple scales participants to refer to and use the TBD, to further PP Multifunctionality interpret findings or evaluations. PP Multiple stakeholders The TBD is made up of the following components: PP Negotiated and transparent change logic PP Clarification of rights and responsibilities Part A: Biophysical, Socieconomic and Institutional PP Participatory and user-friendly monitoring Context PP Supporting resilience Part B: Landscape Vulnerability Risk Assessment PP Strengthened stakeholder capacity Baseline Part C: Towards a Landscape Vulnerability Decision These ten principles are central to how the DSF Support Framework is developed and applied in terms of a systematic Part D: Comparing Current and Future Landscape and programmatic approach towards climate Vulnerability. change adaptation. However, landscape thinking has traditionally lent itself towards top-down, The TBD can be found in the project dropbox folder: government-led land-use planning and conservation https://www.dropbox.com/sh/eks2ek0qwzxylqc/ (Horn and van der Meijer, 2015). Community-based AADkCmtz4mDmVR2Ehpyihs-Ra?dl=0
2 VULNERABILITY DECISION SUPPORT FRAMEWORK Using the Decision Although the seven steps are distinct from each other, they are integrated, and support each other, as Support Framework: illustrated in Figure 0.1. An Integrated Approach
The Decision Support Framework (DSF) presented 1. Vulnerability here outlines a framework of integrated Decision 7. & Risk 2. Developing Assessment Steps, including various activities and exercises. The Sustainable Adaptive DSF is made up of seven distinct Decision Steps: Projects Capacity Increase Resilience DECISION STEP 1 6. and Adaptive 3. Priority Capacity Cause & Effect Understanding Climate Risk and Analysis Pathways Vulnerability - Status Quo 4. 5. Possible Climate Interventions DECISION STEP 2 Futures Strengthening Adaptive Capacity
DECISION STEP 3 Figure 0.1. Interlinked Decision Steps of the Decision Cause and Effect Pathways Support Framework
DECISION STEP 4 Identifying Possible Interventions for Purpose of the Climate Resilience Decision Support Framework
DECISION STEP 5 The aim of the framework is to provide an instrument to bring government and non-government planners Understanding Climate Risk and alike together, in order to facilitate collaboration Vulnerability – Climate Futures and integration of decision-making. The risk and vulnerability assessment conducted for Northern DECISION STEP 6 Zambia for TRALARD-Zam highlights the Priority Analysis necessity for transformative approaches to managing landscapes. A ‘new normal’ is required in place of
DECISION STEP 7 business as usual modalities and practices. Thus, vulnerability decision-making must be a collective, Developing Sustainable Projects decision-making process that involves stakeholders from different parts of society and from different levels of governance. The framework components for vulnerability decision-making are designed to enable decision- makers to balance competing demands and integrate policies for multiple land uses through the application of landscape level adaptive and resilience options and interventions. Sectoral approaches do not facilitate the level of integration enabled by integrating the mapping layers of exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity, inherent to or absent from a system, to climate change and its impacts. Thus, scenario development,
INTRODUCTION 3 premised by a spatially mapped assessment of risk and How to use the DSF vulnerability is an essential tool for considering how to develop landscape approaches to climate resilient This DSF is designed for use by participants in a development. It is an approach that facilitates the workshop. It is intended to be self-explanatory and identification of pertinent climate and development includes all the background information necessary, responses that holistically meet the multi-faceted along with the supporting information provided via demands of climate resilient landscapes. the project dropbox folder. Some of the exercises The framework components have been developed require you to access the dropbox folder. in line with lessons learnt from previous vulnerability assessment and decision-making processes such as Exercises. Each Decision Step includes at least one the Strengthening Climate Resilience in the Kafue exercise at the end. These are usually based on or draw Sub-basin (SCRiKA) project (Petrie et al., 2016). from the Case Study in the relevant Decision Step. Specifically, these steps and processes include the Times are suggested for activities, however, these importance of considering the requirements for are indicative only. Where we suggest 1.5 hours, it is programmatic/project implementation, financial and possible to spend 3 hours or an entire day, depending technical capacity building, community buy-in and on which aspects the participants or the leader may also the risks of maladaptation. consider important, or other information that arises and feeds into the process. A Stakeholder-led Process You will find the following icons in the exercises, which indicate the type of task suggested. Stakeholder engagement was pivotal to the develop- ment of the DSF as well as how it is intended to Individual task Group activity be used. The purpose of involving stakeholders throughout the entire process, from conception through to implementation, is not only to give Talking Points. Some information given in this book local stakeholders a say in how decisions are made can be used for discussion points with participants. that may affect them. But also, to facilitate cross- These sections are entitled Talking Points. learning and integration of local/indigenous knowledge forms into decision-making processes. Case Studies provide a thematic thread that runs Participatory co-development and implementation through the DSF. With forestry, water and agriculture of this DSF is crucial to ensure stakeholder buy-in being key landscape activities, the case studies focus on to projects aimed at increasing resilience to climate these aspects. The Case Study background appears at change. Stakeholder buy-in is a key characteristic of the end of this Introduction, and related Case Studies successful adaptation interventions around the world appear in each Decision Step. (Conde and Lonsdale, n.d.). An indication of how stakeholders should be Key Concepts and terminology. Key concepts relating engaged is incorporated in all seven of the Decision to the process in the DSF are given at the beginning Steps. The particular importance of stakeholder of each Decision Step. In addition, a glossary of engagement to each Decision Step is also outlined. important terms appears at the end of this book.
4 VULNERABILITY DECISION SUPPORT FRAMEWORK Monitoring of Learning and Decisions What you can expect to get out of Monitoring of learning and decisions is an essential this process and iterative component of effective and transparent decision-making logic. Monitoring and recording of For participants using this DSF, the learning process data throughout the seven Decision Steps will help is an interesting and exciting one. The learning with communicating the evidence base for decision- objectives of the seven Decision Steps include: making, as well as improving future decisions. The PP Understand the elements that contribute towards most important consideration is to build monitoring climate risk and vulnerability, as well as how to procedures into the decision process from the start, so interpret spatial vulnerability maps decisions and learnings at each stage of the process PP Recognise how climate change impacts are linked can be systematically and continuously improved. to human development, specifically through At the end of each Decision Step a paragraph understanding the concept of adaptive capacity headed Monitoring of learning and decisions PP Understand how climate change impacts cascade indicates when to record learning and decisions, through a system through all seven Decision Steps. Key learnings and PP Identify and prioritise potential project decisions made throughout the exercises should be interventions recorded in a separate document. Each description PP Understand projected climate risk and vulnerability should briefly indicate the train of thought that led and use this to inform project interventions to a particular decision or the evidence that supports PP Consider potential trade-offs and maladaptation of a particular learning. It is important to ensure that prioritised interventions these records are made available to others who intend PP Understand the key elements of sustainable to go through the same process. projects and how these can be implemented into It is important to note that this process should project development. join and contribute to a formal monitoring and evaluation process for any intervention or project that The learning process is an iterative one, where you will is implemented as a result of this Decision Support revisit and repeat activities and processes in different Process. In this way, the reasons for why decisions were contexts through the DSF. taken are recorded and can be compared to the results of a particular intervention that resulted from those decisions. This provides evidence for cause and effect throughout the decision and implementation processes.
INTRODUCTION 5 A case study runs through the Decision Support Framework, based on the background information below.
case study 0.1
Key Landscapes and Cross-cutting Features of Northern Zambia The northern region of Zambia is well endowed provision of wetland and lake-related ecosystem with forests, woodlands, natural lakes, rivers, services such as fisheries and water. For example, waterfalls, swamps, wetlands, and national parks – in in Luapula province, fishing is the main source of other words it contains a rich landscape diversity. livelihoods, whereas subsistence agriculture is of Subsistence agriculture, fishing, and exploitation of particular importance in Northern and Muchinga forest resources are the primary means of generating provinces. Northern Zambia is relatively remote economic activity in the three provinces (Luapula, and hence natural resources are heavily relied Northern and Muchinga) that make up this region. upon. Resource degradation for both terrestrial and Unfortunately, socio-economic development ranks aquatic resources is rampant due to unsustainable low and poverty is the norm. Low levels of socio- utilisation of resources. economic development are the reasons for poverty In terms of forest cover, Northern Zambia has a and the explicit reliance on local natural resources. total of 11,139,860 ha of forest contributing a total The strong dependence of local people on natural of 26.5% of the country’s forest cover (GRZ, 2017). In resources make the area particularly vulnerable to this region, Muchinga province has the highest forest the impacts of climate change. cover (i.e. 48.6% of the region’s forest cover). The Climate change impacts will manifest primarily predominant forest types in the northern region is through the water cycle (World Bank, 2016). the Miombo woodlands. The Miombo system forms These impacts on water resources have important a transitional zone between closed rainforests and consequences for the primary means through open semi-arid savannas of southern Africa (Vinya, which people sustain their livelihoods. Forest and 2010). The woodland is rich in plant diversity, with water resources are heavily dependent upon one about 8500 species of higher plants of which 54% are another, for example the afforestation of an upland endemic, making the woodlands one of the world’s catchment may reduce erosion and the impacts of high-biodiversity hotspots (Mittermeier et al., 2003). floods. However, reduced runoff has consequences Zambia’s forest resources are however under threat for downstream water users as well. from deforestation and forest degradation, which Forests provide essential provisioning ecosystem is currently estimated at 276,021 hectares annually. services (e.g. food, fuel, medicines, fodder, Deforestation and degradation has crucial impacts construction material), cultural and spiritual on the local and regional water cycle because benefits and climate regulatory services such as it can lead to decreased groundwater recharge carbon sequestration (Kalaba et al., 2013; Kalaba, and increased runoff and soil erosion. These 2016). The Bengweulu and Mweru lakes and effects further reduce the agricultural potential of associated wetlands are critical to the continued the landscape.
6 VULNERABILITY DECISION SUPPORT FRAMEWORK A note on the case studies used in the DSF
Case studies are integrated throughout this DSF to illustrate relevant examples of key findings from Northern Zambia. An integrated approach towards case study development is taken to illustrate the interconnectivity and interdependencies of various sectors, environments, land-uses and geographic locations. The case studies attempt to focus on the integration of the agriculture, fisheries and forestry sectors in terms of how they impact one another and contribute towards people’s livelihoods. Several key cross-cutting factors such as water, energy, gender equality, infrastructure, capacity development and community awareness are threaded through the entire decision support process. The role of forest and water resources are discussed in greater detail to further highlight the importance of integrated management. The various cross-cutting features are prevalent throughout all these sectors and understanding the biophysical and socio-economic impacts of these factors is key for determining options and responses through different interventions. For example, the water cycle is a crucial component of all three aforementioned key sectors and in terms of direct contributions towards livelihoods. However, water impacts these factors differently. Water may play a destructive role in flooding circumstances, but also an important geomorphological and ecological role in terms of sediment and nutrient transfer. Ultimately, these landscape level impacts require a landscape approach if we are to develop projects to increase resilience to climate change.
INTRODUCTION 7
8 VULNERABILITY DECISION SUPPORT FRAMEWORK 1. Vulnerability 7. & Risk Developing Assessment 2. Sustainable Adaptive Projects Capacity Increase Resilience 6. and Adaptive 3. Priority Capacity Cause & Effect decision step 1 Analysis Pathways
4. 5. Possible Climate Interventions Understanding Climate Futures Vulnerability and Risk – Status Quo
Introduction context of the area involved, so we will look at this The first Decision Step has two key aspects. Firstly, too. The second part of this Decision Step involves we look at climate vulnerability, and its constituents: using Geographical Information Systems (GIS) maps exposure, sensitivity, potential impact and adaptive to assess the underlying indicators and drivers of capacity. Understanding vulnerability includes taking vulnerability. This is done through participatory analysis into account the landscapes and socio-economic with stakeholders, to validate and supplement findings.
key concepts
Adaptive Capacity Risk The combination of the strengths, attributes, and The potential for consequences where something of resources available to an individual, community, value is at stake and where the outcome is uncertain, society, or organisation that can be used to prepare recognising the diversity of values. Risk is often for and undertake actions to reduce adverse impacts, represented as the probability of occurrence of moderate harm, or exploit beneficial opportunities hazardous events or trends, multiplied by the impacts (IPCC, 2012: 556). if these events or trends occur. Risk results from the interaction of vulnerability, exposure, and hazard. In Climate resilience this report, the term risk is used primarily to refer to The ability of a system and its components to the risks of climate-change impacts (IPCC, 2012: 1772). anticipate, absorb, accommodate or recover from the effects of a hazardous event in a timely and efficient Sensitivity manner. This includes ensuring the preservation, The degree to which a particular system is affected by restoration or improvement of the system’s essential the impacts of climate change and variability. basic structures and functions (IPCC, 2012: 563). Vulnerability Exposure The propensity or predisposition to be adversely The presence (location) of people, livelihoods, affected. Such predisposition constitutes an internal environmental services and resources, infrastructure, characteristic of the affected element. In the field or economic, social, or cultural assets in places that of disaster risk, this includes the characteristics of a could be adversely affected by physical events and person or group and their situation that influences which, thereby, are subject to potential future harm, their capacity to anticipate, cope with, resist, and loss, or damage (Lavell et al., 2012: 32). recover from the adverse effects of physical events (Wisner et al., 2004 in Lavell et al., 2012: 32).
DECISION STEP 1: UNDERSTANDING VULNERABILITY AND RISK 9 key information
SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND LIVELIHOOD CONTEXT OF THE NORTHERN REGION
Throughout Zambia, the agriculture, forestry and to safe drinking water, while only about half of rural fishing industries account for the highest proportion of households did (CSO, 2015). Inequalities in access to water employment, at 60% in rural areas and 33% in urban areas and sanitation are strong indicators of underdevelopment (CSO, 2015). The Northern Region is particularly reliant on and rural poverty. Such inequalities are most evident in this sector as it constitutes a large percentage of employed the Northern Region as only 31%, 53% and 40% of rural persons in both rural and urban areas (Luapula: 73%, and urban people have access to safe drinking water in Muchinga: 53% and Northern Province: 51%). Agriculture Northern, Luapula and Muchinga Provinces respectively. in this area is predominantly rain-fed, and the rural Underemployment is also a significant issue in Zambia. infrastructure and natural resource systems that support In the Northern Region, Luapula Province has the highest these activities are understood to be amongst the most underemployment levels in the country. With this, vulnerable to climate change in Zambia. Recent declines opportunities for economic diversification are low across in the per capita fish catches in key water bodies in the the Northern Region, further challenged by a mismatch Northern Region (Bangweulu Wetlands, Lake Mweru, Lake between skills supply and industry demands. Mweru Wantipa and Lake Tanganyika) (DOF, 2015) further indicate the relatively high levels of dependence on this The Northern Region is well endowed with forests, sector and its vulnerability. woodlands, natural lakes, rivers, waterfalls, swamps, wetlands, and national parks that remain in largely pristine For the most part, socio-economic development ranks condition. The extremely high dependence of the majority low and poverty is the norm in the Northern Region. Land of the population on the ecosystem services provided use changes and increased population have restricted by the natural landscape highlights the importance of and limited the ability to engage in varied cultivation and maintaining these flows and stocks of essential services, livelihood activities. This has knock-on effects for poverty, most notably in the agriculture, forestry and wildlife food insecurity and adaptive capacity. The majority of the sectors. However, this strong dependence brings about Northern Region’s employed population works in the the challenge of balancing socio-economic development informal sector (Luapula: 94%, Muchinga: 88%, Northern and livelihood improvements with sustainable natural Province: 93%) (CSO, 2015). Informal employment is resource management. Both of these objectives are key characterised by relatively low earnings, productivity, to reducing vulnerability and risk. Hence, it is critical capital investment and levels of technology, thus, offering to adopt a landscape approach towards managing key limited prospects for improving standards of living and vulnerabilities to climate change in the short- and opportunities for alternate livelihoods. long-term, to ensure that achieving these objectives is balanced, equitable and efficient, and informed by a In 2015, almost 90% of urban households had access robust scientific evidence base.
Talking points be short-lived (such as flash floods). Interventions require a focus on the most affected areas based on » Climate vulnerability: exposure + sensitivity, their vulnerabilities, taking into account divergent coupled with adaptive capacity climates, land uses and natural resources, and local To assess the vulnerability of a system or landscape, social and economic systems of an area. A systemic we need to understand the exposure of all aspects approach helps us to investigate vulnerability and of the system to externally imposed stresses and determine the context-specific drivers. shocks. Stresses tend to be chronic, while shocks may Assessing vulnerability includes measuring the
10 VULNERABILITY DECISION SUPPORT FRAMEWORK exposure of the system to the risk factors; and measuring the system’s sensitivity to these factors. Exposure and sensitivity together comprise the Exposure VULNERABILITY potential impact of such risks on an outcome. The potential impact is combined with the capacity of the system/sector/group to resist, manage and respond to those impacts. This capacity is referred to as adaptive Adaptive capacity. Together, the degree of impact and level of capacity adaptive capacity provide a measure of vulnerability. This approach is adapted from the Intergovernmental Sensitivity Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment Potential Report, 2007 (see Figure 1.1). If we want to alter the impact picture of vulnerability in the future, focusing on the adaptive capacity component of the model is essential. Figure 1.1. A model of the constituents of vulnerability, This is explored further in Decision Step 2. after the IPCC (2007)
key information
USING SPATIAL MAPPING TO ASSESS VULNERABILITY
Vulnerability mapping is a spatial modelling process that What the map colours tell us combines variables of exposure and sensitivity to give a The maps have a graduated colour scheme, from blue to red, picture of climate-related impacts. This complex process for each component of vulnerability. Overall, darker blue uses Geographical Information Systems (GIS) and involves indicates a relatively positive situation (i.e. low vulnerability), combining many indicators, including biophysical, whilst darker red indicates a relatively negative situation (i.e. biological and socio-economic factors, into one index, high vulnerability). For expsoure, sensitivity, potential impact and applying different weightings. The final indicators can and vulnerability, blue indicates lower scores than red. be shown as a map, with colours used to show relative However, for adaptive capacity, red indicates lower scores exposure, sensitivity, adaptive capacity, impacts and (and thus lower adaptive capacity) and vice versa for blue. vulnerability. The indicators used in the maps in the next few pages are illustrated in the relevant Books of Inputs, in Stakeholders are key Annexures 3, 4 and 5. Although spatial mapping is extremely useful in assessing patterns of climate risk and vulnerability, this methodology How the weighting works does not and cannot provide a complete and perfectly The weightings used for each indicator are outlined in the reliable measure. This is partly because climate impacts Books of Inputs. The indicators are weighted in a range of (and other factors) are variable by nature and change over *1 (lowest) to *3 (highest), as follows (and in the same order time. Data sources are not always complete. of priority): 1. The importance of the indicators in the context of For the above reasons, it is critical for stakeholders to climate change; validate the findings of the spatial mapping and provide 2. The confidence held in the accuracy of each indicator input in terms of their lived experience in the areas under dataset and the extent to which it truly represents the question. Moreover, stakeholders are central in validating detailed geographical distribution of the dataset in maps and informing the narrative that accompanies question, and; them. In this way, the additional value is that stakeholders 3. The level of spatial resolution of the indicator dataset. engage with and take ownership of the mapping process, empowering them to buy into and drive the results and follow-up steps.
DECISION STEP 1: UNDERSTANDING VULNERABILITY AND RISK 11 key information
CLIMATE VULNERABILITY AND RISK TO LANDSCAPES IN THE NORTHERN REGION OF ZAMBIA
1. Exposure are highly exposed to climate hazards. The indicator layers in the Exposure to climate variation is primarily a function of geography. Book of Inputs (Annexure 3) show that the El Niño anomaly is the For example, communities situated close to a river or in low-lying primary driver of exposure in these areas. Thus, these districts across areas will have higher exposure to flooding, while communities in Muchinga and Northern provinces are considered to be particularly semi-arid areas may be most exposed to drought. drought-prone. Most of the three provinces are however also exposed, but to a lesser degree. Table 1.1 shows the indicators that contribute to exposure to climate variation in the Northern Region. These indicators include rainfall Lavushimanda and Mpika districts in Muchinga province show high variability, frequency of fires, droughts and floods, and other exposure to the climate hazards of variability in inter- and intra- climate-related factors. Each indicator is given a different weighting, seasonal rainfall. Elsewhere, in the districts of Lunga in Luapula as explained earlier. When these datasets are applied, in layers, they province and Chinsali in Muchinga province, livelihoods are heavily provide a composite analysis of exposure to climate variation in exposed to flooding. These are low-lying riparian and seasonal Northern Zambia. wetland regions.
Figure 1.2 shows a composite analysis from overlaying the datasets In eastern Mansa and Lunga districts in Luapula province, climate underpinning the indicators of exposure (shown in Table 1.1) to hazards are registered at higher levels, partly because this is a lower- climate variation in Northern Zambia. From this map, it is evident lying region, but in this case enhanced by a higher fire frequency, that the districts of Nakonde, Senga Hill, Mungwi and Chama related to human influences.
Figure 1.2. Northern NorthernZambia Exposure Zambia Risk & Vulnerability Analysis
Chiengi Exposure Nsama Mbeya Kaputa Mpulungu Mbala Table 1.1 Indicators of Exposure
Nchelenge Senga Hill INDICATOR WEIGHTING Mporokoso Nakonde Rainfall Variability 13 November 20173 Northern Mwansabombwe Kawambwa Lunte District El Niño Anomaly 3 Mungwi Legend Luapula Isoka Fire Frequency towns 2 Kasama administration districts Chinsali Mafinga NorthernFlood Frequency Zambia provinces 3 Chipili Luwingu Kasama Mwense Risk & Vulnerability Analysis major lakes La Niña Flooding wetlands 3 Drought Index rivers 1 Chiengi Exposure exposure Chilubi Shiwamg'andu Nsama Mbeya Value Mansa High : 83 Kaputa Mansa Mpulungu Mbala Chama Muchinga Low : 38 Nchelenge Samfya Lunga Senga KanchibiyaHill Mporokoso Nakonde 13 November 2017 Chembe
Milengi Northern Mwansabombwe Kawambwa Lunte District Mpika Mungwi Legend Luapula Isoka towns Kasama administration districts Lavushimanda Chinsali Mafinga ("inputs\E_elnino_anomaly"provinces * 3) + ("inputs\E_firefreq" * 2) + Chipili Luwingu Kasama ("inputs\E_floodfreq_r" * 3) + ("inputs\E_lanina_floodanomaly" * 3) + Mwense ("inputs\E_max2methcv"major lakes * 1) + ("inputs\E_spi" * 1) + Ndola ("inputs\E_tamsat_cvrain"wetlands * 3) rivers exposure Chilubi Shiwamg'andu Value Mansa High : 83 Mansa Chama 0 62.5 125 250 MuchingaKilometers Chipata Low : 38 Samfya Lunga Kanchibiya
Chembe
Milengi Mpika
Lavushimanda ("inputs\E_elnino_anomaly" * 3) + ("inputs\E_firefreq" * 2) + 12 VULNERABILITY DECISION SUPPORT FRAMEWORK("inputs\E_floodfreq_r" * 3) + ("inputs\E_lanina_floodanomaly" * 3) + ("inputs\E_max2methcv" * 1) + ("inputs\E_spi" * 1) + Ndola ("inputs\E_tamsat_cvrain" * 3)
0 62.5 125 250 Kilometers Chipata key information
2. Sensitivity valley. This includes the districts of Isoka, Chinsali, Shiwamg’andu, Sensitivity is the degree to which a given community or ecosystem is Chama, Mpika and Lavusihmanda, in Muchinga Province. likely to be affected by climatic stresses. For example, a community dependent on rain-fed agriculture is much more sensitive to Along the northern border, Mpulungu, Mbala and Senga Hill changing rainfall patterns than one where mining is the dominant districts along the edge of Lake Tanganyika and Nakonde, soil livelihood. Likewise, a fragile, arid or semi-arid ecosystem will be moisture is limited as a result of thin soils, very steep slopes and more sensitive than a tropical one to a decrease in rainfall, due to human-induced degradation with higher population densities. the subsequent impact on water flows (IPCC, 2007). The rate of loss of natural forest is very high in north-western Luapula. Table 1.2 shows the indicators of sensitivity in the Northern region, The Book of Inputs (Annexure 4) illustrates that deforestation largely which include factors such as rainfall, the availability of food and follows the road, indicating charcoal-making and sales as a cash- soil moisture, the degree of forest loss and other factors related to generating practice. Patches of higher forest loss occur in many productivity. other districts to a lesser extent – Luwingu, Chilubi, Mporokoso and Senga Hill as well as in Isoka, Kanchibiya and Lavushimanda Figure 1.3 shows a composite analysis from overlaying the datasets districts. underpinning the indicators of sensitivity (shown in Table 1.2) to climate variation in Northern Zambia. The map clearly displays the Overgrazing or other utilisation of Net Primary Productivity (NPP) area of high sensitivity that runs from north-east to south-west. occurs especially along the northern border, with overgrazing This area correlates strongly with the plateau edge feature and or ongoing clearing of land in Mpulungu, Mbala and Senga Hill, escarpment, from the Kasama high ground to the Luangwa River Nakonde and Samfiya, Chiengi and Nchelenge.
Figure 1.3. NorthernNorthern Zambia Sensitivity Zambia Risk & Vulnerability Analysis Table 1.2. Indicators of Sensitivity
Chiengi Sensitivity Nsama Mbeya INDICATOR WEIGHTING Mpulungu Mbala Kaputa Food availability 2 Nchelenge Senga Hill Easily Available Soil 3 Mporokoso Nakonde Moisture 13 November 2017 Northern Mwansabombwe Kawambwa Lunte District Forest Loss 2 Mungwi Legend Luapula Isoka Length of Growing towns 1 Kasama Period administration districts Chinsali Mafinga Northern Zambia provinces Chipili Luwingu Kasama Mwense Risk & VulnerabilityNet Primary Analysis Productivitymajor lakes 1 wetlands Per Capita Rainfall rivers 1 Chiengi Sensitivity sensitivity Nsama Chilubi Shiwamg'andu Mbeya Population Density 1 Value Mansa High : 79 Kaputa Mansa Mpulungu Mbala Chama Agricultural Land Muchinga Low : 25 Nchelenge Samfya Hillslope 1 Lunga SengaKanchibiya Hill Mporokoso Nakonde People13 November in water 2017 stress 1 Chembe
Milengi Northern Mwansabombwe Kawambwa Lunte District Mpika Mungwi Legend Luapula Isoka towns Kasama administration districts LavushimandaChinsali Mafinga ("inputs\S_app_NPP"provinces * 2) + ("inputs\S_avail_soilM" * 3) +( Chipili Luwingu Kasama Mwense "inputs\s_forestloss10km"major lakes * 2) + ("inputs\S_growperiod" * 1) + ("inputs\S_mlppnow" * 1) + ("inputs\S_npp" * 1) + Ndola ("inputs\S_popd_agric"wetlands * 1) + ("inputs\S_slope_reclass" * 1) + ("inputs\S_water_str"rivers * 1) sensitivity Chilubi Shiwamg'andu Value Mansa High : 79 Mansa 0 62.5 125 250 Chama MuchingaKilometers Chipata Low : 25 Samfya Lunga Kanchibiya
Chembe
Milengi Mpika
Lavushimanda ("inputs\S_app_NPP" * 2) + ("inputs\S_avail_soilM" * 3) +( "inputs\s_forestloss10km" * 2) + ("inputs\S_growperiod" * 1) + ("inputs\S_mlppnow" * 1) + ("inputs\S_npp" * 1) + Ndola ("inputs\S_popd_agric" * 1) + ("inputs\S_slope_reclass" * 1) + DECISION STEP 1: UNDERSTANDING("inputs\S_water_str" * 1) VULNERABILITY AND RISK 13
0 62.5 125 250 Kilometers Chipata key information
3. Adaptive Capacity of access to public health care and formal employment, shorter Adaptive capacity is broadly defined by the availability of systems distances to the electricity grid and a greater proportion of the and infrastructure that support alternative livelihoods, human health area has access to lights at night. The same pattern is evident for and welfare. The underlying indicators and their impacts on adaptive other developed urban areas, such as the towns of Mansa and capacity are explored more closely in Decision Step 2. Chinsali.
Table 1.3 shows the indicators of adaptive capacity applied to the Chiengi, Kaputa, Nsama, Mpulungu, Mbala and Senga Hill Northern Region (although also relevant to all of Zambia). These districts show relatively low levels of adaptive capacity. This is include socio-economic factors such as access to healthcare, level of because they are somewhat remote from urban areas and have few education, access to safe water, gender equality, and the distance of accessible supporting services, higher disease burdens, and poor the area from urban centres. communications and transport infrastructure. Luwingu, Chilubi, Samfya, Lunga, Kanchibiya, parts of Lavushimanda, Mpika and Figure 1.4 shows a composite analysis from overlaying the datasets Chama districts have low adaptive capacity because they are also underpinning the indicators of adaptive capacity (shown in Table remote and experience poor access to education and to safe water. 1.2) to climate variation in Northern Zambia. The Kasama area These districts also show low levels of economic activity, low levels reflects relatively high levels of adaptive capacity. The Bookof of literacy, moderate to high rates of infant mortality, poor access Inputs (Annexure 5) shows for example that, as an urban area, the to healthcare, low levels of gender equality and high levels of town of Kasama (and surrounding area) has relatively higher levels unemployment.
Figure 1.4. Northern Zambia Adaptive Capacity Table 1.3. Indicators of Adaptive Capacity
INDICATOR WEIGHTING Northern Zambia AccessRisk to Safe& Vulnerability Water Analysis3 Distance to Electricity 2
Chiengi Grid Adaptive Capacity Nsama Mbeya Education 3 Kaputa Mpulungu Mbala Employment Rate 3 Nchelenge Senga Hill Mporokoso Nakonde Gender Equality Index9 December 20172
Northern Healthcare Access 3 Mwansabombwe Kawambwa Lunte District Mungwi Legend Luapula Isoka Household Wealth Index 3 towns Kasama Infant Mortalityadministration districts 3 Chinsali Mafinga provinces Chipili Luwingu Kasama Literacy 3 Mwense Northernwetlands Zambia Lights at Nightadapt capacity new weights3 Risk & VulnerabilityValue Analysis Orphans Rate High : 264 3 Shiwamg'andu Chilubi Low : 124 Mansa Chiengi Mansa Chama TravelAdaptive Time to Capacity Cities 3 Nsama Muchinga Mbeya Kaputa SamfyaMpulungu Mbala Tsetse Fly Prevalence 2 Lunga Kanchibiya Nchelenge Discharge Rate of Rivers 3 Chembe Senga Hill Mporokoso Nakonde Malaria9 Prevalence December 2017 3 Milengi Mpika Northern Mwansabombwe Kawambwa Lunte District Luapula Mungwi Legend Lavushimanda Isoka distancetowns to electricity grid * 2 + education * 3 + employment rate * 3 + Kasama genderequalityadministration * 2 + access districts to healthcare * 2 + iinfant mortality * 3 + literacy * 3 + malaria * 2 + night lights * 3 + orphans rate * 3 + access to Chinsali Mafinga provinces Chipili Ndola Luwingu Kasama safe water * 3 + traveltime to city * 3 + tsetse * 2 + water discharge rate Mwense * 2) + householdwetlands wealth score * 3 adapt capacity new weights Value High : 264 Chilubi Shiwamg'andu 0 62.5 125 250 Chipata Low : 124 Mansa Kilometers Mansa Chama Muchinga Samfya Lunga Kanchibiya
Chembe
Milengi Mpika
Lavushimanda distance to electricity grid * 2 + education * 3 + employment rate * 3 + genderequality * 2 + access to healthcare * 2 + iinfant mortality * 3 + VULNERABILITY DECISION SUPPORT FRAMEWORKliteracy * 3 + malaria * 2 + night lights * 3 + orphans rate * 3 + access to Ndola14 safe water * 3 + traveltime to city * 3 + tsetse * 2 + water discharge rate * 2) + household wealth score * 3
0 62.5 125 250 Chipata Kilometers key information
4. Potential Impact The key driver, or indicator, of exposure in the north-eastern area, An analysis of the exposure and the sensitivity category layers particularly in the districts of Isoka and Mafinga, is variation in annual underpins the assessment of the problem areas, or areas of highest rainfall from the mean. Furthermore, the elevated areas in this linear impact in Northern Zambia. This is derived from a formula of pattern are exposed to La Niña-related flooding. The key driver of exposure multiplied by sensitivity, indicating that potential impact sensitivity is the availability of soil moisture. This is evident from is a function of exposure and sensitivity. The potential impact map the highly visible NE-SW trending area of high impact. This area appears in Figure 1.5. correlates strongly with the plateau edge feature and escarpment from the Kasama high ground to the Luangwa River valley. Impact in Northern Zambia is dominated by areas along the north- east border, which are also areas of higher exposure, as shown in Forest loss appears to be another strong sensitivity indicator driving Figure 1.2. The impact area also reflects a linear pattern from north- impact. This is evident along the northern border from Mbala to east to south-west. Mafinga districts, on the western border from Chiengi through to Mwense district, and in Samfya and Lunga districts.
Figure 1.5. Northern Zambia Potential Impact
Northern Zambia Risk & Vulnerability Analysis
Chiengi Problem areas (impact) Nsama Mbeya
Kaputa Mpulungu Mbala
Nchelenge Senga Hill Mporokoso Nakonde 13 November 2017
Northern Mwansabombwe Kawambwa Lunte District Mungwi Legend Luapula Isoka towns Kasama Northern Zambia administration districts Chinsali Mafinga provinces Chipili Luwingu Kasama Mwense Risk & Vulnerability Analysis major lakes wetlands rivers Chiengi Problem areas (impact) problem areas Nsama Chilubi Shiwamg'anduMbeya Value Mansa Mbala High : 5395 Kaputa Mansa Mpulungu Chama Muchinga Low : 1288 Nchelenge Samfya Senga Hill Lunga Kanchibiya Mporokoso Nakonde 13 November 2017 Chembe Northern Mwansabombwe Kawambwa Lunte DistrictMilengi Mpika Mungwi Legend Luapula Isoka towns Kasama administration districts LavushimandaChinsali Mafinga exposureprovinces * sensitivity Chipili Luwingu Kasama Mwense major lakes wetlands Ndola rivers problem areas Chilubi Shiwamg'andu Value Mansa High : 5395 Mansa Chama 0 62.5 125 250 MuchingaKilometers Chipata Low : 1288 Samfya Lunga Kanchibiya
Chembe
Milengi Mpika
Lavushimanda exposure * sensitivity
Ndola
0 62.5 125 250 Kilometers Chipata
DECISION STEP 1: UNDERSTANDING VULNERABILITY AND RISK 15 5. Vulnerability The assessment of vulnerability is based on an analysis of Figure 1.6. The map shows relative levels of vulnerability to the impact and adaptive capacity layers. For this, we use climate change in Northern Zambia, highlighting areas to a formula of impact divided by adaptive capacity, thus focus on to reduce vulnerability, as well as those that are vulnerability is a function of exposure and adaptive capacity. worth protecting or preserving to maintain the status quo The vulnerability map – or ‘hotspots’ map – is shown in into the future.
Figure 1.6. NorthernNorthern Zambia Zambia VulnerabilityRisk & Vulnerability Analysis
Chiengi Hotspots Nsama Mbeya
Kaputa Mpulungu Mbala
Nchelenge Senga Hill Mporokoso Nakonde 9 December 2017
Northern Mwansabombwe Kawambwa Lunte District Mungwi Legend Luapula Isoka towns Kasama administration districts Chinsali Mafinga Northern Zambiaprovinces Chipili Luwingu Kasama Mwense Risk & Vulnerability Analysismajor lakes wetlands rivers Chiengi Hotspotshotspots new weights Chilubi Shiwamg'andu Nsama Mbeya Value Mansa High : 31.3247 Kaputa Mansa Mpulungu Mbala Chama Muchinga Low : 6.28293 Nchelenge Samfya Lunga SengaKanchibiya Hill Mporokoso Nakonde 9 December 2017 Chembe
Milengi Northern Mwansabombwe Kawambwa Lunte District Mpika Mungwi Legend Luapula Isoka towns Kasama administration districts Lavushimanda Chinsali Mafinga problem provincesareas / adaptive capacity Chipili Luwingu Kasama Mwense major lakes Ndola wetlands rivers hotspots new weights Chilubi Shiwamg'andu Value Mansa High : 31.3247 Mansa 0 62.5 125 250 Chama Kilometers Muchinga Chipata Low : 6.28293 Samfya Lunga Kanchibiya
Chembe
Milengi Mpika CHOOSING PROJECT AREAS (EXAMPLE) For the TRALARD-Zam analysis conducted for Northern that will be critical to preserve. Furthermore, the reliance on Lavushimanda Zambia, the districts of Chiengi, Lunga, Senga Hill and fisheries-basedproblem areas livelihoods / adaptive capacity in the area is particularly high.
Ndola Mafinga were chosen for the more detailed vulnerability This aspect needed to be explored in more detail though assessment and exploration of options and responses. The participatory analysis, because at that stage of the project, exploration of options and responses was done through the vulnerability mapping had not yet fully captured the 0 62.5 stakeholder125 participatory250 analysis. These districts were predominantly fisheries-based livelihoods. Furthermore, Kilometers Chipata selected for this exercise for their relatively high vulnerability it was important to consider areas of relatively lower (apart from Lunga), in their respective provinces. vulnerability, to give a better understanding of the complex Although Lunga displays significant vulnerabilities (high interactions between the drivers of vulnerability. exposure and low adaptive capacity), this district was In addition, Lunga and Senga Hill are newly formed selected as a regional – and national – area of economic districts, previously part of Samfya and Mbala Districts and environmental interest. This is because of the proximity respectively. Thus, underlying datasets had to be spatially of the Bangweulu Wetlands, an important wetland area disaggregated to account for these changes.
16 VULNERABILITY DECISION SUPPORT FRAMEWORK case study 1.1
Chiengi, Lunga, Mafinga and Senga Hill
Water and forest resources are key cross-cutting moderately high levels of sensitivity, moderate features of vulnerability in the Northern Region levels of adaptive capacity and, ultimately, high of Zambia, exemplified through the underlying vulnerability. This high vulnerability is primarily exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity drivers driven by significant rainfall variability, prevalent in the districts of Chiengi, Lunga, Mafinga and drought conditions, high flood risks, low soil Senga Hill. moisture, steep slopes, low levels of access to safe Chiengi exhibits low levels of exposure and water, large distances to the electricity grid and sensitivity, yet very low levels of adaptive capacity, cities, low household wealth, poor infrastructure which results in moderate to high levels of development and low surface water availability. vulnerability. The low adaptive capacity is driven Forest resources are key to livelihoods in these by numerous factors such as a high average four districts for different reasons. Fishing is a distance to the electricity grid, low levels of primary livelihood activity in Chiengi and Lunga, education, low levels of household wealth, low where wood and charcoal are used to cure fish levels of infrastructure development (identified and build canoes. Subsistence agriculture is the through the proxy measure of ‘lights at night’), key livelihood activity in Mafinga and Senga Hill. low levels of access to safe water, moderately high Slash and burn agriculture (locally referred to as levels of Tsetse Fly incidence and notably poor Chitemene farming) is widely practised in these road access. districts. This, and the overexploitation of timber Lunga demonstrates moderately high exposure, forest products, are the key drivers of deforestation low sensitivity and low adaptive capacity. Overall and degradation. Forest resources are significantly vulnerability is neutral, indicating that the low depleted in Lunga, to the extent where people are sensitivity to climate change is significant enough forced to travel to the mainland to gather woodfuel to counter the high exposure and low adaptive products. capacity. The indicators of sensitivity are primarily Water resources and forestry resources are closely related to agricultural potential; hence, the low related in terms of their contribution towards local sensitivity score is primarily driven by high levels livelihoods. The regionally important water bodies of easily available soil moisture, relatively low of Lake Mweru and the Bangweulu Wetlands, levels of forest loss and gentle slopes. provide essential ecosystem services to Chiengi and Senga Hill shows moderately high levels of Lunga respectively. However, the development of exposure and sensitivity and moderately low fisheries is driving localised deforestation. levels of adaptive capacity. This results in high Mafinga and Senga Hill have steep slopes which vulnerability to climate change. These indicators are prone to soil erosion after heavy rainfalls, are primarily driven by the low per capita rainfall, resulting in many areas having poorly leached soils low soil moisture availability, encroachment and poor productivity. Forest reserves, such as of deforestation near the border, low access Mafinga Hills, serve as important water catchment to safe water, large distances to cities and the areas that provide vital ecosystem services, such as electricity grid, low levels of household wealth the reduction of runoff and erosion. These forest and education, poor infrastructure development areas are key for improving soil moisture, fertility and high rainfall variability. and ground water recharge, and reducing the Mafinga exhibits high levels of exposure, impact of flooding and erosion.
DECISION STEP 1: UNDERSTANDING VULNERABILITY AND RISK 17 Decision Step 2 Exercise Understanding adaptive capacity (1.5 hours)
Decision Step 1 Exercises Exercise 1.1: Step 1: Working individually, look back at the Exposure, Sensitivity, and Adaptive Capacity GIS maps (1.5 hours) layers (maps) in the previous pages. Study Background these in conjunction with the Impact and Interpreting the Risk and Vulnerability maps Vulnerability layers, to determine the four or five key locations requiring investment, or the GIS maps, in this case on vulnerability and risk key areas of vulnerability, in Northern Zambia. to climate change, are a tool and guideline for Apply the criteria/parameters outlined in the understanding what is going on in a given geography, Key Information Box below. system or landscape. They help us to understand – and interrogate – what to protect, what to restore key information and where to prioritise adaptation and resilience building responses. DECISION PARAMETERS Because a river basin, country or sub region is (CRITERIA) FOR CHOOSING mapped (in this case three provinces in Northern VULNERABLE AREAS Zambia), the results of mapping the layers of exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity – as well as impact and vulnerability – are relative. This means for example When choosing highly vulnerable areas, or areas that exposure in one location is displayed as a result deserving preservation, it is useful to use certain that is relative to that of another in the same mapped criteria, or decision parameters. Although the selection area. This, combined with the usual data challenges is guided by the mapping results, the goal is to make that accompany any scientific analysis of this nature, refined decisions that are justifiable. The following means that the maps are imperfect, although useful. decision parameters/criteria, among others dictated by Interpretation and own analysis is therefore critical local circumstances, provide a guide for this exercise:
when using the maps as a decision support tool. Identify the level of exposure, sensitivity and More than anything, interpreting the maps places the adaptive capacity of the areas of highest and decision-maker in a position of being able to defend lowest vulnerability emerging from the high impact decisions or answer simple questions from stakeholders. (problem area) and vulnerability maps. What the maps show us Consider factors such as population density and socio-economic activity in the areas identified in The maps displayed in this section and related the maps as highly vulnerable, or of relatively low information, or indicators in the Books of Inputs for vulnerability. (For example, the vulnerability maps exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity (Annexures show the catchment border in Muchinga province, 3–5), show us which areas in Northern Zambia are displayed as a red belt stretching north-east from more exposed than others, have higher sensitivity than Lavushimanda to Isoka, as being an area of very others and have lower adaptive capacity than others. high vulnerability. However, closer examination The maps and indicators also show us, in the composite shows that this is partly due to steep terrain. As impact and vulnerability maps, which areas are the a result, population density is low and farming most impacted and vulnerable to climate change. activities few.) However, because an area emerges as being highly Consider issues that the spatial mapping data does vulnerable, does not automatically mean that this is not reflect, such as in-migration to fishing areas where the greatest portion of investments should be during season, or cross-border migration due to made. Local knowledge and insight must also come political factors. into play, in order to validate our decisions.
18 VULNERABILITY DECISION SUPPORT FRAMEWORK Step 2: Motivate your decisions by listing the The Mansa workshop included participatory analysis reasons for selecting these areas. (Which of the maps, particularly of the weightings applied in criteria did you use? Why?) the Adaptive Capacity layer. Here, participants were asked to review the weightings attributed by the Step 3: Try to persuade the group about your project team to the different indicators in this layer, decision, and to reach a consensus with the and to re-assign weightings, with justification, where group. appropriate. The indicators that participants selected as being relatively more important to their respective Step 4: Evaluate the responses given by your districts and provinces included malaria, river flows group. Did they agree or disagree with your and access to healthcare. position? Were their thoughts and ideas far Experimenting with relative weightings of the from yours? Would you change your position indicators of exposure, sensitivity and adaptive given the discussion? Re-evaluate your choices capacity help us understand relative vulnerabilities of and be prepared to justify them. the districts, as well as the underlying aspect(s) that are driving the vulnerability. It is important to note Step 5: Present your choice to your group again that vulnerability and its underlying components and justify your position. Explain why you did can vary significantly within districts, thus, a finer or did not change your position. spatial resolution is required to most effectively prioritise investment. Nevertheless, this analysis gives Exercise 1.2: important information about key drivers of landscape Weighting exercise (1 hour) vulnerabilities and is an important point of departure.
Interpreting Risk and Vulnerability Step 1: Begin a participatory discussion around the indicators that contribute to exposure, Assessments sensitivity and adaptive capacity. The indicators and associated weightings can be viewed in the The underlying principle to interpreting any risk and Books of Inputs and the interactive weighting vulnerability (R&V) assessment is to understand what tool spreadsheet. The discussion should focus indicators are incorporated into the assessment and on building consensus around the weightings how key vulnerabilities and drivers can be identified. (1, 2 or 3) for each indicator, taking local Interactive vulnerability tool: The project team conditions into consideration. designed a vulnerability weighting tool for the interactive use of workshop participants in the Mansa Workshop. This allowed the participants to change the Monitoring of learning and weightings of different indicators at district level, and decisions simultaneously see the effect on exposure, sensitivity, adaptive capacity and overall vulnerability. The Record your group’s learning and decisions, as interactive weighting tool spreadsheet for exposure, discussed in the Introduction. Include your choices sensitivity and adaptive capacity can be found in of locations for investment, and explain briefly Annexure 6. how your group reached this conclusion. Note any additional important points, and say whether this process was useful and why.
DECISION STEP 1: UNDERSTANDING VULNERABILITY AND RISK 19
20 VULNERABILITY DECISION SUPPORT FRAMEWORK 1. Vulnerability 7. & Risk 2. Developing Assessment Sustainable Adaptive Projects Capacity Increase Resilience 6. and Adaptive 3. Priority Capacity Cause & Effect decision step 2 Analysis Pathways
4. 5. Possible Climate Interventions Strengthening Futures Adaptive Capacity
key concepts
Adaptive Capacity exacerbate, or alleviate and cushion, the impacts of The ability of a system to adapt to or respond to climate change. climate impacts (made up of exposure and sensitivity – see Decision Step 1). This ability to respond depends 1st-to-4th Order Impact Assessment Framework on and is mostly defined by socioeconomic factors A graphic framework or tool developed by OneWorld, including health and education, and factors such as used as a method of examining the flow-through proximity to urban areas, and to the electricity grid. from climate effects, to various types of impacts: These factors can help to support climate responses ecosystem, socio-economic, and livelihood impacts such as livelihood diversification. Furthermore, (see Figure 2.1). The Framework is used to identify adaptive capacity can be altered, which implies that potential interventions that can support climate human choices, decisions and behaviour can either resilience.
What have we learnt and where are we going?
Decision Step 1 introduced the key aspects that Decision Step 2 focuses on adaptive capacity (see make up vulnerability to climate change: exposure, Key Concepts above), which is all about the potential sensitivity, potential impact and adaptive capacity. We to improve resilience to climate impacts by improving saw how the various sets of indicators from the Books socio-economic or development factors. We begin of Inputs created the layers of the vulnerability maps, with an explanation of the 1st-to-4th Order Framework and saw that each indicator was given a weighting, and the various indicators of adaptive capacity, according to its importance, accuracy and spatial introduced in Decision Step 1. A case study illustrates resolution. the importance of understanding the role of adaptive Reflection: Before you begin Decision Step 2, capacity in building resilience to climate change. think about your main learnings from the exercises Finally, the 1st-to-4th Order Framework is applied in and work you did in Decision Step 1. Discuss your reverse to illustrate how a socioeconomic factor, such thoughts with a fellow participant or colleague. as gender equality, impacts vulnerability to climate change through improved adaptive capacity.
DECISIONDECISION STEP 2: STEPSTRENGTHENING 3: CAUSE AND ADAPTIVE EFFECT PATHWAYS CAPACITY 21 st th The 1 -to-4 Order Impact PP the resulting physical and chemical processes in the physical and biotic environment (2nd order) Assessment Framework PP the resulting ecosystem services and production rd st th potential (3 order), and Understanding the 1 -to-4 Order PP the resultant social and economic conditions (4th Framework order).
Climate impacts flow through the elements or levels Feedbacks exist between the levels of impacts, or of a system, as shown in Figure 2.1. The 1st-to-4th ‘orders’ (Petrie et al., 2015). (In the diagram, feedbacks Order Framework developed by OneWorld makes it are shown as arrows moving upwards on the left.) possible to assess the impacts of climate change on These feedbacks happen mostly as a result of 4th Order other components in a system or geography (Petrie et occurrences, that impact for example on ecosystem al., 2015). This process highlights where vulnerability services or productivity levels (3rd Order). However, is concentrated and what the drivers of vulnerability 4th Order occurrences or interventions can even create are. From this we can identify the elements of feedback impacts higher up in the model. resilience – and ultimately, priority responses (Petrie Feedback into the system can be positive. For et al., 2015). instance, if public healthcare access improves (4th The st1 -to-4th Order Framework is a method of Order), people are healthier. This could increase examining the flow-through from climate effects, to agricultural productivity or improve land management, ecosystem, socio-economic, and livelihood impacts. In yielding greater food security and higher incomes (3rd some cases, there are also feedbacks into the system, Order). Using the same example, negative feedback as explained below (Petrie et al., 2015). This view of into the system would take place if there was an cause-and-effect pathways is particularly suited to increased burden of disease, which then impacted on application in areas with common biophysical and agricultural productivity. socio-economic systems and drivers. The tool allows Thus, at appropriate points in the decision-making us to clarify the linkages between: process, it can be useful to reverse the 1st-to-4th Order PP basic climate parameters (1st order) Framework, and do a 4th-to-1st Order Assessment.
Figure 2.1. The 1st-to-4th Order Impact Assessment 1st order impacts: Basic climatic parameters 1st Framework evaluates the eg. temperature, rainfall order cascading impacts of climate change
2nd order impacts: Physical and chemical nd processes in physical and biotic environments, 2 including soil and water resources order
3rd order impacts: Ecosystem services, agricultural rd productivity, crop and livestock health 3 order
4th order impacts: Human health, livelihoods, th poverty, coping strategies, conflict, vulnerable people, 4 interaction with drivers of change, macro economy order
22 VULNERABILITY DECISION SUPPORT FRAMEWORK Using the 4th-to-1st-Order socio-economic systems. Each area that is considered Framework to assess interventions to be highly vulnerable, has a unique range of impacts and risks (see the vulnerability maps and Exercise 1 Here, using a 4th-to-1st Order Framework, we work in Decision Step 1). These impacts and risks influence backwards from a desired impact or intervention our choice of the most appropriate responses to build (4th Order) and analyse how the consequent flow- resilience. They also affect how we identify where through or feedbacks can result in positive (or adaptive capacity needs to be strengthened the most. negative) outcomes of this change. Note that working However, as shown in Decision Step 1, the maps backwards through the framework does not utilise the require interpretation and thoughtful application definitions of the four orders shown in Figure 2.1, but in the decision-making process. The next exercise rather utilises the logic of cascading impacts. You will prompts us to examine adaptive capacity as a core see how this works yourself in the exercise later in this driver of vulnerability, more thoroughly. decision step. Figure 2.2 is an example of a 4th-to-1st Order We will see how making – and enforcing – ‘business Impact Assessment, using an example developed in as usual’ decisions at the 4th Order level (i.e. in the the TRALARD Mansa workshop. socio-economic sub-system), can impact on higher The Mansa workshop carried out an assessment of levels. An example of such a 4th Order business unusual an intervention related to infrastructure development, intervention in a rural area would be investing in locally to introduce solar powered street lighting (Figure managed, decentralised water resource management 2.2). This investment would lead to an increase in solutions, such as small-scale water storage facilities ‘Lights at Night’ (explained in Table 2.1) in the 3rd that also mitigate flood risk. (The ‘business as usual’ order. The participants identified subsequent impacts intervention would be extending the centralised water in the 2nd and 1st orders that show several potentially resource supply and distribution infrastructure.) positive and negative impacts of the intervention. The research and analysis for this project has In Figure 2.2, up arrows indicate an increase in the shown that climate impacts have varying effects on factor; down arrows a decrease. different parts of the Northern Region of Zambia, An example of a knock-on impact, as a result of primarily because of the variety of landscapes and increased street lighting, is that available business
Figure 2.2. 4th-to-1st Order th Impact Assessment for the Solar Energy Street Lights 4 ‘Lights at Night’ Intervention order
rd Lights at Night 3 order
Security Available business hours 2nd Available Study Hours order Urbanisation & In-migration
Income & Employment Investment (Business Opportunities) Housing and Land Value/Cost 1st Crime and Illegal Activity order Demand on natural resources and infrastructure Charcoal/Firewood demand
DECISIONDECISION STEP 2: STEPSTRENGTHENING 3: CAUSE AND ADAPTIVE EFFECT PATHWAYS CAPACITY 23 hours will increase because informal and formal average household income and levels of employment, businesses have the opportunity to trade into the ultimately providing more opportunities for night. Increased business activity will increase investment and alternative livelihoods.
key information
WHY ADAPTIVE CAPACITY IS KEY
The IPCC construct of vulnerability, applied in Decision both validated and adapted the project vulnerability Step 1 (figure 1.1) shows us that climate vulnerability assessment during the TRALARD Mansa Workshop experienced in a system or society is a function of both allowed the consultants to capture shared local knowledge the physical exposure to climate impacts (exposure and and insights, and incorporate these into the maps and sensitivity) and its ability to adapt to these new conditions vulnerability analysis. Although this was important for the or impacts (adaptive capacity). In this way, the construct scientific reasons outlined below, it emerged that itwas of climate vulnerability locates the role of socioeconomic much more important for participants to interrogate the systems as one of amplifying, or moderating the impacts various indicators of adaptive capacity – particularly those of climate change (Downing, 1991). This greatly emphasises that are less obvious to the user or decision-maker’s eye. the extent to which human decisions and behaviour can Participatory analysis of adaptive capacity indicators is also either worsen the physical impacts of climate change – to important because these indicators, and particularly how the point of realising catastrophic outcomes – or cushion they are weighted, present the most uncertainty within the impacts through altering development priorities that are vulnerability model. It is therefore helpful to the analyst well within the reach of populations at risk. and/or decision-maker, to work with participants through It is for this reason that Decision Step 2 is all about the decision-making process, on the derivation and deepening our understanding of adaptive capacity – which weighting of indicators for adaptive capacity. is fully comprised of development indicators – so that we It is evident that adaptive capacity is the most important can work toward a new normal – or ‘business unusual’ component of vulnerability in terms of the accuracy of the approach to climate compatible development. vulnerability mapping and developing sustainable projects Thus, understanding what contributes to adaptive – and particularly in terms of deepening understanding of capacity is key to reducing climate change vulnerability how important adaptive capacity is to reducing risk and and risk. The discussion and participatory analysis that vulnerability to climate change.
Understanding indicators of adaptive capacity
The various indicators of adaptive capacity are well- night, and; iii) access to safe water. The subsequent known indicators of development. Understanding participatory analysis exercise focused on these, these indicators is critical to understanding how resulting in three case studies. These are available climate change impacts on livelihoods and economies, in the report Towards a Landscape Vulnerability as well as what interventions could potentially have Decision Support Tool, a supplementary report to the largest impact. The participatory analysis that this document. took place around the relevance and weighting of Table 2.1 shows the main indicators of adaptive specific adaptive capacity indicators (as in Exercise capacity, as illustrated in Decision Step 1. The 1.2, Decision Step 1) during the TRALARD Mansa table also shows how each improving indicator can workshop prioritised three cross-cutting indicators contribute towards resilience to climate change. (Note for deeper analysis. The choice of these indicators that the types of indicators of adaptive capacity are was widely disputed in terms of their contribution partly dependent on the availability of such different to adaptive capacity: i) gender equality; ii) lights at types of data.)
24 VULNERABILITY DECISION SUPPORT FRAMEWORK Table 2.1. Types of Indicators of Adaptive Capacity
HEALTH INDICATORS COMMUNITY-BASED INFRASTRUCTURE ACCESSIBILITY OF SOCIOECONOMIC INDICATORS ECOSYSTEM SERVICES INDICATORS PP Access to Safe Water - PP Education - a higher PP Distance to Electricity Grid PP Discharge Rate of Rivers reduces the burden of education supports - the shorter the distance – relating to the overall disease and improves adaptation more, as from the grid, the better wetness of the landscape; overall health individuals are more likely for people; people closer a higher discharge rate is to be able to adopt an to the grid can more easily supportive of adaptation PP Access to Healthcare - lower levels of healthcare alternative livelihood improve their access to – meaning that there is electricity and associated sufficient water in the access result in higher PP Employment Rate - people disease burdens and who are employed need livelihood benefits environment to buffer dry periods, and to support travel costs not rely on a precarious PP Lights at Night - livelihood and can support indicating greater livelihoods PP Infant Mortality - an indicator of the quality others levels of infrastructure development to allow and effectiveness of PP Gender Equality - higher health services. Improved levels of gender equality human business activity health services tend support adaptation, as that extends beyond the to lead to healthier benefits and risks are limits set by daylight populations and better spread more widely than in PP Travel Time to Cities - an adaptive capacity a strongly unequal system indicator of remoteness; among individuals and very remote areas are less PP Household Wealth Index communities - wealthier households are able to adapt to changes or maintain supporting PP Orphans Rate - indicating more likely to adapt better the healthiness of and faster as they have services such as education communities and the access to more resources and health general burden of and can absorb shocks disease; communities PP Literacy - the higher with heavy disease the level of literacy, the burdens are less better for the spread of economically active or information, and for the physically productive ability to engage in multiple PP Malaria Prevalence – high livelihood activities rates of malaria decrease productivity and increase the burden of household healthcare costs PP Tsetse Fly Prevalence - these flies are vectors of trypanosomes which cause human sleeping sickness and animal trypanosomiasis. Farming and animal husbandry become more difficult in regions with tsetse fly presence, with resulting disease burden in humans and animals
DECISIONDECISION STEP 2: STEPSTRENGTHENING 3: CAUSE AND ADAPTIVE EFFECT PATHWAYS CAPACITY 25 Tools for decision-makers and of the less tangible drivers of climate vulnerability stakeholders – or those drivers that are less obvious because they are not automatically perceived to be about climate Stakeholder workshop participants in Zambia change. and across Africa, have found the 1st-to-4th (and These less obvious drivers include socio-economic 4th-to-1st) Order Framework to be very useful, as and community based development factors such as well as interesting to work with. Working with the education and literacy, gender equality and access to Framework helps to deepen the understanding of public healthcare (among others). A key aspect of climate change, and vulnerability risk and impacts these drivers is that communities and socio-economic within communities, and for decision-makers and systems are central to broader ecological, geographical stakeholders. Particularly, it helps to raise awareness and bio-physical systems.
case study 2.1
How gender equality impacts adaptive capacity The most highly disputed indicator during the early part of to a much greater cushioning of climate change impacts. the Mansa workshop was gender equality. This case study therefore illustrates a 4th-to-1st Order impact assessment Improved gender equality in the form of equal sharing of for gender equality. This begins from the desired impact or household workloads and associated benefits and risks, intervention and flows through the resulting outcomes of leads to numerous benefits, as shown in the st1 and 2nd orders changing the level of gender equality in a socio-economic (Figure 2.3). These benefits include, but are not limited to, system in the Northern Zambian context. increased agricultural productivity, hygiene, education and opportunities for livelihood diversification. These impacts Figure 2.3 shows the example developed in the Mansa ultimately result in improved health and household income, workshop of how increasing community awareness of as well as a decreased reliance on natural resources. These gender roles, and how increasing the gender equality positive outcomes contribute towards improved adaptive target, can lead not only to improved gender equality, but capacity and lower vulnerability to climate change.
Figure 2.3. th st th 4 -to-1 Order Community Awareness 4 Impact Assessment order of Increased Gender Equality
rd Gender Equality 3 order
Agricultural productivity Opportunity for livelihood diversification 2nd Hygiene order Education
Pressure on natural resource base st Health ( disease burden) 1 Household wealth/income ( poverty) order
26 VULNERABILITY DECISION SUPPORT FRAMEWORK Decision Step 2 Exercise the indicator and climate resilience? Or was Exercise 2.1: it because some participants did not value Understanding adaptive capacity the indicator as important, while others did? Was it both? (1.5 hours) PP List the challenging indicators and document the reasons. As discussed earlier, in terms of climate change vulnerability, adaptive capacity is the most important Step 2: From the step 1 outcomes, identify component to consider because it is the variable the top 2 or 3 priority indicators of adaptive which human interventions can influence most. In capacity that require further analysis. Split your addition, the indicators of adaptive capacity give rise group into 2 or 3 smaller groups, so that each to the most uncertainty for the vulnerability model. group deals with one of these indicators. Make Getting a grasp of the importance of adaptive sure that there is a good mixture of participants capacity and how different indicators of adaptive in each group (for example participants from capacity contribute towards resilience is key to different disciplines, geographies, etc.). any decision-making process that involves climate PP Discuss and explain the concept of the resilience or climate compatible development. This 4th-to-1st Order impact assessment and the is best done through participatory analysis and exercise, ensuring that everyone in the group stakeholder processes. understands. This activity builds off of Exercises 1.1 and 1.2 in Decision Step 1. It takes us through a further Step 3: Each group selects a chair and spokes- process of interrogating the maps and vulnerability person. The chair facilitates the th4 -to-1st order analysis, while also helping us to clarify how different impact assessment and surrounding discussion interventions can improve adaptive capacity – and thus (Case Study 2.1 provides an example of a 4th- reduce vulnerability. The purpose of this exercise is to to-1st order impact assessment). Allow different understand the causal pathways between the indicators voices and opinions to be expressed. of adaptive capacity and changes in resilience, as seen in the gender equality case study. It also helps us see Step 4: Lastly, get one member of each group how improved gender equality, at the 4th order level, to report back your findings in plenary. Hold can improve agricultural productivity and increase a last discussion around the importance of livelihood diversification (2nd Order) and thus reduce adaptive capacity indicators and different pressure on the natural resource base (1st Order). interventions that might be able to improve such indicators. Resources: Flipchart and markers
Step 1: In your group, go back to the discussion Monitoring of learning and and outcomes of Exercise 1.2, where you decisions considered which indicators of adaptive capacity may need to be re-weighted in Record your group’s learning and decisions, as accordance with local circumstances. discussed in the Introduction. Include your final PP Which were the most widely disputed 4th-to-1st Order Assessment and explain briefly indicators in that discussion? That is, which how your group finalised it. Note any additional indicators gave rise to the greatest debate or important points, and say whether this process was controversy in your group? useful and why. PP What were the reasons for the debates or controversy? For example was it because participants struggled to see the link between
DECISIONDECISION STEP 2: STEPSTRENGTHENING 3: CAUSE AND ADAPTIVE EFFECT PATHWAYS CAPACITY 27
28 VULNERABILITY DECISION SUPPORT FRAMEWORK 1. Vulnerability 7. & Risk 2. Developing Assessment Sustainable Adaptive Projects Capacity Increase Resilience 6. and Adaptive 3. Priority Capacity Cause & Effect decision step 3 Analysis Pathways
4. 5. Possible Climate Interventions Cause and effect Futures pathways
key concepts
Cause and effect pathways El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) The pathways of the impacts of climate change, as This is a periodic irregular climate event that takes they move through a system. The 1st-to-4th Order place in the Eastern Pacific Ocean, which mostly Impact Assessment Framework is a useful way to involves changes in wind and precipitation. It affects track the path that these occurrences take in a large tropical and sub-tropical areas across the world, system. including in Africa.
What have we learnt and where we are going?
In Decision Step 2, you looked closely at adaptive 4. Why is adaptive capacity the one aspect of climate capacity, and how changing the weighting of the vulnerability that we have some control over, and indicators changes the level of vulnerability – and can potentially change? How does changing the hence can change the colouring of the vulnerability weighting of the adaptive capacity indicators maps. You also saw how the 1st-to-4th Order Impact affect the vulnerability maps? Assessment Tool maps climate impacts through 5. Did your views change on the importance of a system. Before you start Decision Step 3, try to socioeconomic factors linked to adaptive capacity answer these questions for yourself, then compare while working on Decision Step 2? If so, how did your answers with another workshop participant. they change? 1. What exactly is adaptive capacity? Think of three examples of low adaptive capacity that affect your Decision Step 3 is all about how climate change own area, community or district. impacts – or causes – flow through a system, impacting 2. Why does adaptive capacity matter, in terms of at different levels and ultimately affecting people’s climate change? livelihoods. A case study from Mafinga illustrates 3. How could the aspects of adaptive capacity that this clearly. You will carry out a 1st-to-4th Order you identified in question 1 be strengthened? Impact Assessment yourself, to see how this works. Think of three specific examples. This is an important step in creating the platform for identifying and prioritising interventions to improve climate resilience.
DECISION STEP 3: CAUSE AND EFFECT PATHWAYS 29
case study 3.1
Mafinga District and forest degradation: Applying the 1st-to-4th Order Impact Assessment Tool The OneWorld-habitat INFO study carried out for drought conditions, combined with high flood risks. this project shows that Mafinga District exhibits a Figure 3.1 below shows the 1st-to-4th Order Impact high level of climate-related vulnerability. This is Assessment for Mafinga as a district, with heavy rainfall mainly driven by significant rainfall variability and and drought considered as the primary climatic risks.
1st Order: Climatic change Figure 3.1 Outcomes of the 1st-to-4th Order Impact • Increasing temperatures are a feature of the region. • ENSO combines with climate change, to cause significant variation Assessment in Mafinga District in precipitation. 1st • In particular, this results in increased frequency and intensity of droughts. order • In addition, the equatorial climate is subject to intense convection storms and very heavy rainfalls – and floods – on occasion.
2nd Order: Physiobiological impacts • Seasonal ‘flash floods’ combined with drying of grasslands and 2nd increased rates of evapotranspiration, increase soil erosion and runoff. • Higher risk of forest fires. order
3rd Order: Ecosystem, agriculture, livestock impacts • Deforestation levels are very high because of slash and burn agriculture and other practices. • Wood is a key cross-border trading product and charcoal is an improtant source of livelihoods, particularly when crops fail (drought and flood related). • Heavy rainfalls destroy crops and damage roads, reducing agricultural production and access to markets and healthcare. rd • Soils are good in the low lying areas, giving higher potential for production. 3 • Upland soils are of low inherent fertility, exacerbated by thin soils and increased run off, order which removes important soil nutrients. • Animal diseases increase, including Foot and Mouth, as cattle move around during droughts and floods, and with higher humidity. • Deforestation and subsequent erosion are the most serious problems, and the district is exhibiting dangerous levels of land degradation.
4th Order: Human health, livelihoods, poverty impacts • Reduced agricultural productivity leads to further deforestation as a source of livelihoods. • The consequent loss of forest cover reduces wood and charcoal as a source of livelihoods, endangering both landscapes and livelihoods: landscapes are becoming dangerously degraded; livelihoods are severely compromised. • Reduced animal health leads to loss of livestock/ livestock productivity. Increased malnutrition in humans results from increased food insecurity, which further increases the burden of disease (HIV, malaria, schistosomiasis). th • With significant effects of deforestation, communities are displaced and increasingly controlled 4 by the terrain – which in turn is compromised. order • Significant loss of biomass and biodiversity results from extensive deforestation, notably for sale of Mukula hardwood trees, mainly to China. • Alternative livelihood options are reducing significantly, worsened by decreasing available soil moisture and increasing erosion. • Decreased food security exacerbates the already high burden of disease. • Combined with heat waves, human and animal productivity decreases, ultimately leading to lower household wealth and greater poverty.
Continued »
30 VULNERABILITY DECISION SUPPORT FRAMEWORK
Mafinga Case Study
Mafinga district lies at high altitude in the Mafinga Furthermore, Mafinga’s population does not have mountains, which are part of the Muchinga a high level of access to safe water – a function of escarpment. It is a highly forested area with high the discharge rate of rivers which is compromised levels of biodiversity. The district is an important by the deforestation of important, supporting water catchment area for the Muchinga province catchment areas. and the whole of the northern region of Zambia. It is therefore very clear that the livelihoods of Climate impacts in this region are primarily caused local communities are negatively impacted by by significant variation in precipitation, resulting climatic and human-induced changes to landscapes in heavy rainfalls and occasional droughts. in Mafinga. Furthermore, heavy rainfalls inhibit Significant variability in precipitation is the transport, reducing access to markets for agricultural cause of floods experienced in the rainy season as production. Unpaved roads are impassable or a result of heavy rainfall. This is problematic for a difficult to travel during the rainy season and district like Mafinga, which has very high rates of particularly during floods. This means poor market deforestation driven by slash and burn agriculture, access for agricultural production. Livelihoods are illegal logging and high demand for wood fuel. In mostly small-scale farming for subsistence. turn, this increases soil erosion, especially around Forests, which are reducing in area, are important slopes where illegal cutting down of trees, notably for food and nutritional security of local peoples. Mukula (among other species), is rampant. Deforestation and forest degradation causes a Mafinga does not have a diversity of available reduction in forest-related income at household livelihood options and this exerts pressure on level, due to the loss of mushrooms and other forests which are currently the main source of seasonal forest products. Forests are also important livelihood. Low precipitation – with droughts and in helping households cope with household stresses corresponding temperature variations, further and shocks. Deforestation and forest degradation affects tree growth and functioning of ecosystems. reduces resilience and erodes local people’s This increases the occurrences of crop failure coping and adaptive capacity to climate change. (especially maize, the primary staple). The resultant This is because of further reduction in agricultural pressure on forests for charcoal as a source of productivity resulting from the loss of important income (due to loss of income from agriculture) soil nutrients. is therefore even greater. Reduction in forest cover Overall, the destruction of water catchment areas reduces river flows and water quality due to the in Mafinga has disturbed ecosystems and their destruction of the water catchment area. ability to provide ecosystem services and to protect Consequently, much of the district has water catchment areas. We have seen, in this district, been substantially deforested. The removal how deforestation and forest degradation can of forest cover exposes the soil to agents of trigger changes in ecosystem productivity, resulting erosion, increasing water run-off. This washes in negative impacts on ecological processes and away important soil nutrients and reduces soil function. Human and animal health (e.g. bilharzia) fertility. Flooding significantly impacts on water is problematic in the area, with cholera occurring supply and sanitation, with knock-on effects for occasionally, and malaria being prevalent in the human health, for example diarrhoeal diseases. entire region.
DECISION STEP 3: CAUSE AND EFFECT PATHWAYS 31 The 1st-to-4th Order Assessment: A tool for stakeholders and decision-makers
As we have seen, the 1st-to-4th Order Assessment Tool is all about understanding climate impacts as they work through a system. Stakeholder workshop participants find this tool to be extremely useful, as well as fun and interesting to work with. (This is possibly partly because a community is a system itself, and the Tool provides a different perspective of the factors impacting on the community.) The Tool helps to deepen the understanding of climate change vulnerability risk and impacts within communities and amongst decision-makers and stakeholders. It can also help to raise awareness in your own community or stakeholder group. Overall, this process creates the platform to engage with evidence about how climate change impacts livelihoods. Decision Step 3 Exercise Exercise 3.1: Identifying climate impacts with the 1st-to-4th Order Impact Assessment Tool (1.5 hours)
Resources: For each group: A flip chart or A0 pages (about 4 pages per group); markers Step 2: Now you will do the same analysis for a system chosen with your group. With Step 1: Work in a small group. Choose your group, decide on a system that you want a chairperson for the session, as well as a to analyse. The system could be, for example, spokesperson (rapporteur), who will give your your district or ward, or the area in which your group’s feedback to Plenary. Refer to the 1st- community lives and works. to-4th Order Assessment for Mafinga district, Redraw the 1st-to-4th Order Assessment in Figure 3.1, then discuss the answers to the Framework in Figure 3.1, on flip chart paper following questions: (or copy the templates on the next page onto a. What are the main climate changes in the flipchart paper). Write the title/heading of Mafinga district? each Order on a different page (i.e. Page 1: b. What impact or impacts in the 2nd Order does 1st Order: Climatic change. Page 2: 2nd Order: each 1st Order climatic change cause? (You Physiobiological impacts, and so on). Make can use the flipchart to map how this works.) one Order per sheet. c. What impact or impacts in the 3rd Order Using the 1st Order templates/pages, identify does each 2nd Order impact cause? the 1st Order climate parameters that exist in d. What impacts in the 4th Order does each your system. 2nd Order impact cause? Which of these are the most problematic, and why?
32 VULNERABILITY DECISION SUPPORT FRAMEWORK 1st Order Impacts: 2nd Order Impacts: 3rd (e.g. increased Order Impacts: 4th rainfall variability) (e.g. shorter growing Order Impacts: … … … … season) … … … … (e.g. reduced yield)
… … … … (e.g. increased food insecurity) … … … …
Step 3: As a group, complete the 1st-to-4th Monitoring of learning and Order Impact Assessment, by identifying the decisions impacts of the 1st Order climate parameters as they flow through the system, step by step, for Record your group’s learning and decisions, as each order or level. Think about biophysical, discussed in the Introduction. Include your final sector and socio-economic impacts across the 1st-to-4th Order Assessment and explain briefly system. Make sure to capture any feedback how your group finalised it. Note any additional loops, where they exist. important points, and say whether this process was useful and why. Step 4: Present your findings to the plenary. Be prepared to answer questions and respond to comments or evaluations.
Step 5: Return to your small group. Compare your 1st-to-4th Order Assessment with those from the other groups. What is different? What is the same? Together discuss whether your Assessment has now changed as a result of the discussion in plenary. Make any changes you think are important to your Assessment.
Step 6: As a group, briefly discuss the process you have just gone through, of analysing the climate impacts through a system. Did the process work? Was it helpful? Why?
DECISION STEP 3: CAUSE AND EFFECT PATHWAYS 33
34 VULNERABILITY DECISION SUPPORT FRAMEWORK 1. Vulnerability 7. & Risk 2. Developing Assessment Sustainable Adaptive Projects Capacity Increase Resilience 6. and Adaptive 3. Priority Capacity Cause & Effect decision step 4 Analysis Pathways
4. 5. Possible Climate Interventions Identifying Futures Possible Interventions for Climate Resilience
key concepts
Entry points and may involve policy. Institutions may be national, A policy, social, institutional and/or environmental provincial or district level. outcome that provides an opportunity to implement a desired intervention. Various impacts that cascade Social action through a system can reveal a series of entry points Social action is decision-making at a livelihood and/ for different interventions. or community level. A variety of drivers can lead to social action, for example livestock or crop losses Institutional action may lead a farmer to seek alternative livelihoods. This refers to action at a public institutional level
What have we learnt and where are we going?
In Decision Step 3 you engaged with the cause and 1. Did your group agree with other groups on the effect pathways that are associated with climate various impacts at different levels of the cause and change impacts; that is, how climate impacts lead effect pathway? If you disagreed, what did you to consequences for socio-economic and livelihood disagree on? systems. You particularly considered how climate 2. Were there any surprises or unexpected findings impacts cascade through a system where deforested revealed by the exercise and if so, how were these and degraded landscapes interact with climate change resolved? impacts to further destroy important landscape 3. How do climate impacts affect existing levels of systems. Before you begin Decision Step 4, reflect adaptive capacity? Think of two or three examples on the learning from examining cause and effect of the cause and effect pathways of climate change pathways, by answering these questions for yourself. on aspects of adaptive capacity and socio-economic Discuss your ideas with another decision-maker or systems that you know affect your area of work, workshop participant. community or district.
DECISION STEP 4: INTERVENTIONS FOR CLIMATE RESILIENCE 35 4. In your socioeconomic system, where are the climate resilience. It paves the way for prioritising impacts of climate change felt the most? Think of interventions or investments at Decision Step 6 (once three specific examples. we have factored in future climate changes – Decision 5. How do you think these three significant cause- Step 5 – into our understanding of vulnerability). and-effect pathways could be changed through To identify possible interventions, we go back to the human intervention or policy/community cause and effect pathways and identify the levels at decisions? Outline two or three specific examples. which our possible interventions will make the most 6. Thinking back to the maps in Decision Step sense – in other words, which level of intervention 1, did your views change on the importance of will result in the greatest impact? In this context, the socioeconomic factors linked to climate change greatest impact of investment equals greatly reduced impacts while working on Decision Step 3? If so, vulnerability. Decision Step 4 builds on the Mafinga how did they change? case study in Decision Step 3. In this way, and using the Mafinga example, we will identify both the policy Decision Step 4 guides you through a process of interventions and community-based actions that we identifying possible interventions, that necessitate think will reduce vulnerability the most. social action and/or institutional action, for building Entry points for interventions
As you know, climate impacts cascade through a system intent, is a deliberate system of principles that to create negative consequences for ecosystems and guides actions and decisions. Policies are usually socio-economic systems. You worked with this in the implemented by designated institutions. Where cause and effect pathways, 1st-to-4th Order Impact policy intends to guide populations, these are usually Assessment Tool in Decision Step 3. This cascade made and implemented by public governance, or of impacts acts as a series of entry points for policy, government institutions. These institutions can be institution and social interventions. These entry points national, provincial, or district level. For example, a require household-level decisions, policy, incentives government may enact a law that aims or intends to and implementing mechanisms. This means that the improve forest management (e.g. through Zambia’s decision-maker, whether at a social or institutional level, National Forest Act, 2015) and/or a policy to reduce needs to see the costs and benefits of taking certain decisions. deforestation and degradation (e.g. Zambia’s Reduced Particularly, these decision-makers need to understand Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation the consequences of business-as-usual decisions versus Strategy of 2015 – REDD+). The designated the consequences of taking decisions that build climate implementation institution in both examples is resilience. For example, a household that loses its crop the Forestry Department of the Ministry of Lands, (or livestock) in a drought, needs to weigh up the cost Natural Resources and Environmental Protection and benefit of a business-as-usual response. This means, (MLNREP), which has national, provincial and for example, weighing up the cost of producing charcoal district representation. to make up lost income, against the costs of further deforestation, such as loss of ecosystem services which Social action (or decision-making further reduce agricultural productivity in the long term. at a livelihood level) These issues will be further examined in decision steps 6 and 7; however, it is helpful at this point to understand Social action is the community or household level what entry points are, and how to identify them. at which decisions are made. These decisions may be driven by policy, or institutional action, but are Institutional action (or policy mostly driven by immediate socio-economic needs enactment and/or enforcement) – regardless of what policy dictates. For example, a farmer that loses livestock or a crop due to severe This is the public institutional level at which drought, may decide to either increase his or her business-as-usual, or climate resilience-building existing charcoal production, or move into it, as an decisions are made. A policy, or statement of alternate source of cash or income. Depending on
36 VULNERABILITY DECISION SUPPORT FRAMEWORK the extent of income loss or food insecurity resulting possible in cases of growing poverty and is particularly from the loss, this farmer may move into charcoal prevalent in rural areas where diversification options production at risk of contravening government are relatively few, and where policy enforcement is regulations, where these exist. This situation is very typically low.
key information
THE POLICY FRAMEWORK AND INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS IN ZAMBIA
For climate-related actions to be able to take place, the activities around climate change, in line with the National key policy entry points and institutional arrangements Long-term Vision 2030 (NLTV). The main focus of the need to be identified, or put into place. Zambia hasa NCCRS and NPCC is resilience, and climate-proofing vital robust policy framework for landscape management, for and vulnerable sectors of the economy through promotion example the National Forest Act No. 4 of 2015 and the 2015 of low-carbon development pathways in order to minimise REDD+ Strategy. See the TBD in Annexure 1 for a detailed risks and adverse impacts. Agriculture, infrastructure, assessment of the policy and institutional arrangements tourism, manufacturing, mining and energy, identified in Zambia. as the main drivers of economic development, have been prioritised for enhancing resilience. Climate change is thus clearly positioned on the national forestry agenda. It is also more widely positioned on the In terms of institutional arrangements, the NPCC provides national development agenda in Zambia. The country has for the establishment of the Climate Change Department. a National Strategy and Policy on Climate Change (NPCC), The Ministry of Finance plays a lead role in Zambia’s climate which was approved by the Cabinet in April 2016, along change activities and previously housed the Interim Inter- with the Implementation Plan. The National Adaptation Ministerial Climate Change Secretariat (IICCS). However, Plan of Action (NAPA), the National Policy on Environment, the IICCS no longer exists since approval of the NPCC, and the National Climate Change Response Strategy (NCCRS) the Climate Change Department is not yet established. (released in 2010 and currently undergoing review), and Zambia’s National Adaptation Planning process is currently various sectoral policies and strategies are intended under way and intends to provide the basis for long-term to support this. The main objective of these policies is adaptation planning, and for mainstreaming climate change to coordinate and harmonise national developmental into existing development planning processes.
Continued »
DECISION STEP 4: INTERVENTIONS FOR CLIMATE RESILIENCE 37 Local (social) action is key. Despite having robust national Policy provisions, when they exist, often make little policy, it will not be possible to achieve climate policy impact on or do not reach rural populations. In far-flung objectives without local (social) action. This implies that areas, policy awareness and enforcement tends to be low, every level of governance needs to be involved, down to primarily due to limited capacities of local and provincial the level of local administrative frameworks and structures, government. Instead, in these areas, local decisions local development plans and processes, and community prevail, meaning that a decision support framework needs frameworks and actions. to include non-policy decision-making and interventions. For example, subsistence farmers, land owners and other However, policy is not always implemented, or not land users make landscape decisions on a frequent basis implemented fully, so policy expectations are not always that are not necessarily driven or informed by policy, but realised. For example, workshop participants noted that the rather by local needs or circumstances. pilots for the REDD+ Strategy have not reached Northern Zambia, a region of rich forest resources. This is a matter Climate change, a transversal issue, affects most spheres of concern, because although sensitivity to climate impacts of governance and sectors in Zambia, bringing a wide is highest in areas on the borders with neighbouring range of actors and stakeholders into focus. Defining and countries, there are also pockets of increasing sensitivity then coordinating their different roles and responsibilities throughout the three provinces of the Northern Region to deliver coherent climate responses is a big challenge, (OneWorld, 2017a). and one that Zambia is still grappling with. This is all evidenced in the Mafinga case study, below.
case study 4.1
Mafinga District and deforestation: Interventions for building resilience
The OneWorld-habitat INFO vulnerability and risk Possible interventions for Mafinga assessment (baseline) displays Mafinga District as Case study 3.1 in Decision Step 3 showed us that both a key problem area in Northern Zambia (where social and institutional action is probably required problem, or impact, is a function of climate to combat the negative effects of cause-and-effect exposure and sensitivity). This is reflected again in pathways of climate change. For example, we saw Figure 4.1. As seen in Figure 4.1, Mafinga and Isoka, that livelihood decisions (social action) can increase a bordering district, are similarly impacted by deforestation as people produce and sell charcoal as a climate change and both districts are in an area of way of resolving income lost through crop failure. We high deforestation. As seen in the Mafinga st1 -to-4th also started to see that entry points for institutional Order Impact Assessment and in the case study in policy action, through policy direction, or incentives Decision Step 3, deforestation leads to livelihood are also necessary components of the overall solution losses here. This is an area where diversification of for managing and preserving important production livelihoods is already low and where ecosystems landscapes of Northern Zambia. services are reduced by loss of forest cover. The Social entry points for climate response burden of disease for both humans and animals interventions in Mafinga are ,few and are mostly is increased by the loss of agricultural productivity undesirable for building longer-term climate (3rd Order impacts), as well as by the biophysical resilience, and for building landscapes. Populations impacts of climate change (2nd Order). are poor, and livelihood diversification opportunities seem scarce to most people, in an area that is highly
Continued »
38 VULNERABILITY DECISION SUPPORT FRAMEWORK
Northern Zambia Risk & Vulnerability Analysis Figure 4.1. Northern Chiengi Zambia Potential Sensitivity Nsama Mbeya Impact (problem Kaputa Mpulungu Mbala areas) Nchelenge Senga Hill Mporokoso Nakonde 13 November 2017
Northern Mwansabombwe Kawambwa Lunte District Mungwi Legend Luapula Isoka towns Kasama administration districts Chinsali Mafinga Northern Zambia provinces Chipili Luwingu Kasama Mwense Risk & Vulnerability Analysis major lakes wetlands rivers Chiengi Sensitivity sensitivity Nsama Chilubi Shiwamg'andu Mbeya Value Mansa High : 79 Kaputa Mansa Mpulungu Mbala Chama Muchinga Low : 25 Nchelenge Samfya Lunga SengaKanchibiya Hill Mporokoso Nakonde 13 November 2017 Chembe
Milengi Northern Mwansabombwe Kawambwa Lunte District Mpika Mungwi Legend Luapula Isoka towns Kasama administration districts LavushimandaChinsali Mafinga ("inputs\S_app_NPP"provinces * 2) + ("inputs\S_avail_soilM" * 3) +( Chipili Luwingu Kasama Mwense "inputs\s_forestloss10km"major lakes * 2) + ("inputs\S_growperiod" * 1) + ("inputs\S_mlppnow" * 1) + ("inputs\S_npp" * 1) + Ndola ("inputs\S_popd_agric"wetlands * 1) + ("inputs\S_slope_reclass" * 1) + ("inputs\S_water_str"rivers * 1) sensitivity Chilubi Shiwamg'andu Value Mansa High : 79 Mansa 0 62.5 125 250 Chama MuchingaKilometers Chipata Low : 25 Samfya Lunga Kanchibiya
Chembe
Milengi deforested, yielding fewer andMpika fewer ecosystem This project’s Vulnerability and Risk Assessment services. When faced with a crisis, the tendency to (VRA) demonstrates that implementation is sorely Lavushimanda further exploit available natural resources, is high. needed in districts("inputs\S_app_NPP" such as * 2) Mafinga + ("inputs\S_avail_soilM" (and Isoka), * 3) +( perhaps "inputs\s_forestloss10km" * 2) + ("inputs\S_growperiod" * 1) + This, in turn, leads to reduced climate resilience. with incentives.("inputs\S_mlppnow" In these * 1)areas, + ("inputs\S_npp" implementation * 1) + could Ndola ("inputs\S_popd_agric" * 1) + ("inputs\S_slope_reclass" * 1) + The REDD+ Policy and Strategy, coupled with be accelerated("inputs\S_water_str" through identifying * 1) and financing pilot the preceding National Forestry Act (the Act) restoration, afforestation and strengthened ecosystem
0 62.5 intend125 to increase250 climate resilience and incomes service interventions – these all contribute to the Kilometers Chipata from enhanced forest services. These institutional overall policy objectives of improving forest resource instruments are particularly pertinent in places management. At the same time, these interventions like Mafinga District. In this case, the entry points can stimulate community-level or household-level are already established through the Act and the ownership of the problem, and the solution. These REDD policy, however, participatory analysis at the interventions incentivise different livelihood choices TRALARD Mansa workshop highlighted the need (social action) through guaranteeing minimum for specific incentives to stimulate or enhance income levels for an initial period, as a social safety net implementation. that insures livelihoods through the period of change.
DECISION STEP 4: INTERVENTIONS FOR CLIMATE RESILIENCE 39 Applying the 1st-to-4th Order Assessment to identify interventions
In Decision Step 3 we saw how the cause-and-effect awareness in your own community or stakeholder pathway model helps to deepen the understanding group. Now, we will turn to the outcomes of exercise of climate change vulnerability risk and impacts 3.1, where you developed your 1st-to-4th Order within communities and amongst decision-makers Impact Assessments, to identify intervention entry and stakeholders. The model can also help to raise points.
Decision Step 4 Exercise Exercise 4.1: Identifying interventions for climate resilience using the 1st-to-4th Order Impact Assessment Tool (1 hour)
Gather in your group, select a chair for the Step 2. Discuss and identify possible inter- session, as well as a rapporteur. Ensure your ventions among your group using the template group has the outcomes of Exercise 3.1 in on the following page (Figure 4.2). Indicate Decision Step 3, as well as the Technical which level you think these interventions apply Background Document (TBD) to this DSF to. Make sure you consider both levels of action at hand, along with flipchart paper and pens. – social and institutional – and identify specific Follow the steps outlined below. entry points, for example a known livelihood investment opportunity, or an existing or Step 1. Use the Exercise 3.1 outcomes, the possible policy entry point. Indicate, next to 1st-to-4th Order Framework, and reference each intervention, whether this is a social or material available in the TBD. Using these institutional action and identify whether this resources, identify the level of Order (from 1st is a new entry point or one that is already in Order to 4th Order) at which you would target place, if not fully implemented. resilience building interventions. Give reasons Use the table on the following page as a that you can justify. template for completing this step.
40 VULNERABILITY DECISION SUPPORT FRAMEWORK Figure 4.2. Template: Table of Interventions
1. INTERVENTION NAME 2. ENTRY POINT AND 3. SOCIAL OR 4. STATUS OF 5. JUSTIFY THE AND DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION INSTITUTIONAL IMPLEMENTATION INTERVENTION
a) Name the a) State the entry a) Is this intervention a) Is this a new policy, List reasons for intervention (e.g. point identified (e.g. socially or with few examples targeting this Afforestation) REDD Strategy) institutionally of experience of intervention (use b) Briefly describe the b) Describe briefly (e.g. driven? implementation, or bullets only) intervention (e.g. intends to reduce (Write only the opposite? Briefly Example: restore forest cover deforestation Institutional or Social) outline the status. Policy entry point by planting suitable and thus build b) Give examples of exists in Forest Act trees) landscape and implementation and REDD Strategy, c) Which level (1st-to- community from elsewhere making funding more 4th Order) does the resilience to climate in Zambia, or the accessible change) region. intervention target? PP Addresses a key landscape vulnerability identified in the VRA maps and the 1st-to-4th order impact assessment PP Likely to benefit local and vulnerable communities by reducing the impact of droughts exacerbated by climate change)
Step 3: Review your table outputs from step 2 and reflect on your reasons for targeting the listed interventions. Validate and refine your list, by discussing each aspect. Be prepared to justify your selection and debate with your peers.
Monitoring of learning and decisions Record your group’s learning and decisions, as discussed in the Introduction. Include your final Table of Interventions and explain briefly how your group finalised it. Note any additional important points, and say whether this process was useful and why.
DECISION STEP 4: INTERVENTIONS FOR CLIMATE RESILIENCE 41
42 VULNERABILITY DECISION SUPPORT FRAMEWORK 1. Vulnerability 7. & Risk 2. Developing Assessment Sustainable Adaptive Projects Capacity Increase Resilience 6. and Adaptive 3. Priority Capacity Cause & Effect decision step 5 Analysis Pathways
5. 4. Climate Possible Understanding Futures Interventions Climate Risk and Vulnerability – Future (2050)
key concepts
Climate change modelling estimate the degree to which temperature will rise, Climate change modelling is a complex and or the changes we will experience in precipitation in uncertain science that provides the best projections Northern Zambia, for example. However, we cannot for future weather and climate patterns at any given be certain that these changes are exactly what will point in time. Many uncertainties surround climate happen. Therefore, climate science provides the best projections. Given these uncertainties, and based current estimates of future climate changes with the on the best available scientific evidence, we can available data.
What have we learnt and where are going?
In Decision Step 4, we were introduced to the process stakeholder awareness and understanding of of identifying and screening possible interventions the need and opportunities for building climate and options for increasing resilience to climate resilience? change. Through identifying key problem areas and 5. Why is prioritisation of options and responses so subsequent options and responses, the importance of important in the Zambian context? prioritisation in the Zambian context was made clear. Before you start Decision Step 5, try to answer the Decision Step 5 is about helping decision-makers to following questions for yourself: consider projected future climate changes alongside 1. What are key problem areas and how can these be current climate risk and vulnerability (Decision identified? Step 1), in order to better inform decision priorities. 2. Why is it important to identify and validate The importance of understanding climate futures is potential interventions in a participatory manner? briefly outlined, followed by a systematic comparison 3. How does the 1st-to-4th Order Impact Assessment of risk and vulnerability futures maps of Northern Framework help us work through potential Zambia to the baseline, or status quo, presented in interventions? Why is this important? Decision Step 1. Lastly, the exercise provides the 4. How could we use the 1st-to-4th Order Impact opportunity to assess climate futures in the same Assessment Framework to increase community/ manner.
DECISION STEP 5: CLIMATE RISK AND VULNERABILITY – FUTURE (2050) 43 The importance of understanding climate futures
Talking Points: Annexure 1, Section 5), to this Decision Support Framework. The addition of these indicators presents » Analysing climate futures a slightly different vulnerability picture for 2050. As explained in the Key Concept box on the previous » Futures maps in decision-making page, climate change modelling is a complex process. A two-phased analysis was conducted for the As one would expect, the addition of a futures lens TRALARD Northern Zambia project Vulnerability onto the current landscape vulnerability maps can have and Risk Assessment – the first for the current a number of outcomes: existing vulnerable areas may situation (approx. 2017), and the second for the mid- remain vulnerable, or become more or less vulnerable. term future (approx. 2050). Decision Step 1 looked Also, areas which are currently not very vulnerable at the status quo, or baseline assessment, reflecting could become vulnerable to various degrees. current climate vulnerability. This Decision Step As highlighted in Decision Step 1, interpreting considers future climate projections to 2050. These are the maps (including the Futures maps) is critical. presented to further inform the decision process and, Not only does this help limit, or manage, the particularly, to help us refine the list of interventions uncertainties associated with climate science; it selected in Decision Step 4. also prods us into thinking through issues such as The method of spatially mapping risks and over-fishing, or fishing during the breeding season. vulnerabilities to climate change is very similar for The interactions of the resultant stress on important current and future scenarios. The overall process fishing populations, and climate stresses, increases remains the same; however, for future scenarios vulnerability to other shocks, such as climate change several new indicators are added to the analysis. and variability. These indicators are all projected into the future using As discussed with participants in the Mansa available data, which is always the most limiting factor Workshop, this sort of analytical interpretation for given climate change uncertainties. a district such as Lunga could well highlight the Specifically, the exposure assessment includes five view that preserving the important wetlands in new projected inputs: and around this district is critical to maintaining PP loss of cropland future livelihoods and preventing an increased PP change in precipitation level of poverty. PP mean and maximum temperature increase (two Considering the long-term nature of climate indicators) change impacts, and thus the long-term integrated PP drought index. planning that is needed to address these challenges, it is critical to consider current and potential future Projected urban growth is added as an indicator changes in climate change adaptation decision- of sensitivity, and future distance to the electricity making. The next section provides a brief analysis of grid and future wind power potential form part of how projections of future climate vulnerability differ adaptive capacity. The projected future indicators from the current situation. can be viewed individually in the TBD (see Part B:
44 VULNERABILITY DECISION SUPPORT FRAMEWORK key information
CLIMATE FUTURES IN NORTHERN ZAMBIA
2050 Exposure in Northern Zambia
The map in Figure 5.1 demonstrates the exposure values exposed in the future. The Book of Inputs in the TBD combined with projected future indicators. Compared indicate that these changes are being driven primarily to the status quo picture of exposure in Northern by projected precipitation changes and drought in Senga Zambia, shown in Figure 1.2 (Decision Step 1), the future Hill, and projected mean and maximum temperature projections look largely similar. However, there are several changes in Samfya and eastern Mansa.Northern On the Zambia other key differences. Relative levels of exposure remain very hand, the northernRisk areas & ofVulnerability Nsama and MpuluguAnalysis similar in Muchinga Province, while in Northern Province, districts, around Lake Tanganyika, will be significantly Chiengi Exposure SengaNsama Hill District appears to be noticeably less exposed more exposed.Mbeya This change is driven almost entirely by Kaputa in 2050. Samfya andMpulungu eastern MansaMbala also appear to be less projected precipitation change.
Nchelenge Senga Hill FigureMporokoso 5.1. Map of 2050 Projected Exposure for NakondeNorthern Zambia 13 November 2017 Northern Mwansabombwe Kawambwa Lunte District Mungwi Legend Luapula Isoka Northern Zambia townsRisk & Vulnerability Analysis Kasama administration districts Chinsali Mafinga provinces Chipili Luwingu Kasama Mwense major lakes Chiengi Exposure Nsama Mbeya wetlands rivers Kaputa Mpulungu Mbala exposure Chilubi Shiwamg'andu Nchelenge Value Mansa Senga Hill High : 83 Mansa Chama Mporokoso Nakonde Muchinga Low : 38 13 November 2017 Samfya Lunga Kanchibiya Northern Mwansabombwe Kawambwa Lunte District Chembe Mungwi Legend Luapula Isoka towns Milengi Mpika Kasama administration districts Chinsali Mafinga provinces Chipili Luwingu Kasama Mwense major lakes Lavushimanda wetlands ("inputs\E_elnino_anomaly" * 3) + ("inputs\E_firefreq" * 2) + rivers ("inputs\E_floodfreq_r" * 3) + ("inputs\E_lanina_floodanomaly" * 3) + ("inputs\E_max2methcv" * 1) + ("inputs\E_spi" * 1) + exposure Chilubi Shiwamg'andu ("inputs\E_tamsat_cvrain" * 3) Ndola Value Mansa High : 83 Mansa Chama Muchinga Low : 38 Samfya Lunga Kanchibiya 0 62.5 125 250 Chipata Chembe Kilometers
Milengi Mpika
Lavushimanda ("inputs\E_elnino_anomaly" * 3) + ("inputs\E_firefreq" * 2) + ("inputs\E_floodfreq_r" * 3) + ("inputs\E_lanina_floodanomaly" * 3) + ("inputs\E_max2methcv" * 1) + ("inputs\E_spi" * 1) + Ndola ("inputs\E_tamsat_cvrain" * 3)
0 62.5 125 250 Kilometers Chipata
Continued »
DECISION STEP 5: CLIMATE RISK AND VULNERABILITY – FUTURE (2050) 45 2050 Sensitivity in Northern Zambia
The map in Figure 5.2 demonstrates the sensitivity values of where sensitivity is expected to increase around urban combined with projected future indicators. Compared to centres. The addition of the indicator for projected urban the status quo picture of sensitivity in Northern Zambia, growth shows us the expected agglomeration around shown in Figure 1.3 (Decision Step 1), the future projections urban areas. National estimates of urbanisation are look largely similar. Considering that the sensitivity futures applied on an area basis to the growth in urban peripheries assessment only included one additional indicator, necessary to accommodate the expected urbanisation. projected urban growth, this is not surprising. Moreover, The results show that expected increased urbanisation is we have not been able to include future population density particularly prevalent around the townsNorthern of Kasama, Zambia Mpika, in our sensitivity analysis. This is because all of the project Chinsali, Isoka, KawambwaRisk &and Vulnerability Nchelenge. Analysis area is contained within one country, and we do not have Chiengi Sensitivity sub-nationalNsama data on changes in population density. Mbeya
Kaputa Mpulungu Mbala
Nchelenge However, the futures map does provide some indications Senga Hill FigureMporokoso 5.2. Map of 2050 Projected Sensitivity forNakonde Northern Zambia 13 November 2017 Northern Mwansabombwe Kawambwa Lunte District Mungwi Legend Northern Zambia Luapula Isoka townsRisk & Vulnerability Analysis Kasama administration districts Chinsali Mafinga provinces Chipili Luwingu Kasama Mwense major lakes Chiengi Sensitivity Nsama Mbeya wetlands rivers Kaputa Mpulungu Mbala sensitivity Chilubi Shiwamg'andu Nchelenge Value Mansa Senga Hill High : 79 Mansa Chama Mporokoso Nakonde 13 November 2017 Muchinga Low : 25 Samfya Lunga Kanchibiya Northern Mwansabombwe Kawambwa Lunte District Mungwi Legend Chembe Luapula Isoka towns Milengi Mpika Kasama administration districts Chinsali Mafinga provinces Chipili Luwingu Kasama Mwense major lakes wetlands Lavushimanda ("inputs\S_app_NPP" * 2) + ("inputs\S_avail_soilM" * 3) +( rivers "inputs\s_forestloss10km" * 2) + ("inputs\S_growperiod" * 1) + ("inputs\S_mlppnow" * 1) + ("inputs\S_npp" * 1) + sensitivity Chilubi Shiwamg'andu Ndola ("inputs\S_popd_agric" * 1) + ("inputs\S_slope_reclass" * 1) + Value Mansa ("inputs\S_water_str" * 1) High : 79 Mansa Chama Muchinga Low : 25 Samfya Lunga Kanchibiya 0 62.5 125 250 Chembe Kilometers Chipata
Milengi Mpika
Lavushimanda ("inputs\S_app_NPP" * 2) + ("inputs\S_avail_soilM" * 3) +( "inputs\s_forestloss10km" * 2) + ("inputs\S_growperiod" * 1) + ("inputs\S_mlppnow" * 1) + ("inputs\S_npp" * 1) + Ndola ("inputs\S_popd_agric" * 1) + ("inputs\S_slope_reclass" * 1) + ("inputs\S_water_str" * 1)
0 62.5 125 250 Kilometers Chipata
Continued »
46 VULNERABILITY DECISION SUPPORT FRAMEWORK 2050 Adaptive Capacity in Northern Zambia
The map in Figure 5.3 demonstrates the adaptive capacity have become more blue), particularly along the central values combined with projected future indicators. western side of the central escarpment running from Compared to the status quo picture of adaptive capacity in south-west through to the north-east of the province. Northern Zambia, shown in Figure 1.4 (Decision Step 1), The same pattern is evident along the route from Kasama the future projections look largely similar. However, to Mbala. Considering that the relative adaptiveNorthern capacity Zambia several important distinctions can be made between distributions are fairly similarRisk for & bothVulnerability future distance Analysis to these maps. Relative levels of adaptive capacity in electricity grid and wind power potential, it appears that Chiengi Adaptive Capacity Muchinga ProvinceNsama appear to have slightly increased (i.e. they are bothMbeya driving these changes. Kaputa Mpulungu Mbala
Nchelenge Senga Hill Figure 5.3. Map ofMporokoso 2050 Projected Adaptive Capacity for NakondeNorthern Zambia 9 December 2017
Northern Mwansabombwe Kawambwa Lunte District Mungwi Legend Luapula Isoka Northern Zambia towns Kasama administrationRisk districts & Vulnerability Analysis Chinsali Mafinga provinces Chipili Luwingu Kasama Mwense wetlands Chiengi adapt capacity new weightsAdaptive Capacity Nsama Mbeya Value High : 264 Kaputa Mpulungu Mbala Shiwamg'andu Chilubi Low : 124 Mansa Chama MansaNchelenge MuchingaSenga Hill Samfya Mporokoso Nakonde 9 December 2017 Lunga Kanchibiya Chembe Northern Mwansabombwe Kawambwa Lunte District Milengi Mungwi Legend Luapula Mpika Isoka towns Kasama administration districts Chinsali Mafinga LavushimandaKasama provinces Chipili Luwingu distance to electricity grid * 2 + education * 3 + employment rate * 3 + Mwense genderequality * 2 + access to healthcare * 2 + iinfant mortalitywetlands * 3 + literacy * 3 + malaria * 2 + night lights * 3 + orphansadapt rate * 3 + capacityaccess to new weights Ndola safe water * 3 + traveltime to city * 3 + tsetse * 2 + water discharge rate * 2) + household wealth score * 3 Value High : 264 Shiwamg'andu Chilubi Low : 124 Mansa Mansa Chama 0 62.5 125 250 Chipata Kilometers Muchinga Samfya Lunga Kanchibiya
Chembe
Milengi Mpika
Lavushimanda distance to electricity grid * 2 + education * 3 + employment rate * 3 + genderequality * 2 + access to healthcare * 2 + iinfant mortality * 3 + literacy * 3 + malaria * 2 + night lights * 3 + orphans rate * 3 + access to Ndola safe water * 3 + traveltime to city * 3 + tsetse * 2 + water discharge rate * 2) + household wealth score * 3
0 62.5 125 250 Chipata Kilometers
Continued »
DECISION STEP 5: CLIMATE RISK AND VULNERABILITY – FUTURE (2050) 47 2050 Potential Impact in Northern Zambia
The map in Figure 5.4 demonstrates the potential impact and sensitivity, some key changes in potential impact are values combined with projected future indicators. evident. These changes include a lowerNorthern potential Zambia impact Compared to the status quo picture of potential impact north of Kasama, mainlyRisk & in Vulnerability Mungwi, Senga Analysis Hill and in Northern Zambia, shown in Figure 1.5 (Decision Step 1), southern parts of Mbala and Mpulungu, but generally
Chiengi the future projections are very similar as these represent throughout Northern ProvinceProblem as well. areasThe only (impact) exception Nsama Mbeya the combinations of exposure and sensitivity. However, to this is the increased impact around Lake Tanganyika. The Kaputa Mpulungu Mbala driven by the aforementioned future changes in exposure map also includes the potential areas for urban expansion. Nchelenge Senga Hill Mporokoso Nakonde 13 November 2017 Figure 5.4. Map of 2050 Projected Potential Impact for Northern Zambia Northern Mwansabombwe Kawambwa Lunte District Mungwi Legend Northern Zambia Luapula Isoka townsRisk & Vulnerability Analysis Kasama administration districts Chinsali Mafinga provinces Chipili Luwingu Kasama Mwense major lakes Chiengi Problem areas (impact) Nsama Mbeya wetlands rivers Kaputa Mpulungu Mbala problem areas Chilubi Shiwamg'andu Nchelenge Value Mansa Senga Hill High : 5395 Mansa Chama Mporokoso Nakonde 13 November 2017 Muchinga Low : 1288 Samfya Lunga Kanchibiya Northern Mwansabombwe Kawambwa Lunte District Mungwi Chembe Legend Luapula Isoka towns Milengi Mpika Kasama administration districts Chinsali Mafinga provinces Chipili Luwingu Kasama Mwense major lakes
Lavushimanda wetlands exposure * sensitivity rivers problem areas Chilubi Shiwamg'andu Ndola Value Mansa High : 5395 Mansa Chama Muchinga Low : 1288 Samfya Lunga Kanchibiya 0 62.5 125 250 Chembe Kilometers Chipata
Milengi Mpika
Lavushimanda exposure * sensitivity
Ndola
0 62.5 125 250 Kilometers Chipata
Continued »
48 VULNERABILITY DECISION SUPPORT FRAMEWORK 2050 Vulnerability in Northern Zambia
The map in Figure 5.5 demonstrates the vulnerability Overall the vulnerability of Northern Zambia appears to values combined with projected future indicators. decrease slightly over the next three decades. Compared to the status quo picture of vulnerability in Northern Zambia, shown in Figure 1.6 (Decision Step 1), However, it is important to note that the data gathered and the future projections are very similar as these represent analysed for this assessment that contributed to the risk and the combination of potential impact and adaptive capacity. vulnerability mapping of Northern Zambia was from the whole The key differences for the climate futures are: northern of Zambia. In other words, country-wide datasets contribute Luapula becomes less vulnerable, apart from around Lake to the relative scoring of vulnerability. Thus, relative levels of Tanganyika. Central Luapula also become slightly less exposure, sensitivity, adaptive capacity, potential impact and vulnerable, while areas around Chiengi and Samfya remain vulnerability are relative to the whole of Zambia, not just the relatively vulnerable. Parts of Northern Muchinga have Northern Region – despite only the Northern Region being become slightly less vulnerable in the districts of Nakonde, mapped. This method was chosen to allow for multi-scale Isoka, Mafinga, Chinsali, Chama and Shiwamg’andu. decision-making ranging from local to national level.
Figure 5.5. Map of 2050 Projected Vulnerability for Northern Zambia
Northern Zambia Risk & Vulnerability Analysis
Chiengi Hotspots Nsama Mbeya
Kaputa Mpulungu Mbala
Nchelenge Senga Hill Mporokoso Nakonde 9 December 2017
Northern Mwansabombwe Kawambwa Lunte District Mungwi Legend Luapula Isoka towns Kasama administration districts Chinsali Mafinga Northern Zambiaprovinces Chipili Luwingu Kasama Mwense Risk & Vulnerability Analysismajor lakes wetlands rivers Chiengi Hotspotshotspots new weights Chilubi Shiwamg'andu Nsama Mbeya Value Mansa High : 31.3247 Kaputa Mansa Mpulungu Mbala Chama Muchinga Low : 6.28293 Nchelenge Samfya Lunga SengaKanchibiya Hill Mporokoso Nakonde 9 December 2017 Chembe
Milengi Northern Mwansabombwe Kawambwa Lunte District Mpika Mungwi Legend Luapula Isoka towns Kasama administration districts Lavushimanda Chinsali Mafinga problemprovinces areas / adaptive capacity Chipili Luwingu Kasama Mwense major lakes Ndola wetlands rivers hotspots new weights Chilubi Shiwamg'andu Value Mansa High : 31.3247 Mansa 0 62.5 125 250 Chama Kilometers Muchinga Chipata Low : 6.28293 Samfya Lunga Kanchibiya
Chembe
Milengi Mpika
Lavushimanda problem areas / adaptive capacity
Ndola
DECISION STEP 5: CLIMATE RISK AND VULNERABILITY – FUTURE (2050) 49
0 62.5 125 250 Kilometers Chipata Decision Step 5 Exercise Exercise 5.1: Interpreting Climate Futures Maps (1.5 hours)
This exercise is intended to build on the learnings of this is where the greatest portion of investments should Exercise 1.1 in Decision Step 1 that focussed on the be made. Other, local knowledge and insight must interpretation of risk and vulnerability maps. However, also come into play, in order to validate our decisions this exercise is specifically focused on interpreting and ultimately direct decision-making in terms of climate futures maps and understanding how these prioritising interventions. This is evident in the Lunga can influence prioritisation of interventions. example mentioned earlier in this Decision Step.
key information Step 1: Working individually, or in small groups, depending on your group size, look WHAT THE MAPS SHOW US back at the status quo maps in Decision Step 1, and futures Exposure, Sensitivity, and Adaptive The maps displayed in this section and the related Capacity layers (maps) in the previous pages. information in the TBD (see Part B: Annexure 1, Study these in conjunction with the Impact Section 5), show us which areas in Northern Zambia and Vulnerability layers, to determine the will be more or less exposed than others, have areas where the key differences are between higher or lower sensitivity than others and have the status quo and futures maps. higher or lower adaptive capacity than others. The maps and indicators also show us, in the future Step 2: Determine the four or five key locations composite impact and vulnerability maps, which or key areas of future vulnerability, which areas will be the most impacted and vulnerable to therefore require investment, in Northern climate change. Zambia. (Follow the criteria outlined in the Key Information Box: Decision Parameters However, because an area emerges as highly vulnerable below). Did your decisions alter from when in the futures maps, does not automatically mean that you interpreted the status quo maps? If so, explain why. Continued »
key information
DECISION PARAMETERS (CRITERIA) FOR CHOOSING VULNERABLE AREAS
Consider factors such as population density and socio- When choosing highly vulnerable areas, or areas deserving economic activity in the areas identified in the maps preservation, it is useful to use certain criteria, or decision as highly vulnerable, or of relatively low vulnerability. parameters. Although the selection is guided by the (For example, the vulnerability maps show that the mapping results, the goal is to make refined decisions that catchment border in Muchinga province, displayed as are justifiable. The following decision parameters/criteria, a red belt stretching north-east from Lavushimanda among others dictated by local circumstances, provide a to Isoka, as being an area of very high vulnerability. guide for this exercise: However, closer examination shows that this is partly Identify the level of exposure, sensitivity and adaptive due to steep terrain and that as a result, population capacity of the areas of highest and lowest vulnerability density is low and farming activities few.) emerging from the high impact (problem area) and Consider issues that the spatial mapping data does not vulnerability maps. reflect, such as in-migration to fishing areas during season, or cross-border migration due to political factors.
50 VULNERABILITY DECISION SUPPORT FRAMEWORK Step 3: Did the levels of intervention you identified against the 1st-to-4th Order Impact Assessment Model in Decision Step 3, change because of your interpretation of the Futures maps? If so, explain why and be prepared to justify your ideas.
Step 4: Try to persuade the group about your amended decision, and to reach a consensus with the group.
Step 5: Evaluate the responses given by the group. Did the group agree or disagree with the different positions presented? How far away from each other were group members on their thoughts and ideas? Discuss among the group the need to change interventions identified given the discussion?
Step 6: Discuss how the different positions can be used to prioritise different interventions identified in Decision Step 4. Identify a maximum of 5 priority interventions from the outcome of this debate and the evidence provided.
Monitoring of learning and decisions
Record your group’s learning and decisions, as discussed in the Introduction. Include your five priority interventions and explain how and why these were prioritised. Note any additional important points, and say whether this process was useful and why.
DECISION STEP 5: CLIMATE RISK AND VULNERABILITY – FUTURE (2050) 51
52 VULNERABILITY DECISION SUPPORT FRAMEWORK 1. Vulnerability 7. & Risk 2. Developing Assessment Sustainable Adaptive Projects Capacity Increase Resilience 6. and Adaptive 3. Priority Capacity Cause & Effect decision step 6 Analysis Pathways
4. 5. Possible Climate Interventions Priority Analysis Futures
key concepts
Maladaptation prioritising interventions that will support climate This is a trait or process that results in increased resilience, through understanding trade-offs. vulnerability to climate variability and change, directly or indirectly. Maladaptation may in addition Multi-criteria Decision Analysis significantly undermine capacities or opportunities A method used to explicitly evaluate multiple for present and future adaptation (Magnan, 2014). potentially conflicting criteria in decision-making. Understanding the maladaptation risks of a potential This process requires the weighting of different intervention is critical to informing the process of criteria through participatory analysis.
What have we learnt and where are we going?
In Decision Step 5, we looked at climate futures, forward with. This analysis provides a tool for or future risk and vulnerability maps (to approx. developing a greater evidence base in support of a 2050), and how we can interpret these to effectively particular intervention, which will ultimately assist re-inform our assessment of potential intervention with developing sustainable projects and acquiring options. Decision Step 6 builds on the process of financing (addressed in Decision Step 7). prioritising adaptation options, but before you start Specifically, we will examine a number of with this step, try to answer the following questions important issues that arise when prioritising for yourself: adaptation interventions, namely: uncertainty in 1. What is future climate risk and vulnerability? decision-making, alongside analysis of costs and 2. How, and why is future climate risk and benefits, and trade-offs, as well as maladaptation vulnerability different from the status quo? risks. Case Study 6.1 looks more closely at an example 3. How can our understanding and interpretation of maladaptation, Case Study 6.2 demonstrates the of the differences between status quo and future REDD+ Programme as an entry point, and Case climate risk and vulnerability maps help us identify Study 6.3 illustrates an analysis of trade-offs, using and prioritise interventions? a 4th-to-1st Order Intervention Impact Assessment. Lastly, the exercise provides an opportunity to Decision Step 6 further emphasises the importance assess an intervention using the 4th-to-1st Order of structured prioritisation processes for deciding Intervention Impact Assessment framework which projects and/or interventions to move yourself.
DECISION STEP 6: PRIORITY ANALYSIS 53 The need to prioritise Uncertainty and interventions decision-making
Experience in socio-economic development in the One of the important issues that arise when developing world shows that making long lists prioritising adaptation interventions is how to deal of interventions is counterproductive. There are with uncertainty. Uncertainty arises because we rarely enough financial and/or human resources to exist in a complex and dynamic environment, where accomplish all the identified objectives and projects. climate events and livelihood activities interact with Thus, prioritisation is critical - mainly to ensure that one another in unpredictable ways. Furthermore, as we tackle the most important interventions first, with discussed in Decision Step 5, uncertainty in climate the available resources we have. science arises in future projections because we do not Prioritisation at this level seldom happens, know if the projections made for temperature rise, particularly in terms of climate resilience building and or changes in precipitation (among other changes) adaptation. This is because these climate responses are will actually happen. There are higher levels of intertwined with development priorities; and there confidence for changes in temperature, but changes are a multitude of climate- and development-related in precipitation are more uncertain. If the actual stressors, or drivers of adaptive capacity – all of which change differs from the projected change, this will are important. The silo-based approach that underpins have implications for how we viewed the interaction how society and governance functions – and the between the climate changes and development, in our resultant lack of integrated development planning that futures analysis. is also climate compatible – is another limiting factor. The issue of uncertainty in terms of decision- How we move past this persistent stumbling block making is not helped by the fact that we tend to is the key question, and thus lies at the heart of this construct and exchange the necessary information Decision Step. The tools have long been available to in ‘silos’ and with limited access between the units. help us to tackle this question. Using such tools, usually This makes integration difficult, meaning that in the form of a multi-criteria analysis, forces us to think integrated development planning that is also climate across sectors (i.e. beyond silos) to analyse the reasons mainstreamed, is a tough task for planners and for making one choice over another. The analytical development practitioners. outcomes also help us to understand, and therefore Uncertainty is unavoidable in the analyses of justify, why we are deciding on one intervention above adaptation to climate change. This is because of the another, otherwise known as a trade-off. forward-looking nature of how we are forced to assess First, however, we will look at the issue of uncertainty climate impacts, as well as development trends. While we with regard to climate change interventions. can make informed predictions about what will happen
54 VULNERABILITY DECISION SUPPORT FRAMEWORK to the climate and then overlay that on an assessment of A broad range of risks and multiple trade-offs is which development trends are likely, we cannot do this involved. We need information on the economic, with absolute certainty. In other words, we need data and socio-cultural and environmental losses incurred by information on how the adaptation actions we prioritise climate change, that can allow us to determine trade- are likely to impact on people’s livelihoods, health, and offs and mitigate risks. This information is critical in food and water security. However, we have no way of deciding – and justifying – why one action should be knowing exactly what those impacts and changes will be. prioritised over another. Uncertainty can then play itself Decision-makers can address climate projection out in this way: on the one hand, the climate change uncertainty through a scenarios-based approach. DSF responses can generate mutual benefits and co-benefits users can apply broad climate projection scenarios to test with sustainable development; on the other, the same each proposed intervention. responses may have negative consequences.
Talking Points: (maladaptation) of our intervention decisions. As defined at the beginning of this Decision Step, maladaptation is » Costs and Benefits, Trade-offs and a process that results in increased vulnerability to climate Maladaptation variability and change (directly or indirectly), and/or that As mentioned earlier, one of the tools available to us significantly undermines capacities or opportunities for for decision-making is multi-criteria analysis, a tool present and future adaptation (Magnan, 2014). Case that forces us to think across sectors and provides Study 6.1 provides an example by outlining how the insight into the outcomes. development of the maize industry in Zambia may result in maladaptation outcomes. » Multi-criteria analysis and cost benefit analysis Cultural considerations Simply put, a multi-criteria analysis of climate response interventions, are an analysis of the costs A proposed climate adaptation intervention may also and benefits of the options identified (in this case, be maladaptive, or fail, because it deviates too much the interventions are an outcome of Decision Step 4). and too quickly from long standing cultural practices Again, we know that these interventions can fall in the and beliefs. For instance, the culture surrounding realm of either social action, or institutional action. In cattle in southern Africa is pertinent. As evidenced in other words, requirements for household or livelihood a similar project conducted in the Kafue in southern action, and/or policy or institutionally-driven action, Zambia (SCRiKA), people in the region use their highlight important entry points for climate adaptation cattle as a means of building and ‘banking’ wealth. The responses. Specifically, the comparison of costs and perceived value of cattle as a representation of wealth is benefits identified, or analysed for different adaptation such that owners hold onto their cattle in deteriorating options, allows us to consider the environmental, conditions, placing the wealth a great risk. Drought social, cultural and economic implications of potential events for example result in cattle losing condition responses – which can be positive and/or negative. and therefore value and often die, resulting in a loss of Therefore, comparing the negative and positive costs wealth. Holding onto cattle on the Kafue flood plains and benefits of potential interventions can help also means that cattle do not enter the meat value to facilitate more efficient, equitable and effective chain as an economic good to be exchanged for cash on allocation of resources. a regular basis. While stimulating a meat value chain and encouraging cattle owners to participate may arise » Maladaptation as a priority climate change response intervention, In addition to helping us with prioritisation, this cost setting up meat processing facilities without obtaining benefit analysis (CBA) exercise is important to help us cattle supplier buy-in (through community awareness identify, early, any possible maladaptive consequences and education activities) is likely to fail as an
DECISION STEP 6: PRIORITY ANALYSIS 55 intervention that is at odds with entrenched cultures. maladaptation, or positive socio-economic outcomes Cultural adaptability is therefore an important of an intervention may reflect the non-financial costs prioritisation criteria. – or benefits of a project. When all the costs of an Understanding the maladaptation risks of a potential intervention are compared to the potential benefits, intervention is critical to informing the prioritisation this is a cost-benefit analysis and reflects trade-offs process, through understanding trade-offs. between different adaptation interventions. Though, in reality, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to reduce » Weighing up the costs and benefits all types of costs and benefits to comparable numbers. The most obvious point of comparison between Hence, a structured participatory impact assessment potential projects is the financial cost of can act as an effective trade-off analysis that also implementing the project. However, potential incorporates local knowledge and viewpoints.
case study 6.1
Maize and Maladaptation in Zambia In Zambia, the commercial maize industry has gets cleared for monoculture purposes. However, made significant and long-term investments other crops could produce better yields under the in irrigation schemes in order to improve prevailing and expected climatic conditions in productivity and efficiencies in commercial-scale Zambia. Rice is one example and is already farmed enterprises. These investments have been driven in parts of the country. However, rice production by agricultural and economic policies, looking to does not enjoy the same socio-economic and reduce the dependence on rain-fed agriculture. political status as maize and this is a significant While irrigation is a viable option at present, due inhibitor to uptake and change. to Zambia’s substantial groundwater reserves, this The implications for land degradation, soil nutrients may not be the case in the future, due to climate and water consumption are significant, as are the change (See Figure 6.1.). With increasingly variable effects on the social structures and the more generic rainfall and increasing temperatures, the rate of dimensions of adaptive capacity. For example, in depletion of groundwater reserves may outstrip the some communities, a solution to the need for labour recharge rates. Actions such as these (investments has been to take an additional wife (or wives). The in irrigation) – taken in order to avoid or reduce need for married women in these circumstances the vulnerability to climate change – could to remain ‘in favour’ with their husbands, often a ostensibly end up increasing the vulnerability of function of their levels of maize production output, other systems, sectors or social groups (Barnett incentivises them to prioritise child labour in place et al., 2013). of schooling for their children (Mansa workshop Development decisions, farming practices and participants, November 2017). Gender inequalities social and cultural behaviour can compound the compound this aspect of the scenario – women climate change impacts. Maize production, in could be much more productive if fully empowered. terms of the number of tons of maize produced, Maize is seen as a way of securing livelihoods – both has been the traditional and political measure as a form of income generation and food security. of success for decades in Zambia, although the However, maize is highly vulnerable to climate change. political drivers have started to change. This means Such heavy focus on maize cultivation to address that the perceived solution to reduced maize development challenges has resulted in dependency output is increasing the amount of land under on the maize industry, and thus people are less able to production (as opposed to increasing productivity adapt. Hence, this adaptation intervention could lead per hectare). Consequently, more and more land to increased levels of vulnerability.
Continued »
56 VULNERABILITY DECISION SUPPORT FRAMEWORK
Figure 6.1. Maize vulnerability in the Kafue Sub-Basin
Source: Petrie et al. (2016)
Entry Points local decisions – or social action – prevail. This means that a decision support framework needs to include Entry points, discussed in Decision Step 4, are those non-policy decision-making and interventions. For identified points at which it makes sense to introduce example, subsistence farmers, land owners and other social and/or institutional action (policy action). land users make landscape decisions on a frequent As such, entry points are the explicit and implicit basis that are not necessarily driven or informed by components that we can capitalise on, to maximise policy, but rather by local needs or circumstances. the effectiveness of a desired adaptation intervention. This decision-making group is thus also an important These components are: target user of the decision support framework. PP Legislation, policy and development strategies Entry points play a key role in informing the PP Socio-cultural norms and societal structures potential success of a project, in terms of prioritising PP Activities that generate income or livelihood/s. investment and adaptation interventions. Projects with strong entry points will have a better opportunity to Social action is as important as institutional action (if navigate the institutional arrangements or social not more so), in a predominantly rural region such as conditions of a particular sector or area. Moreover, Northern Zambia. This is because policy provisions in strong entry points will make an intervention more Zambia (and other developing countries) often make likely to attract funds and stakeholder support. Entry little impact on or do not reach rural populations. points are strong because they are known, understood, Policy awareness and enforcement is often low in and can generate ownership because they are already rural areas, primarily due to low capacities of local accepted practices or goals; and can thus can pass the and provincial government. Instead, in these areas, feasibility test.
DECISION STEP 6: PRIORITY ANALYSIS 57
case study 6.2
Entry Points in the Zambian Forestry Sector: REDD+ Programme Forest ecosystems are key to achieving sustainable All of these activities are critical landscape approaches development and building the resilience of both for Northern Zambia. people and ecosystem services in Northern Zambia. The REDD+ strategy recognises the need for Reduction of Emissions from Deforestation and coordinated approaches among different stakeholders Forest Degradation – plus (REDD+) includes to reduce forest loss. The main drivers of deforestation policies and actions that can reduce emissions and forest degradation (for example agriculture and from deforestation and forest degradation, demand for woodfuel) are outside the forest sector. address biodiversity conservation and sustainable Strategies aimed at sustainable management of management of forests, and enhancement of forest forests therefore require a multi-sectoral approach. carbon stocks. Actions required for investment should focus on and The main phases of REDD+ are: address drivers outside the forest sector. 1. REDD+ readiness In the REDD+ strategy, this can be achieved 2. Investment and implementation; and through integrated land-use planning and developing 3. Results-based payment for emission reduction, integrated land use plans that are compatible with based on local level action. sustainable management of forests, by 2025. In terms of alternative energy, the strategy aims to Zambia has completed the REDD+ readiness stage have alternative energy widely adopted by 2020 and comprising of the National REDD+ strategy, Forest reduce pressure on wood fuel. The strategy further Reference Emission Level (FREL)/Forest Reference seeks to ensure forests in open areas are effectively Levels (FRL), and establishing a National Forest managed and monitored by enhancing participatory Monitoring System (NFMS). The country has management and the role of traditional authorities progressed to the investments and implementation in forest management and monitoring. It further stage, which seeks to create an enabling environment promotes increased conservation of protected areas for stakeholders to take action. This includes including water catchment areas. developing functional local level management structures, alternative livelihoods/incomes, An enabling policy environment incentive mechanisms and enabling investments. The Forest Policy of 2014 and the Forest Act of 2015 The vision of the REDD+ strategy is to contribute to provide important entry points for sustainable a prosperous climate change resilient economy by forest management. The main entry point is the 2030, anchored upon sustainable management and involvement of local people in forest management utilisation of Zambia’s natural resources towards and acknowledgment of the landscape approach in improved livelihoods. forest management. Investments should be targeted The main entry points relevant to Northern at key priority needs identified by local communities. Zambia include: The Forest Act provides for participation of local PP Enhanced coordination communities in forest management. The law includes PP Promotion of alternative energy sources provisions for the registration of community forests PP Participatory forest management (CFs), joint forest management (JFM) and private PP Promotion of agricultural practices that enhance forests (PFs). Despite this, effective benefit-sharing productivity and mitigate carbon emissions mechanisms between local people and the government PP Protection of watershed/catchment areas. for JFM are yet to be developed (discussed in Decision Step 7). Fair and equitable benefit sharing mechanisms are critical to the success of REDD+ initiatives.
58 VULNERABILITY DECISION SUPPORT FRAMEWORK Trade-off analysis, and using 4th-to-1st Order Intervention Impact Assessments
The st1 -to-4th Order Impact Assessment Framework introduced in Decision Step 2, can be adapted to assess the potential impacts of interventions. These assessments need to be done for all the options for adaptation interventions that remain from the prioritisation processes in Decision Steps 4 and 5. Identifying and understanding the impacts of different interventions allows for a participatory trade-off analysis to further prioritise potential options by making the evidence base for decisions clear. The process for conducting a participatory intervention impact assessment is laid out in Exercise 6.1. There are multiple methods that can be used to conduct trade-off analyses. No matter which method we use, we need to take into account several key considerations: PP For a stand-alone adaptation project, both benefits and costs should be assessed, relative to a ‘no- project’ alternative. PP For a project with adaptation components undertaken within a broader set of activities, the comparison would be made relative to a business- as-usual project without adaptation components.
Assessments in either case are subjective, although particularly in the latter case. Thus, expert judgement is needed to define the hypothetical alternative as a basis for comparison (World Bank, 2010). Additional considerations are the following: PP The decision regarding how much to adapt now versus waiting to do more. Deciding how much to adapt now, rather than waiting for additional information on the impacts of climate change and doing more, and the options for reducing those impacts, is not an easy decision. The timeframe and associated discount rates used to compare In practice, cost-benefit and trade-off analyses are and prioritise different decisions, needs to be highly controversial and contested practices that have the thoroughly justified. potential to be manipulated by people or organisations PP Data quality and availability need to be understood with vested interests in a project or projects. Thus, it is in terms of how a particular intervention might be important to ensure that all decisions are recorded and advantaged or disadvantaged because of what data the evidence which was used to support each decision is available and the accuracy of it. is clearly laid out.
DECISION STEP 6: PRIORITY ANALYSIS 59
case study 6.3
Afforestation in Northern Zambia Once various adaptation interventions have been What does the assessment show us? prioritised, it is important to determine the potential Increasing investments into afforestation initiatives trade-offs, as well as the maladaptation, or negative (4th Order) will lead to an increase in forest consequences that may occur as a result of a particular cover and job opportunities (3rd Order). This will intervention. subsequently increase carbon sequestration, water Conducting 4th-to-1st Order Intervention Impact interception (water remains in the forest rather than Assessments allows us to identify and analyse flowing on), groundwater recharge, employment, possible trade-offs, which then feed back into household income and soil stability (2nd Order). the reprioritisation process. Continuing the These system changes will lead to a decrease in reprioritisation process ultimately provides the surface water availability (1st Order), which could information to frame cost-benefit analyses. have significant impacts for downstream water Figure 6.2 presents a 4th-to-1st Order Intervention users. However, these changes could also result Impact Assessment of afforestation as a key in an increase in local groundwater access in the intervention in the Northern Region of Zambia. dry season, expanded livelihood opportunities such Afforestation was identified for further analysis on the as bee-keeping, tourism and timber production, basis that forest products and ecosystem services are and climate change mitigation investment integral to livelihoods in much of the Northern Region. opportunities (e.g. through carbon trading). Afforestation was one of the top stakeholder priorities, Moreover, afforestation could reduce poverty and which indirectly contributes towards the development decrease the impact of flooding. of alternative livelihood options. As discussed, Zambian The above exercise provides a structured law, policy and the REDD+ programme provide policy assessment through which trade-offs and and non-policy entry points of common concern for maladaptation outcomes can be assessed, afforestation initiatives. although the analysis is far from exhaustive in
th st th Figure 6.2. 4 -to-1 Order Afforestation Initiatives 4 Intervention Impact Assessment: order Afforestation Initiatives
Forest Cover 3rd Job Opportunities order
Carbon sequestration Water interception nd Groundwater recharge 2 Employment and Household Income order Soil stability ( erosion)
Surface water availability Livelihood opportunities (i.e. beekeeping, tourism etc.) Climate change mitigation investment opportunities st Consistency of local water access from groundwater 1 Poverty order Flooding Baseflow
Continued »
60 VULNERABILITY DECISION SUPPORT FRAMEWORK
terms of the potential impacts of afforestation. It local jobs being created because the initiative was is important to note that this assessment assumes outsourced, or the potential for corruption in the these interventions are implemented effectively. handling of funds). To effectively understand maladaptation potential, all potential options need to be considered (e.g. no
Decision Step 6 Exercise As a group, answer the question: Exercise 6.1: Analysing and Is this intervention a top priority under both Reprioritising Interventions (2 hours) scenarios? The chairperson of your group facilitates The purpose of this exercise is to identify and weigh up the 4th-to-1st Order Impact Assessment and priorities and trade-offs - and identify maladaptation related discussion. Allow different voices and risks of different adaptation interventions. Similar to opinions to be expressed. Each group should Exercise 2.1, this exercise will help to make the knock- swap their assessments with a minimum of on impacts (negative and positive) of prioritised two other groups for cross-consultation and interventions clear. Identifying and understanding further input into the impact assessment. these impacts will allow for a participatory trade-off analysis to be done to further prioritise interventions. Step 3: Get one member of each group to report back your findings in plenary. Resources: Flipchart and markers Step 4: A plenary discussion needs to be Step 1: Each group selects a chair and facilitated to compare the outcomes of spokesperson. In your group, go back to the the impact assessments for the 5 different discussion and outcomes of Exercise 5.1 interventions. The relative merits of each (Decision Step 5), where you identified the intervention should be compared against top 5 priority interventions from the climate their potential maladaptation outcomes (i.e. vulnerability and risk futures assessments. benefits versus costs). Be prepared to tabulate Then, revisit and discuss the concept of the and explain these. 4th-to-1st Order Impact Assessment and the exercise from Decision Step 2, ensuring that Step 5: Once all potential benefits and costs everyone in the group understands. for each of the 5 priority interventions have been considered, take an anonymous vote to Step 2: In smaller groups (5 or fewer if determine the 3 top priorities. th st possible), use the 4 -to-1 Order Impact Assessment Framework, as illustrated in Case Study 6.2, to analyse the positive and negative Monitoring of learning and impacts of your top 5 priority interventions. decisions Consider climate change uncertainty by testing each of the top 5 priority interventions Record your group’s learning and decisions, as against each of the following broad climate discussed in the Introduction. Include your final projection scenarios: 3 priority interventions, the 4th-to-1st Order 1. Warmer, longer dry periods, little change in Intervention Impact Assessments and the tabulated rainfall, more intense extreme rainfall benefits and costs. Explain the key trade-offs 2. Warmer to significantly warmer, a reduction considered, the important maladaptation outcomes in seasonal rainfall. discussed and the reasons for prioritising the particular interventions. Note any additional important points, and say whether this process was useful and why.
DECISION STEP 6: PRIORITY ANALYSIS 61
62 VULNERABILITY DECISION SUPPORT FRAMEWORK 1. Vulnerability 7. & Risk 2. Developing Assessment Sustainable Adaptive Projects Capacity Increase Resilience 6. and Adaptive 3. Priority Capacity Cause & Effect decision step 7 Analysis Pathways
4. 5. Possible Climate Interventions Developing Futures Prioritised Sustainable Projects
key concepts
Impact intervention (socio-economic and environmental, A project’s impact is the change that occurs as a as well as for other sectors)? result of implementing and completing the project. This can be defined in terms of the short-term, Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) medium-term, or long-term impacts, as well as M&E refers to the process of measuring and assessing direct or indirect impacts of the project. Robust progress towards a project’s desired impacts. M&E projects will be able to demonstrate high impact frameworks stem from the components that make in prioritised result areas. They will also be able up the Lifecycle Framework (linked specifically to to demonstrate that any negative consequences Indicators of Achievement – see Figure 7.3), and of implementing the project are mitigated and M&E frameworks follow the reasoning behind minimised. Evaluating the impact of a project the Intervention Logic. M&E tracks results, involves answering two questions: what would accountability, and learning from project experience, have happened in the absence of this intervention? in order to determine whether investment in the What are the direct and indirect implications of this project was worthwhile.
What have we learnt and where are we going?
In Decision Step 6, we looked at how to prioritise options to only a few; ideally only two or three interventions by analysing trade-offs – and the options? possibility of maladaptation – between different 2. What are trade-offs? Why is understanding these options, in terms of ‘costs’ and ‘benefits’. Decision Step important? 7 builds on these results by presenting a structured 3. What is your understanding of maladaptation? framework for how to develop sustainable projects, Why is it important to analyse the social, which will attract funding, from the pre-identified environmental and cross-sectoral consequences prioritised options. But before you start with this step, of the priority climate response options we try to answer the following questions for yourself: choose? 1. Why is prioritisation of adaptation interventions 4. How do we identify entry points and how do they important? Why do we need to reduce the list of influence prioritisation decisions?
DECISION STEP 7: DEVELOPING PRIORITISED SUSTAINABLE PROJECTS 63 Decision Step 7 presents a framework for developing The use of Intervention Logic allows project planners sustainable projects, by outlining the key elements to enhance the focus and robustness of proposed of sustainable projects and how these relate to a projects, which, in turn, increases the probability of basic project lifecycle approach. The programmatic success. Designing a Lifecycle Framework is a critical approach is emphasised throughout. A case study step in attracting funding and support to a project, of the Lukangaba Joint Forest Management Project and forms the foundation of the project’s monitoring presents an example of a project that was not and evaluation (M&E) framework during project implemented sustainably. Lastly, the exercise looks at implementation. a participatory process of combining the key elements of sustainable projects into a Project Lifecycle Framework. Context Talking point:
» Understanding the Project Lifecycle Long term Sequence outcomes / of required This section unpacks some central concepts and objectives events processes related to project lifecycles. Intervention Logic Intervention Logic is the underlying reasoning that connects project inputs (such as materials) to the desired change that the project is trying to Intermediate Underpinning outcomes assumptions accomplish (such as measurable results). If the project design is ‘robust’, the logic will flow from immediate inputs (project materials, personnel, activities) to short-term outcomes (project results), to long-term Figure 7.1. Project Lifecycle or Logframe – key components outcomes (project impacts), through cause-and-effect relationships. This is often called ‘IF-AND-THEN’ reasoning: IF Talking point: the activity is completed AND the external conditions » Assumptions, risks and sustainability for success hold, THEN the project will achieve the desired results. Assumptions, risks and sustainability are key aspects in conceptualising and thinking through project The Project Lifecycle Framework design. The Project Lifecycle is represented in Figure 7.1 alongside. The Lifecycle Framework (also called a Assumptions Logical Framework, or LogFrame) is a systematic When designing a project, there are some elements and visual representation of the Intervention Logic as that planners have to assume will happen in order it flows through the entire scope of the project. for the project to be a success. Thus, assumptions The Lifecycle Framework involves organising and are statements that highlight an external condition thinking through the various components of a project that enables and is necessary for the project to move design, linking them together in a coherent story. The forward. Project planners would be aware of these components of the Framework are: conditions, but would also know that they are outside PP the project context (rationale) of his/her control. PP the actions required to make the project happen, to achieve the desired impact Examples of assumptions made when designing projects: PP the assumptions that underpin the project; and 1. When implementing a community sensitisation PP the medium-term and long-term outcomes and programme for natural resource management, objectives of the project. project planners would assume that community
64 VULNERABILITY DECISION SUPPORT FRAMEWORK participants will be consistently engaged and present 3. Social sustainability, or the ability of a project to during participatory activities. contribute to the healthy and inclusive functioning 2. When sinking a new borehole, it is assumed that of formal and informal processes, systems, structures, borehole users and beneficiaries will understand and relationships of a society, in both the present how to manage the resource to ensure equitable and future. access and to avoid contamination. Talking point: Risks » The Elements of Sustainable Adaptation Projects Risks are statements that anticipate things that might go wrong during a project, or that might prevent the Once a prioritised adaptation intervention has been project from being successful. While assumptions are selected, implementation requires a programmatic external conditions that planners expect to happen approach. The intervention should target entry in order for the project to be successful, risks are points of common concern and systematically conditions that planners want to avoid in order for monitor and evaluate outcomes. A programmatic the project to be successful. approach towards climate change adaptation involves a thorough analysis of the risks and opportunities Examples of risk statements when designing projects: associated with each stage of the decision-making 1. Given the political and economic climate in process. This is demonstrated through project donor countries, it is a risk that funding could be ownership, stakeholder engagement, open and withdrawn from the project before completion. transparent implementation, results-oriented 2. Given that water recharge systems vary according to outcomes and cost-effectiveness (UNFCCC, 2012). climate, it is a risk that a borehole may not yield as These critical elements help to build the evidence much water as expected or that the water table may base that informs decision-making. drop permanently. This would negatively impact all A viable intervention is one that achieves the three sustainability dimensions of the intervention desired outcome efficiently, is supported by the (financial, social and environmental). beneficiary communities, is designed to promote equity, and targets vulnerable populations. A viable Sustainability intervention is also able to attract funding from a The sustainability of a project should be viewed variety of sources, and will be sustained beyond the through three lenses, namely: lifecycle of the project. Selecting a viable project is 1. Economic sustainability, or the ability to financially not simply a matter of ‘ticking boxes’. Rather, it is an support the continued success of an intervention iterative process that requires an understanding of beyond the lifecycle of the project; each of the elements that ensure a project is ‘robust’, 2. Environmental sustainability, or the ability of the and how these relate to one another. project to meet the needs of the current benefactors The key elements of sustainable adaptation projects without compromising the health of the ecosystems are listed in Table 7.1, and discussed in more detail that provide services for them; and, thereafter.
DECISION STEP 7: DEVELOPING PRIORITISED SUSTAINABLE PROJECTS 65 Table 7.1. Key Elements of Successful Adaptation Projects
ELEMENT COMPONENTS SOURCES 1. Manageable & Credible management arrangements (oversight, Identified and evaluated in design phase implementable dissemination of funds, M&E, trustworthiness) 2. Founded in Partnerships, role of civil society, communication good governance strategies with stakeholders; accountability 3. Feasible (ease of Ownership and buy-in is established; and equality Established through community / stakeholder implementation) stakeholders understand what they will be doing engagement, evidenced further by 1 & 2 and why and are enabled to deliver 4. Evidence based Clear business case and rationale and based in R&V assessments, socio-economic analysis, science & analysis DSAs, national climate assessments 5. Needs and Linked to development priorities - which in turn National and local development plans, economic solutions-oriented are linked to local needs? analysis, Climate R&V mitigation assessment Provides a means of mitigating climate risks (climate first) or enabling development priorities (development first) 6. High, Results based with quantified targets National, local and programmatic M&E measurable impact There is a known baseline from which to measure indicators, baseline studies, development plans progress toward achieving targets 7. Sustainable Economic/financial: is there funding beyond the Economic analysis current funds? Credible project attractive to broad funders; Environmental: avoids maladaptation Attracts domestic resources; indicators Social: promotes social development and equality 8. Cultural Is this intervention culturally acceptable? If Established through community / stakeholder adaptability it requires cultural change, how great is this engagement change? what awareness raising and educational activities and investments are needed to enable the cultural change needed?
Sustainable adaptation projects are: can be utilised to bridge capacity gaps within local 1. Manageable and Implementable: Projects must public institutions. have credible management structures, including 3. Feasible (ease of implementation): Once key structures and systems in place for project oversight, partnerships are identified, stakeholder buy-in must dissemination of funds, and M&E. These supporting be established. Who needs to buy into the project systems must be identified and evaluated in the in order for it to be successful and sustainable? design phase. This is a necessary stop/go point; if Stakeholders must understand what they will be these structures are not in place, then the project is doing and why. Additionally, they must be enabled probably not viable. with the funding, capacities, and tools to deliver on 2. Founded in good governance: Successful projects these responsibilities. A community stakeholder must be built upon a foundation of key partnerships, engagement plan that incorporates a communication that will ensure the stakeholder buy-in necessary and accountability strategy (see point 2) needs to be to validate the selection of the project, and get it developed in the design phase. off the ground during the implementation phase. 4. Evidence-based: A strong evidence base is Communication strategies (What supportive necessary for outlining a clear business case and partnerships are needed to make this project viable?) rationale in project proposals. Clear and measurable and accountability structures (Who is holding this impacts must be identified, both negative and project accountable for delivery?) must be put into positive. Building an evidence base (the outcomes of place during the design phase. The roles of civil Decision Steps 1 to 6) will necessarily draw from a society and the private sector are essential. Both variety sources.
66 VULNERABILITY DECISION SUPPORT FRAMEWORK 5. Needs- and solutions-orientated: To gain political to receive stakeholder buy-in. Social development buy-in and to access the necessary funding, projects needs to be in touch with different cultural must be linked to development priorities, both at practices to ensure sustainability. This may require the national level and the local level. Throughout time and resource investments to ensure cultural the project design process, there must be a clear considerations are preserved. Awareness raising and understanding of what development or climate educational activities are key tools that can be used need the intervention is addressing. Coherently to effect cultural change. linking the project with respective priorities will require an in-depth understanding of national and Levels of sustainability can be determined through local development plans, economic analysis, climate a variety of tools. These include economic analysis, R&V, and mitigation and adaptation assessments. which proves that the project is attractive to a broad 6. High measurable impact: The selected project array of funders; and environmental and social impact must be designed to produce an impact that is assessments.
results-based, with quantifiable targets. Identifying indicators of impact requires a known baseline from which to measure progress toward achieving targets. Testing the viability of a project These indicators will form the basis of the project’s Let’s apply the criteria above and see how this M&E framework. They must answer the questions: might work in practice. Who will be impacted by the project? How much For example, suppose that a project is selected will they be impacted? A good starting point for based on the good governance structures that formulating indicators will be national, local, and already exist to support its implementation programmatic M&E indicators, baseline studies, (#2). However, when answering questions and development plans. regarding feasibility and stakeholder buy-in 7. Sustainability: The success of the project will (#3), it comes to light that key stakeholder depend on its sustainability. Financial sustainability groups (e.g. the private sector) have not been is critical: Is there funding available for the long- included in strategic governance partnerships. term beyond the scope of this project’s lifecycle? In that case, governance structures for design Environmental and social sustainability are also and implementation may need to be revisited critical: Will this project avoid maladaptation (see and amended to ensure that those necessary Decision Step 6)? Does the project promote social for the project’s sustainability (#7) are involved development and equality? from the very start. 8. Cultural Adaptability: If an adaptation project is not culturally acceptable then it will be unlikely
DECISION STEP 7: DEVELOPING PRIORITISED SUSTAINABLE PROJECTS 67 How are these elements built into the project lifecycle?
All the elements discussed up to here play an integral IF-AND-THEN logic, discussed at the beginning role throughout the life of a project. Figure 7.2 below of this Decision Step. This logical flow is captured shows the logical flow of a project lifecycle. We can in the four grey arrows above the 6 stages. Each grey use this diagram as the starting point for locating the arrow in the logical flow shows a cause-and-effect elements in an actual project lifecycle. Understanding relationship between the actions, assumptions and the logical flow of a project is necessary for results. understanding the Project Lifecycle Approach. For example: IF resources and inputs are provided, Logical Flow: The project lifecycle consists of AND assumptions hold, THEN activities can be 6 stages (see Figure 7.2). These are linked by the undertaken.
IF Outcomes achieved IF Resources provided IF Activities undertaken IF Outputs delivered AND Assumptions hold AND Assumptions hold AND Assumptions hold AND Assumptions hold THEN contribution towards LOGICAL FLOW THEN Activities undertaken Then Outputs delivered THEN Outcomes achieved Impact
PLANNED WORK INTENDED RESULTS
Outcomes Assumptions Resources/ Short term: Impact Activities Outputs 1–3 years and Risks Inputs Medium term: 4–6 7–10 years years
Figure 7.2. The logical flow of a project lifecycle
Participatory Process: The process of sustainable structures. Another option is to establish clear project development is underpinned by community and consistent lines of communication between involvement at every step, which ensures community the project team and community representatives buy-in and ownership of the project. This greatly throughout the entire project.
improves the probability of success and sustainability of the intervention, long after the project is completed. key information Communities play a key role at two stages within the Starting from the End Point lifecycle: It is crucial to note that although the project 1. Sensitisation and consultation: In order for a project lifecycle presented in Figure 7.2 flows from to be locally owned, communities need to be involved assumptions and risk (on the left of the diagram), from the very beginning. This requires project to planned work, to intended results (on the right), planners to build a foundation of knowledge and the process of actually designing a project through awareness of how climate change and climate shocks the lifecycle approach will work backwards. So, impact community livelihoods and surrounding when designing projects, planners start at the ecosystems. Awareness raising paves the way for endpoint (outcomes and impacts). They will ask consultation with communities to identify risks and questions such as: What is this project trying to vulnerabilities, and prioritise needs. achieve? What is the intended impact? (Ideally, 2. Community implementation: Communities, as the projects will reduce vulnerability, impact as many main beneficiaries and ultimate ‘owners’ of the project, people as possible, target vulnerable groups, and should be involved throughout implementation. have the greatest benefit at the lowest cost.) One way to do this is to include key community representatives in management and accountability
68 VULNERABILITY DECISION SUPPORT FRAMEWORK
case study 7.1
Project implementation: the Lukangaba Joint Forest Management Project A pilot Joint Forest Management (JFM) project was neglecting other sectors that influence the forest established in Lukangaba local forest in Mansa, sector. Forests were not considered in a broader Luapula province under the provincial forestry action context as they will be considered under REDD+ plan (PFAP). Lukangaba local forest covers about 7000 initiatives, which is landscape based. The FD further ha. The focus of JFM was enhancing forest condition lacked personnel, which made it difficult for them through improved forest management by providing to enforce rules, one of the main barriers to policy for community participation in forest management. implementation in Zambia (Kalaba, 2016). Through this project, forest user groups were It is suggested that greater attention must constituted and trained in harvesting and processing be given to delivering community benefits of non-wood forest products (NWFPs) such as and, consequently, development through mushrooms. Timber concessions and licences were targeting drivers of deforestation. JFM shifted issued by the Forest Department (FD). the responsibility of forest management from However, benefit sharing mechanisms between the government to communities, but without the FD and local communities were not developed, proportional benefits. Greater sustainable benefits and as such the FD retained all revenues from timber that are long-term are likely to be perceived by concessions. In addition, JFM was forestry sector- the community when the project targets broader focused and lacked interventions in other sectors such livelihood activities, such as improved agricultural as agriculture or energy as a way of improving forest practices that increase yields. management. Further, during the implementation While the FD has the technical expertise in forest of the project, between 2000 and 2007, the country management, it lacks expertise in both the wider lacked a suitable legislative framework to support context, and in resources. Instead, the creation of community participation in forest management. landscape approaches at the local level could act The Forest Policy of 1998 provided for community to integrate the separate departments (agriculture, participation, while the Forest Law (1973) lacked energy, forestry), and benefit from skills and provisions for community participation, thereby resources. creating a conflict between the policy and law. Lessons from JFM show that REDD+ projects must be broadened in both their scale and scope. In Failures and lessons for REDD+ terms of scale, a broader shift towards inter-sectoral, In the JFM project, communities that the project collaborative governance is required to facilitate supported were dissatisfied with community-level landscape-relevant activities (see also Laventon et benefits, which they did not consider to be significant al., 2015). In terms of scope, forests must be part or meaningful. Barriers to providing meaningful of a broader landscape of natural resources, all of community development benefits may be attributed which play varying roles in local livelihoods and to the broader macro-context of JFM, due to its therefore offer variable contributions to community single sector focus on forest governance. The project development (Laventon et al., 2015). remained narrowly focused on the forestry sector,
DECISION STEP 7: DEVELOPING PRIORITISED SUSTAINABLE PROJECTS 69 key information
THE LOGICAL FRAMEWORK (‘LOGFRAME’) TOOL
Now that you have worked through the necessary elements Most importantly, the Logframe tool ensures that the logic and logical flow of projects, you will see how to apply these behind the project is sound and aligned with prioritised concepts to designing a project within the detailed Logical needs. The tool will help you to ensure you can answer Framework (‘logframe’) on the next page (Figure 7.3). The these key questions: detailed Framework is a tool to help build a coherent PP How will this project contribute to community, district, project ‘storyline’ that runs throughout the phases of provincial, national and/or regional development goals? design, implementation, and beyond. The logframe helps PP How will this project contribute to the objectives of you to: this particular fund or programme (e.g. PPCR Zambia, PP Organise your thinking Green Climate Fund, bilateral donor funds, government PP Link specific activities to desired outputs and impacts development budgets)? PP Set performance indicators in order to measure project PP Where is there overlap between these objectives, and success where are the differences? PP Delegate roles and responsibilities to different PP How can these objectives be aligned as closely as stakeholders at different levels of governance; and possible? PP Coherently communicate the project storyline (objectives, rationale, activities) to prospective funders, beneficiaries, and implementing partners.
Using the Logical Framework tool
The final exercise will take you through the process of populating the Logical Framework, or ‘logframe’. It is important to remember that the components of the Framework are not necessarily a step-by-step process. You might need to go back to earlier steps in the decision process if each component is not aligned. For example: a development policy objective that does not have clearly measurable targets may need to be revised to reflect desired targets for that specific objective. Being able to measure progress toward such targets depends on available and reliable baseline data. In addition, this exercise will guide you through the construction of a storyline that follows a coherent Intervention Logic.
See figure 7.3 on the following page.
70 VULNERABILITY DECISION SUPPORT FRAMEWORK Figure 7.3. The Logical Framework (“logframe”) tool
PROJECT LOGICAL FRAMEWORK Project Storyline IF-AND-THEN Test #1 Intervention Rationale #4 Indicators off achievement #3 Assumptions and Risks Long-term objectives 1.A. Impacts: 1.B. What are the key indicators of 1.C. What are the risks to Consider: project What are the broader achieving the overall objectives? project success? linkages to National objectives to which the What actions can be taken to Priorities and Action action will contribute? mitigate these risks? Plans & to Fund Identify risks and ways to Objectives manage them early on in order (GCF, AF, etc) to increase chances of success. Short-term objectives 2.A. Outcomes: 2.B. Which indicators show that Consider: sustainability of Consider: project What specific objective is the the objective of the action has funding, coordination of linkages to action trying to achieve? been achieved? multiple actors, project delays, District Plans and Measuring the impact of the lack of political will, etc. development goals project will require knowledge of a baseline. What is the status quo? District R&V Assessments are a good starting point. Expected results 3.A. Outputs: What are the indicators to measure What are the expected whether the project has achieved results of the project? the expected results? Think about these in relation Example: increased maize yield to the objective of the by X%, decreased incidence of project. Do these results tick-borne diseases by X%. (or outputs) align with the project objective? #5 Project activities 4.A. Activities: 4.B Resources/Inputs: What are the key activities of What are the means required to the project? implement these activities? What are the action costs? IF-THEN Test Consider: roles and responsibilities #2 of implementing actors, timelines for outputs, required materials, etc
Decision Step 7 Exercise The structured approach allows you to further refine Exercise 7.1: Design a project using and clarify the interventions throughout the following 6 exercise steps. Understanding how each of the the Logical Framework (3-5 hours) interventions could translate into sustainable projects, further strengthens the evidence-base through which This exercise is a participatory process of combining a project can be justified (see step 6). the key elements of sustainable projects into project lifecycle design, for the three prioritised interventions Resources: You will need to copy the logframe (blank) that you identified in Decision Step 6. You can use onto a flipchart page or pages. the following guide to implementing the logframe Work in a small group and discuss the answers to in Figure 7.3, for all top priority interventions (2 to the questions in each step below. Then complete the 3 in the immediate to medium term). The logframe Logical Framework cells, as directed, for each Step. thus serves as a final method of deciding which intervention option to adopt.
DECISION STEP 7: DEVELOPING PRIORITISED SUSTAINABLE PROJECTS 71 Step 1: First you are going to define long- and of design. For the purposes of completing short-term objectives, expected results and the Lifecycle Framework, you need to project activities. focus on key activities only. When you list a. Define the long-term objectives of the project: activities in cell 4.A., keep in mind the roles, What are the broader objectives to which responsibilities, and project management and the action will contribute? Consider how support structures that are necessary. the project will contribute to goals outlined in national development plans, national Step 2: Verify the Project Storyline using IF- adaptation plans, and national climate THEN Tests: We use this step to test the logic change strategies. If the project is going to be of the ‘storyline’ determined from Step 1. In a submitted to a specific fund or programme, well-planned Framework, cells 1.A. to 4.A. will consider how the project contributes to the flow from one to the other, following a cause- broader objectives of that programme. List and-effect pattern. these objectives as well as their sources in cell Starting at the bottom (cell 4.A), you should 1.A of Figure 7.3 be able to make the following logical b. Define the short-term objectives of the connections: project: What is the purpose of the project? What are the specific outcomes of the project? PP IF the Project Activities are carried out Consider how the project aligns with specific THEN the short-term Project Outputs will district development priorities and needs. List be achieved. these project outcomes as well as the specific PP Similarly, IF the Project Outputs are development objectives they link to and achieved, THEN one can expect certain sources in cell 2.A (Figure 7.3). Although the Project Outcomes to be advanced. project may contribute to a variety of long- PP Finally, IF short term Project Outcomes are term objectives (cell 1.A.), the short-term advanced, THEN long term Impacts will objectives should be very focused. If the scope result. of your project becomes too large, the design of the project may become weakened and the The stronger the cause-and-effect linkages are project may lack feasibility. It is important between each level, the stronger the overall to engage with stakeholders to define the project design will be. project scope so that the intervention remains manageable, given existing capacities and Step 3:Identify Assumptions and Risks: This is funding. a key step in all project design processes (see the c. Define the expected results: What are Key Information box below). Even if the Project the outputs of the project? List these as Storyline follows a clear intervention logic, specific deliverables, describing what exactly with strong cause-and-effect linkages, there the project is going to deliver. If there are are always external factors that may prevent a multiple outputs they should all produce the project from being successful or external factors desired outcome described in cell 2.A. Later, that must be in place in order for the project to when monitoring the impact of the project, be effective. these outputs will be used to hold the project team accountable. When thinking about the Step 4: Identify Indicators of Achievement: expected results in terms of monitoring and Indicators are required to measure project evaluation it is important to frame these outputs and are used as a benchmark to monitor results as discrete outputs that are measurable project success. In each cell of Column B, with against an existing baseline. the exception of cell 4.B., list the measurable d. Define project activities: What activities will and verifiable indicators of achievement. List allow the project team to achieve the expected them for each row for long-term Impacts, short- result? Think about the work that will form term Outcomes, and project Outputs. A good the basis of a project work plan in later stages indicator will be directly tied to the objectives in
72 VULNERABILITY DECISION SUPPORT FRAMEWORK Column A. It is easiest to begin at the top – cell Zambia provides well trained extension staff THEN Senga 1.B. Indicators for this box will be tied to long- Hill District will experience increased access to dipping, term objectives of an overarching programme, vaccination, and livestock healthcare services. vision, or strategy. For this reason, indicators for The assumption here is that the government will provide success are often already established in existing adequately trained staff for the centre. It is necessary for documents and will include targets and timelines the success of the project, but it is an external condition that extend past the lifecycle of this project. that is outside the control of the project team. Basic indicators can describe quantity, quality, and/or timeframe of achievement. For example: A possible risk is there is a lack of support and buy-in Uptake of conservation agriculture in Senga Hill for the project, which will negatively affect the desired District increases by X the number of smallholder outcome. farmers by 2025.
Step 5: List necessary resources and inputs for project completion: The final step of completing Exercise 7.2: Project write-up the Project Lifecycle Framework is defining (3 – 6 hours) what resources, materials, and funding the project will require, in order to be successful. Use the completed Project Lifecycle Framework When actually designing a project this step to develop a project proposal, brief, motivation is a much larger process than the scope of and/or write-up. Use the structured process this exercise allows. Consider the following: of the completed logframe to write up the roles and responsibilities of key implementers, desired adaptation intervention project/s. estimated cost of the project, necessary skills, Draw on multiple streams of evidence from all capacities and materials. List these inputs the Decision Steps throughout this DSF. The according to each of the activities described in recorded information from the Monitoring of cell 4.B. learning and decisions section of each Decision Step is a good departure point for this exercise. key information It is important to make sure that the language ASSUMPTIONS AND RISKS used is not too technical that the reader might battle to understand it, nor too simple that the Acknowledging assumptions and anticipating risks is a thorough nature of the methodology is not key step in designing projects. It allows project planners conveyed. A key learning opportunity here is to to start thinking about ways to mitigate those risks, read over previous successful and unsuccessful decreasing the probability of negative external events project motivations to identify what works and taking place, and increasing the probability of positive what doesn’t. Ultimately, the manner in which external conditions being in place. This is extremely the project is written up should be dependent important when submitting project proposals to possible on the target audience and purpose, determined funders. Funders, both in the public and private sector, from steps 1 and 2 above. will want to see that the project has a high probability for return on investment. Monitoring of learning and Assumptions and Risks complete the Intervention Logic decisions by adding the linking AND factor to the IF-THEN Test. Record your group’s learning and decisions, as discussed The Test now becomes IF-AND-THEN. in the Introduction. Include your completed logframe Example: Incorporating Assumptions and Risks into the table and explain the step-by-step decisions made to Intervention Logic inform each sub-component. Note any additional important points, and say whether this process was IF the project team successfully constructs and capacitates useful and why. a livestock servicing centre AND the Government of
Continued »
DECISION STEP 7: DEVELOPING PRIORITISED SUSTAINABLE PROJECTS 73
Glossary of Terminology
Central concepts of adaptation, development and climate resilience
The concepts outlined below are central to under- climate change is a growing threat to development, standing and addressing climate resilient adaptation sustainability will be more difficult to achieve unless and the link between development and adaptation. development pathways are pursued that are resilient to effects of climate change. Post-2015 goals and targets The difference between coping and adapting should explicitly acknowledge that reducing climate As set out by Saldarriaga et al. (2014), vulnerability helps achieve goals on poverty, food “coping with challenges allows survival and protection security and other basic development priorities. Both of short-term food security or income. However, it often international climate change processes and international wears down assets that will be needed in the future. agendas on poverty reduction and sustainable Adaptation, on the other hand, can be considered as development can learn from the innovative ways modifications in behavior or strategies that enable individual countries are bringing together these issues, farmers to continue to develop in the face of change over and the funding to address them, at national levels. the long run” (Saldarriaga et al, 2014. p. 2). Climate finance: Building synergies The difference between the concepts can be summar- To support these synergies between climate change ised as below: and sustainable development processes, climate finance instruments should be designed and governed A coping mechanism has the following characteristics: in ways that aim to deliver co-benefits, thereby PP It is short term – based around immediate needs helping achieve globally agreed development goals. for survival Climate finance is offering developing countries PP It is stimulated by a challenge, and is reactive greater autonomy and flexibility than traditional PP It often degrades the natural resource base development assistance and, where informed by local PP It is defined by a lack of alternatives priorities, it can help achieve more equitable and sustainable development (IIED, 2013:4). Adaptive management on the other hand has the following characteristics: Additionality PP A long-term process, based around sustained Additionality refers here specifically to the official practices that improve livelihoods flows for climate change and adaptation additional PP Involves planning and being prepared for a crisis to traditionally allocated Overseas Development PP Protects, conserves and uses the natural resource Assistance (ODA). Identifying exactly what is new base efficiently and sustainably and additional to ODA in climate adaptation is not PP Emphasis is on finding alternative strategies straightforward; disentangling the amount of finance specific to the climate change component from the Why are climate-resilient pathways needed for development component of a climate-compatible sustainable development? development objective can be difficult. However, Sustainable development requires managing many additionality is important in minimising the risks of threats and risks, including climate change. Because double counting.
74 VULNERABILITY DECISION SUPPORT FRAMEWORK
Adaptive Capacity Climate lens The combination of the strengths, attributes, and An analytical tool to examine a strategy, policy, resources available to an individual, community, plan or policy measure (e.g. law and regulation). It society, or organization that can be used to prepare involves examining the extent to which a strategy, for and undertake actions to reduce adverse impacts, plan or policy measure under consideration could be moderate harm, or exploit beneficial opportunities vulnerable to risks arising from climate variability (IPCC, 2012: 556). or change; the extent to which climate risks have been taken into consideration in the course of the Adaptation formulation of the strategy, plan or policy measure; In human systems, the process of adjustment to the extent to which it could increase vulnerability, actual or expected climate and its effects, in order to leading to maladaptation (e.g. for certain population moderate harm or exploit beneficial opportunities. In groups, regions or sectors); and what amendments natural systems, the process of adjustment to actual might be warranted to address climate risks (OECD climate and its effects; human intervention may 2009 in UNDP-UNEP, 2011: 81). facilitate adjustment to expected climate (IPCC, 2012: 556). Climate resilience The ability of a system and its components to Incremental adaptation anticipate, absorb, accommodate or recover from the Adaptation actions where the central aim is to effects of a hazardous event in a timely and efficient maintain the essence and integrity of a system or manner. This includes ensuring the preservation, process at a given scale (IPCC, 2012: 1758). restoration or improvement of the system’s essential basic structures and functions (IPCC, 2012: 563). Transformational adaptation Adaptation that changes the fundamental Climate variability attributes of a system in response to climate and its Climate variability refers to variations in the mean effects (IPCC, 2012: 1758). state and other statistics (such as standard deviations, the occurrence of extremes, etc.) of the climate Adaptive management at all spatial and temporal scales beyond that of A process of iteratively planning, implementing, individual weather events. Variability may be due to and modifying strategies for managing resources natural internal processes within the climate system in the face of uncertainty and change. Adaptive (internal variability), or to variations in natural or management involves adjusting approaches in anthropogenic external forcing (external variability) response to observations of their effect and changes (IPCC, 2012: 557). in the system brought on by resulting feedback effects and other variables (IPCC, 2012: 1758). Co-benefits The positive effects that a policy or measure aimed Climate Change at one objective might have on other objectives, A change in the state of the climate that can be irrespective of the net effect on overall social welfare. identified (e.g., by using statistical tests) by changes in Co-benefits are often subject to uncertainty and the mean and/or the variability of its properties and depend on local circumstances and implementation that persists for an extended period, typically decades practices, among other factors. Co-benefits are also or longer. Climate change may be due to natural referred to as ancillary benefits (IPCC, 2012: 1762). internal processes or external forcings, or to persistent anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in land use (IPCC, 2012: 557).
GLOSSARY OF TERMINOLOGY 75 Economic development Ecosystem services Economic development refers to sustained Ecological processes or functions having monetary improvements in the economic, social, political or non-monetary value to individuals or society at and environmental wellbeing of a country’s people. large. These are frequently classified as (1) supporting Economic development occurs as a result of a services such as productivity or biodiversity multiplicity of different and often uncoordinated maintenance, (2) provisioning services such as food, activities undertaken by government policy fiber, or fish, (3) regulating services such as climate interventions, institutional implementation, private regulation or carbon sequestration, and (4) cultural sector economic activities, and civil society action. services such as tourism or spiritual and aesthetic Climate change impacts on many aspects of the appreciation (IPCC, 2012: 1764). wellbeing of people and hence cannot be separated from issues of economic development. Exposure Exposure refers to the presence (location) of people, Ecosystem livelihoods, environmental services and resources, A functional unit consisting of living organisms, their infrastructure, or economic, social, or cultural assets non-living environment, and the interactions within in places that could be adversely affected by physical and between them. The components included in a events and which, thereby, are subject to potential given ecosystem and its spatial boundaries depend future harm, loss, or damage (Lavell et al., 2012: 32). on the purpose for which the ecosystem is defined: in some cases they are relatively sharp, while in Extreme events others they are diffuse. Ecosystem boundaries can Extreme events comprise a facet of climate variability change over time. Ecosystems are nested within under stable or changing climate conditions. They are other ecosystems, and their scale can range from very defined as the occurrence of a value of a weather or small to the entire biosphere. In the current era, most climate variable above (or below) a threshold value ecosystems either contain people as key organisms, near the upper (or lower) ends (‘tails’) of the range of or are influenced by the effects of human activities in observed values of the variable (Lavell et al., 2012: 30). their environment (IPCC, 2012: 1764). Governance refers to the process whereby elements in Ecosystem approach society exercise power and authority to influence policy A strategy for the integrated management of land, enactment and decisions concerning public and private water, and living resources that promotes conservation life, economic and social development. Governance and sustainable use in an equitable way. An ecosystem is a broader notion than government. It encompasses approach is based on the application of scientific both the exercise of power (including sanctions methodologies focused on levels of biological and rewards) as well as the institutions (usually but organization, which encompass the essential exclusively of government) through which government structure, processes, functions, and interactions of aims are realized. Hence it refers to interactions organisms and their environment. It recognizes that between formal institutions and those of civil society. humans, with their cultural diversity, are an integral [Governance working group of international institute component of many ecosystems. The ecosystem of administrative sciences 1996] approach requires adaptive management to deal with the complex and dynamic nature of ecosystems and Hazard the absence of complete knowledge or understanding The potential occurrence of a natural or human- of their functioning. Priority targets are conservation induced physical event that may cause loss of life, injury, of biodiversity and of the ecosystem structure and or other health impacts, as well as damage and loss to functioning, in order to maintain ecosystem services property, infrastructure, livelihoods, service provision, (IPCC, 2012: 1764). and environmental resources (IPCC, 2012: 560).
76 VULNERABILITY DECISION SUPPORT FRAMEWORK Impact Mitigation (of disaster risk and disaster) A project’s impact is the change that occurs as a The lessening of the potential adverse impacts of result the implementation and completion of the physical hazards (including those that are human- project. This can be defined in terms of the short- induced) through actions that reduce hazard, exposure, term, medium-term, or long-term impacts, as well and vulnerability (IPCC, 2012: 561). as direct or indirect impacts of the project. Robust projects will be able to demonstrate high impact in Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) prioritised result areas. Evaluating the impact of a M&E refers to the process of measuring and assessing project involves answering the question: what would progress towards the project’s desired impacts. M&E have happened in the absence of this intervention? frameworks stem from the components that make Intervention Logic up the Lifecycle Framework (linked specifically to Intervention Logic is the underlying reasoning that Indicators of Achievement) and follow the reasoning connects project inputs to the desired change that behind the Intervention Logic. M&E tracks results, the project is trying to accomplish. If the project accountability, and learning from project experience design is “robust”, the logic will flow from immediate in order to determine whether investment in the inputs (project materials, personnel, activities) to project was worth its while. short term outcomes (project results) to long term outcomes (project impacts) through cause-and-effect Multiple-criteria decision-making (MCDM) or relationships. This is often called “IF-AND-THEN” multiple-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) reasoning. IF the activity is completed AND the MCDA considers multiple criteria in decision- external conditions for success hold THEN the making environments. Typically, there does not exist project will achieve the desired results. a unique optimal solution for such problems and it is necessary to use decision-maker’s preferences to Law sets out standards, procedures and principles that differentiate between solutions. must be followed. If the law is not followed, those responsible for breaking them can be prosecuted in Policy is what the government hopes to achieve and the courts of law. However, governance can also have the methods and principles it will use to achieve recourse to a host of sanction and rewards which are them. Policy sets out goals and planned activities of a broader than the law to align people’s activities with ministry and department. It may be necessary to adopt the law. new policies, pass laws and formulate regulations in order to enable government to put in place necessary Maladaptation institution and legal frameworks to achieve their aims. Occurs when an action or process increases vulnerability to climate change–related hazards. Project Lifecycle Framework Maladaptive actions and processes often include The Lifecycle Framework (also called a Logical planned development policies and measures that Framework, or LogFrame) is a systematic and visual deliver short-term gains or economic benefits, but representation of the Intervention Logic as it flows can eventually lead to exacerbated vulnerability in the throughout the entire scope of the project. By medium to long term (UNDP, 2004). organising the different elements of a project, and linking them through a cohesive Intervention Logic, Mitigation (of climate change) the Lifecycle Framework allows project planners to A human intervention to reduce the sources or enhance the focus and robustness of proposed projects, enhance the sinks of greenhouse gases (IPCC, 2012: which, in turn, increases the probability of success. 561). Lifecycle Frameworks are a critical step in attracting funding and support to projects and form the foundation of the project’s monitoring and evaluation (M&E) framework during project implementation.
GLOSSARY OF TERMINOLOGY 77 Resilience Sustainability Resilience is defined as the ability of a system and its Sustainability of a project should be view through component parts to anticipate, absorb, accommodate, three lenses. (1) Economic sustainability: the ability or recover from the effects of a potentially hazardous to financially support the continued success of an event in a timely and efficient manner, including intervention beyond the lifecycle of the project. (2) through ensuring the preservation, restoration, or Environmental sustainability: the ability of the project improvement of its essential basic structures and to meet the needs of the current benefactors without functions (Lavell et al., 2012: 34). compromising the health of the ecosystems that provide services for them. (3) Social sustainability: Risk the ability of a project to contribute to the healthy The potential for consequences where something of and inclusive functioning of formal and informal value is at stake and where the outcome is uncertain, processes, systems, structures, and relationships of a recognizing the diversity of values. Risk is often society in the both the present and future. represented as probability of occurrence of hazardous events or trends multiplied by the impacts if these Sustainable development events or trends occur. Risk results from the interaction Development that meets the needs of the present of vulnerability, exposure, and hazard. In this report, without compromising the ability of future generations the term risk is used primarily to refer to the risks of to meet their own needs (IPCC, 2012: 564). climate-change impacts (IPCC, 2012: 1772). Vulnerability Spatial mapping Vulnerability is defined generically as the propensity A methodology for spatially representing vulnerability or predisposition to be adversely affected. Such to climate change – and hence the areas requiring predisposition constitutes an internal characteristic resilience building – using Geographic Information of the affected element. In the field of disaster risk, Systems (GIS) that overlay numerous data layers to this includes the characteristics of a person or group identify areas of vulnerability or hotspots. and their situation that influences their capacity to anticipate, cope with, resist, and recover from the adverse effects of physical events (Wisner et al., 2004 in Lavell et al., 2012: 32).
78 VULNERABILITY DECISION SUPPORT FRAMEWORK
Annexures
The following appendices are available on the project dropbox folder: 1. Technical Background Document 2. Notes for Facilitators 3. Book of Inputs: Indicators of Exposure 4. Book of Inputs: Indicators of Sensitivity 5. Book of Inputs: Indicators of Adaptive Capacity 6. Indicator weighting tool
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/eks2ek0qwzxylqc/AADkCmtz4mDmVR2Ehpyihs-Ra?dl=0
NOTE: Annexure 2, Notes for Facilitators, also appear in the following pages.
APPENDICES 79
ANNEXURE 2: Notes for Facilitators
This section provides some support for facilitators in Using the DSF with inclusive preparing for working with the DSF in a workshop (mixed) stakeholder groups context. Since workshops will vary in size, range of participants, objectives and budget, these notes There are many advantages in having a broad range provide only indicative suggestions. of stakeholders working together (for example local farmers, fishers, government directors, planners and Workshop guidelines and leaders, and Chiefs). Accessing local knowledge is suggestions critical to addressing questions of adaptation, and engaging the lived experience of local participants The Framework includes practical, interactive alongside decision-makers and policy makers is activities and discussions for participatory analysis. invaluable. Transformational change cannot take Exercises are provided at the end of each Decision place without broad stakeholder engagement. Step, and discussions can take place at any point, The DSF is therefore designed to address a broad and as indicated. Decision Steps 2 to 7 begin with range of stakeholders; it is written in plain English, a section called What have we learnt and where are with concepts explained, and clear diagrams and we going? This section provides an opportunity for tools. In other words, it is intended to ‘teach itself ’. reflection on what has gone before and an overview However, there may be cases where it may need to be of what is to come. adapted to address the needs of differing abilities of If the DSF is used for training – or when applied participants, for example in terms of literacy. In such in a workshop – it would likely take the form of a cases, some thought needs to be given to the range of 3- to 6-day interactive workshop. It is possible to stakeholders that will be included and varying needs. use the Decision Support Framework somewhat It is important to note that the DSF has been selectively, according to the target audience/ user designed with a participatory approach in mind. This group: not every stakeholder group might necessarily requires facilitators who are able to facilitate within need to work through all the steps (for example the a participatory framework, as required, in terms of earlier steps are more relevant when stakeholders managing group discussions and power dynamics, are identifying suitable projects, whilst DS7 is making sure that all voices are heard and captured, more relevant to project planners). Furthermore, moderating discussions and so on. the Framework could be worked through in two
consecutive workshops, at different stages of the Assumptions regarding prior learning or prior planning and decision-making process. (For example knowledge of workshop participants the earlier Decision Steps (1 to 4) could be done first, and 5 to 7 later). In this way, decision-makers The authors of the DSF made the following and workshop participants have more time to reflect assumptions in terms of the stakeholder audience on what they have learnt and have the opportunity and the facilitator/s. It is assumed that: to gather additional information and/or evidence PP participants/ users/ learners will have at least a to support the next stage of the decision-making basic understanding and ability in map-reading procedure. PP participants/ users/ learners will have sufficient Through a participatory analysis process, English to engage with and negotiate concepts participants will apply the various tools and resources such as climate impacts, risk and vulnerability, of the Decision Support Framework. It is important adaptive capacity, climate resilience and so on. for workshop directors and facilitators to understand These concepts are explained and unpacked in and be comfortable with these tools before the the DSF, however learners with limited English workshop. Importantly, this involves engaging with may have some difficulty. the various reports that make up the TBD.
80 VULNERABILITY DECISION SUPPORT FRAMEWORK
Addressing potential barriers in inclusive PP Familiarise yourself with all the decision support stakeholder groups tools and resources (an overview is provided at the end of this section). With some planning, it is envisaged that a mixed PP Consider the option of providing the participants stakeholder group could use the DSF in the same with an introduction to the DSF (or the whole workshop. Some suggestions for working with DSF) before the workshop, so that they can inclusive/ mixed stakeholder groups appear below: familiarise themselves with it in advance. PP Work in groups with mixed abilities so that PP Prepare a programme for the workshop (an example knowledge can be shared (co-operative learning) is provided below, however this is indicative and PP Have the DSF translated into the local language/s the time will depend on various factors). (or parts of it, such as tables that need to be PP Prepare any media for presentations or breakaway completed) or have one or more local translators groups for each Decision Step. in the workshop PP Make sure you have a good understanding of the PP Where language or literacy presents a barrier, material for facilitated discussions and familiarise local materials, tools, scenarios and examples yourself with the use of the various tools (Table can be used, to illustrate and unpack aspects of 0.1). Test the tools by trying them out yourself, the Decision Steps and tools. This will need to before the workshop, as per the exercises in each be decided beforehand and incorporated in the Decision Step. planning by facilitators. PP Ensure that any workshop equipment (e.g. PP Allocate more time for dealing with the vulnerability flipcharts, A0 paper, markers, paper, pens) is set maps, if necessary (e.g. unpacking the legend, the up and ready to use the day before the workshop colouring, etc.); the weighting table, and so on. begins. PP Address some of the more challenging, technical PP Make sure that participants will have internet access sections of the DSF in homogenous groups, with in order to work with the Book of Inputs (Decision all groups reporting back to the plenary to share Steps 1 and 5), in the online project folder: decisions. https://www.dropbox.com/sh/x1soa7e4zlk9uch/ AACobNRvcMZ2V_OJMFvxiXnOa?dl=0. Make In this way, the various decision tools could be adapted sure that participants have access to tablets or to various needs (or to address language or literacy laptops for this work. Other options are to print gaps), if necessary. The important point is for all to everything for the participants (this will depend engage with the core decision tools in the relevant on budget available). Alternatively download the Decision Steps and to share the essential aspects of material and set up an interactive whiteboard to the learning through participatory analysis. project the materials.
Workshop Preparation Planning a Workshop Programme
Workshop preparation includes some general, critical A workshop would likely take place over three to six points: days, depending on the resources available and the PP Take care of all the logistical planning around the depth to which the workshop leader/facilitator wishes workshop in good time, for example transport, to apply the Decision Steps and allow participatory accommodation, venue, stakeholder invitations, discussion and analysis. Three days is the minimum agendas, programme, and so on. period needed to achieve the objectives of learning PP Clarify the objectives for the workshop and the to use or applying the DSF and its various tools. workshop participant list with the directors of the The following example of a workshop programme workshop well beforehand. is indicative only. Local conditions and stakeholder PP Make sure you have read the whole DSF and TBD, groups, as well as preferences of the facilitators or including the activities for the workshop. (Exercises the principals will affect the programme. appear at the end of each Decision Step.)
ANNEXURE 2 81 Workshop programme (example) socio-economic systems (using the 1st-to-4th Order Impact Assessment Tool) Day 1 Session 2 PP Introduction and overview PP Why adaptive capacity is key; indicators of PP Discussion of the participants’ expectations adaptive capacity from the workshop PP Group Activity (2.1): Work with indicators PP Decision Step 1: Understanding Climate of adaptive capacity; apply the 4th-to-1st Order Vulnerability and Risk – Status Quo Impact Assessment to assess interventions. This Decision Step underpins all other aspects of the Framework. The components that make up (current) Session 3 risk and vulnerability are explored (or presented) and PP Decision Step 3: Cause and effect pathways discussed. (Future risk and vulnerability – 2050 – is Use the 1st-to-4th Order Impact Tool to assess how discussed in Decision Step 5.). Case Study. climate impacts flow through a system. Case Study. PP What have we learnt and where are we going? Session 1 (Review and reflection) PP Overview of the TRALARD-Zam project under PP 1st-to-4th Order Impact Assessment applied in the PPCR, and of the Decision Support Framework a case study – the Cause-and-Effect pathway PP What is Risk and Vulnerability to climate change? model. PP Group Activity (3.1): Identify climate impacts at Session 2 the different impact levels (orders), in a system; PP Spatial mapping to assess vulnerability: GIS maps and using own example. Carry out a 1st-to-4th PP How the weighting of indicators works Order Impact Assessment. Day 3 Session 3 PP Individual Activity (1.1): Determine key PP Decision Step 4: Identifying Possible locations/ areas of vulnerability using GIS maps Interventions for Climate Resilience and applying Decision Parameters Entry points for interventions, using the 1st-to- PP Group Activity (1.2): Weighting Exercise: 4th Order Impact Assessment. The emphasis is on Interpret R&V assessments identifying possible interventions. Case Study. Day 2 Session 1 PP Decision Step 2: Strengthening Adaptive PP What have we learnt and where are we going? Capacity (Review and reflection) Emphasis is on understanding adaptive capacity PP Understanding entry points for climate inter- and why it is so important in changing levels of ventions: institutional, policy or community level; vulnerability. The st1 -to-4th Order Impact Assessment PP Policy framework and institutional arrangements is a tool to understand and evaluate the cascading in Zambia, and why they are important. impacts of climate change through a system. It is introduced here as background to the 4th-to-1st Order Session 2 Impact Tool, which is used to assess the potential of PP Applying the 1st-to-4th Order Impact Assessment specific interventions to strengthen resilience. Case to identify interventions. Study. PP Group Activity 4.1: Identify interventions using the 1st-to-4th Order Impact Assessment Tool and Session 1 complete the table of interventions. PP What have we learnt and where are we going? (Review and reflection) Session 3 PP Understanding how climate change PP Decision Step 5: Understanding Climate Risk impacts cascade through environmental and and Vulnerability – Future (2050)
82 VULNERABILITY DECISION SUPPORT FRAMEWORK Future climate change vulnerability (GIS maps for priorities with community needs, allocating resources, 2050: projected change) is considered alongside current defining outputs/outcomes and implementing a risk and vulnerability (seen in Decision Step 1). This measurable system of reporting. helps to inform decision priorities for interventions. Comparison of present (status quo) and future maps. Session 1 Assessment of climate futures. PP What have we learnt and where are we going? PP What have we learnt and where are we going? PP The project lifecycle framework; intervention PP The importance of understanding climate futures; logic. futures maps in decision-making PP Assumptions, risks and sustainability PP Climate futures maps for the region (e.g. PP Elements of sustainable adaptation projects Northern Zambia) PP Testing the viability of a project PP The logical flow of a project lifecycle (IF-THEN Day 4 logic); starting from the End Point (Case study) Session 1 PP The Logical Framework Tool (‘Log frame’) PP Recap of Session 3 of Day 3 (Decision step 5: Climate futures maps) Session 2 PP Exercise 5.1: Futures maps; identify 4-5 key PP Group Activity (7.1) (3-5 hrs): Design a project locations requiring investment, based on the maps, using the logical framework etc. PP Individual Activity (7.2) (3-6 hrs): Project write-up. Session 2 PP Decision Step 6: Priority Analysis Session 3: Training Programme Closure: The importance of structured prioritisation processes for PP Plenary session: Feedback and Learnings – focus deciding which projects/interventions to implement. on development of M&E and reporting structures Dealing with uncertainty; cost-benefit analysis; trade-
offs; maladaptation risks. Case Study (trade-offs). 4th - Additional guidance on running Risk & to-1st Order Impact Assessment to analyse trade-offs. Vulnerability workshops: The SCRiKA Training PP What have we learnt and where are we going? Manual PP The need to prioritise interventions PP Uncertainty and decision-making: Costs and For additional notes and guidance on running benefits; Trade-offs; Maladaptation (case study) training workshops, facilitators may refer to the PP Entry points in informing the potential of a Training Manual supplied by OneWorld under project to succeed (case study) the Strengthening Climate Resilience in the Kafue Sub-basin (SCRiKA) project. The SCRiKA Session 3 Training Manual provides in-depth background PP Trade-off analysis, using 4th-to-1st Order notes for a ‘Train the Trainers’ course; including assessments of interventions (case study) a step-by-step checklist for getting started; a PP Group activity (6.1): Analysing and reprioritising training programme template; and a training interventions – 4th-to-1st Order Impact guide and workshop activities. This material can be Assessment (for potential benefits, trade-offs, adapted for use in applying the Decision Support maladaptation, etc.) Framework, if preferred, by exchanging the Kafue Sub-Basin for the relevant region. The Training Day 5 Manual is available via the OneWorld website PP Decision Step 7: Developing Sustainable and at http://oneworldgroup.co.za/wp-content/ Projects uploads/2017/07/SCRiKA.TM_.25.10.pdf Practical exercises for developing successful funding proposals. This takes decision-making a step further in terms of ground-level details that ensure the sustainability of projects – by aligning identified
ANNEXURE 2 83 Adapting the DSF for other regions The diagnostic and decision tools
The materials presented in this DSF are designed for used in the Framework users/learners in the Northern Province of Zambia, based on the vulnerability maps developed by Facilitators need to be familiar with all aspects of the OneWorld. However, the materials can be adapted for DSF, including the diagnostic and decision support use in other regions or areas, or even other countries. tools, and supporting resources. These are: To do so requires: PP The st1 -to-4th Order and 4th-to-1st Order Impact 1. A risk and vulnerability assessment would need Assessments to be carried out for the region, as was done by PP Risk & Vulnerability (R&V) Analysis OneWorld and habitat INFO for this project. PP Vulnerability Weighting Tool 2. Relevant vulnerability maps for the region in PP Decision Parameters (Decision Criteria) question. The maps in this document have been PP Spatial vulnerability maps and Books of Inputs provided by habitat INFO (www.habitatinfo.com), PP Table of Interventions working with OneWorld (www.oneworldgroup. PP Cost-Benefit Analysis co.za), based on information that is in the public PP Multi-Criteria Decision-making Tool domain. PP Project Lifecycle Planning 3. Local landscape knowledge, such as appears PP Logical Framework (Log frame) Tool in the case studies in the DSF, will improve its applicability. These diagnostic and decision support tools are used and applied throughout the Framework (see Table A1).
84 VULNERABILITY DECISION SUPPORT FRAMEWORK Table A1: Diagnostic and decision support tools and resources in the DSF
DECISION SUPPORT 1: 2: 3: 4: 5: 6: 7: STEP UNDERSTANDING STRENGTHENING CAUSE AND IDENTIFYING UNDERSTANDING PRIORITY DEVELOPING CLIMATE RISK & ADAPTIVE CAPACITY EFFECT POSSIBLE CLIMATE RISK & ANALYSIS PRIORITISED VULNERABILITY – PATHWAYS INTERVENTIONS VULNERABILITY – SUSTAINABLE STATUS QUO FOR CLIMATE FUTURE (2050) PROJECTS Tools RESILIENCE
1st-to-4th Order Impact √ √ √ √ √ √ Assessment R & V Analysis √ √ √ √ √
Vulnerability Weighting Tool √
Decision Parameters √ √ √ (Decision Criteria) Spatial Vulnerability √ √ √ √ √ Maps Books of Inputs √ √ 4th-to-1st Order Impact √ √ Assessment Table of Interventions √
Mainstreaming Approaches √ √ √ √
Cost-Benefit Analysis √ √
Multi-Criteria Decision- √ √ making Project Lifecycle √ Planning Logical Framework √ (‘logframe’) Tool
ANNEXURE 2 85
References and Bibliography
Barnett, J., S. Waller, S. O’Neill & S. Rogers (2013). pathways: adaptation, mitigation, and sustainable Reducing the risk of maladaptation in response to development. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, sea-level rise and urban water scarcity. In: Moser, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and C. & M. Boykoff (Eds.) Successful Adaptation to Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to Climate Change: Linking Science and Policy in a the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Rapidly Changing World, pp.37-48. London and Panel on Climate Change [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, New York: Routledge. D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, Cartwright, A., J. Blignaut, M. De Wit, K. Goldberg, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, M. Mander, S. O’Donoghue, and D. Roberts R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. (2013). Economics of climate change adaptation MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L. White at the local scale under conditions of uncertainty (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, and resource constraints: the case of Durban, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, South Africa, in Environment and Urbanization, pp. 1101-1131. October 1, 2013 25: 299-319. DOF (2015). Zambian Department of Fisheries. Conde, C. and K. Lonsdale, 2004: Engaging 2014 Fisheries Statistics Annual Report. stakeholders in the adaptation process. Adaptation Downing, T.E. (1991). Vulnerability to hunger in Policy Frameworks for Climate Change: Developing Africa: A climate change perspective. Global Strategies, Policies and Measures, B. Lim and E. Environmental Change, 1(5), pp.365-380. Spanger-Siegfried, Eds., Cambridge University FAO (2013). Climate-Smart Agriculture Sourcebook. Press, Cambridge, 47-66. Accessed via: http:// Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of www4.unfccc.int/nap/Country%20Documents/ the United Nations (FAO). Available http://www. General/apf%20technical%20paper02.pdf fao.org/3/a-i3325e.pdf Cooper, P. J. M., Stern, R. D., Noguer M., and GRZ (2010b). Sixth National Development Plan Gathenya J. M. (2013). Climate Change (SNDP): 2011-2015, Ministry of Finance and Adaptation Strategies in Sub-Saharan Africa: National Planning, Government of the Republic of Foundations for the Future, Climate Change - Zambia. Lusaka, Zambia Realities, Impacts Over Ice Cap, Sea Level and GRZ (2014). Revised Sixth National Development Risks, Prof. Bharat Raj Singh (Ed.), InTech, DOI: Plan (SNDP), (2013 – 2016). Ministry of Finance 10.5772/55133. Available from: https://www. and National Planning, Government of the intechopen.com/books/climate-change-realities- Republic of Zambia. Lusaka, Zambia. impacts-over-ice-cap-sea-level-and-risks/climate- GRZ (2017). Integrated Land Use Assessment change-adaptation-strategies-in-sub-saharan- Phase II (Draft report). The Food and Agriculture africa-foundations-for-the-future Organization of the United Nations and the CSO (2013). Population and Demographic Forestry Department, Ministry of Lands and Projections 2011–2035. Central Statistical Office, Natural Resources, Lusaka, Zambia Lusaka, Zambia. Horn, S. van der and Meijer, J. 2015. The Landscape CSO (2015). 2014 Labour Force Survey Report. Approach, The Hague: PBL Netherlands Central Statistical Office, Zambia. Online. Environmental Assessment Agency. Available: http://www.mlss.gov.zm/upload/ Huchzermeyer, C.F. (n.d.). Fishes and fisheries of Labour_Force_2014/2014_LFS_FULL_FINAL_ the Bangweulu Wetlands and Lavushi Manda Report.pdf. National Park. South African Institute for Aquatic Denton, F., T.J. Wilbanks, A.C. Abeysinghe, I. Biodiversity. Available from: Burton, Q. Gao, M.C. Lemos, T. Masui, K.L. IIED, (2014). How climate finance can support O’Brien, and K. Warner, (2014). Climate-resilient sustainable development, Briefing: September 2013, 1 – 4.
86 VULNERABILITY DECISION SUPPORT FRAMEWORK IPCC, (2012). Glossary of terms. In: Managing the Lavell, A., M. Oppenheimer, C. Diop, J. Hess, R. Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Lempert, J. Li, R. Muir-Wood, and S. Myeong, Climate Change Adaptation [Field, C.B., V. Barros, 2012: Climate change: new dimensions in disaster T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, D.J. Dokken, K.L. Ebi, risk, exposure, vulnerability, and resilience. In: M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, G.-K. Plattner, Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and S.K. Allen, M. Tignor, and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of [Field, C.B., V. Barros, T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, D.J. the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Dokken, K.L. Ebi, M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, (IPCC). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, G.-K. Plattner, S.K. Allen, M. Tignor, and P.M. UK, and New York, NY, USA, pp. 555-564. Midgley (eds.)]. A Special Report of Working IPCC, (2013). Annex III: Glossary [Planton, S. Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental (ed.)]. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Cambridge Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel NY, USA, pp. 25-64. on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Leventon, J., Kalaba, F.K., Dyer, J.C., Stringer, L.C. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. and Dougill, A.J., 2014. Delivering community Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. benefits through REDD+: lessons from joint Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United forest management in Zambia. Forest Policy and Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. Economics, 44, pp.10-17. Jagers, S.C. and Stripple, J. (2003). Climate Liniger, H., Mekdaschi-Studer, R., Hauert, C. and Governance beyond the State. Global Gurtner, M., 2011. Guidelines and best practices for governance, 9, p.385. Sub-Saharan Africa, field application. FAO. IPCC. 2007. Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Magnan, A. 2014. Avoiding maladaptation to Available: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment- climate change: towards guiding principles. report/ar4/wg2/ar4_wg2_full_report.pdf. SAPIENS, 7(1). Available: http://sapiens.revues. IPCC. 2007. Summary for Policy Makers. In org/1680. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and McCarthy, N., Brubaker, J. (2014). Climate-Smart Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group Agriculture and resource tenure in Sub-Saharan 11 to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Africa: a conceptual framework, Rome, FAO. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Midgley, S.J.E., Davies, R.A.G., Chesterman, S. Parry. M.L., Canziani, O.F., Palutikof. J.P., van der 2011. Climate Risk and Vulnerability Mapping Linden, P.J. & Hanson, C.E. (eds.). Cambridge, in Southern Africa: Status Quo (2008) and future UK: Cambridge University Press. 7-22. (2050). For the Regional Climate Change Kalaba, F.K., 2016. Barriers to policy implementation Programme for Southern Africa (RCCP). UK and implications for Zambia’s forest ecosystems. Department for International Development Forest Policy and Economics, 69, pp.40-44. (DFID). OneWorld Sustainable Investments, Kalaba, F. K., Quinn, C. H., Dougill, A. J. Cape Town. (2013). Contribution of forest provisioning Mittermeier, R. A., et al. (2003). “Wilderness and ecosystem services to rural livelihoods in the biodiversity conservation.” Proceedings of the Miombo woodlands of Zambia. Population and National Academy of Sciences of the United Environment, 35, 159-182. States of America 100(18): 10309-10313. Kates, R.W., R.T. W.R. Travisb, T. J. Wilbanks, Mubanga, K.H., Umar, B.B., 2014. Climate (2012).Transformational adaptation when Variability and Change in Southern Zambia: incremental adaptations to climate change are 1910 to 2009. Presented at the 2014 International insufficient. Proceedings of the Conference on Intelligent Agriculture, PCBEE, National Academy of Sciences of the United States of LACSIT Press, Singapore. doi:10.7763/ America, 109, 7156-7161. IPCBEE.201 4.V 63.16 NDP. 2017. National Development Plan 7: 2017-2021. Volume I. Ministry of National Development Planning, Zambia.
REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY 87 OneWorld (2017a). Landscape Vulnerability Risk Saldarriaga, M. Nyanga, P. & Kopainsky, B. (2014). Assessment Baseline: Sensitivity, Exposure and Dynamic decision-making in coupled social-ecological Adaptive Capacity Assessment of Landscapes systems: Smallholder farmers’ goals, resources and in Northern Zambia. TRALARD-Zam Project. constraints in improving food security and adapting OneWorld Sustainable Investments, Cape Town, to climate change in Zambia. Paper presented at South Africa. the 32nd International Conference of the System OneWorld (2017b). Towards a Landscape Dynamics Society, July, 2014, The Netherlands. Vulnerability Decision Support Framework: Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/ Vulnerability of Production Landscapes. Scenario publication/281280672 Analysis, Policy Options and Priority Adaptation Sayer, J.A., Sunderland, T., Ghazoul, J., Pfund, and Mitigation Actions and Land Use in J.L., Sheil, D., Meijaard, E., Venter, M., Northern Zambia. TRALARD-Zam Project. Boedhihartono, A.K., Day, M., Garcia, C., Cape Town, South Africa. van Oosten, C. and Buck, L.E. 2012. Ten OPM, 2014. Baseline Study and Monitoring principles for a landscape approach to reconciling and Evaluation Framework for Phase II of the agriculture, conservation, and other competing PPCCR. Final Report – revised. Oxford Policy land uses. PNAS, Early Edition (Special feature: Management (OPM). Oxford, United Kingdom. perspective): 1-8. Pervin, M., S. Sultana, A. Phirum, I.F. Camara, V.M. UNCTAD, (2015). New and Additional Climate Nzau, V. Phonnasane, P.Khounsy, N. Kaur and S. Finance: A continuing lack of clarity, UNCTAD Anderson (2013). A framework for mainstreaming Issue No. 41, UNCTAD climate resilience into development planning, UNDP-UNEP, (2011). Mainstreaming Climate Working Paper November 2013, 1-36. Change Adaptation into Development Planning: Petrie B., Chapman, A., Midgley, A. and Parker, A Guide for Practitioners, UNDP-UNEP PEI, R. (2014). Risk, Vulnerability and Resilience Kenya. Available online: www.unpei.org in the Limpopo River Basin System: Climate UNFCCC. 2012. Best practices and lessons learned in Change, water and biodiversity – a synthesis. For addressing adaptation in the least developed countries. the RESILIM Program, USAID. OneWorld Available: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/ Sustainable Investments, Cape Town, South publications/ldc_publication_bbll_2012.pdf. Africa. Vinya, R. (2010). Stem hydraulic architecture and Petrie B., Petrik, D., Martin, L., Chapman, A., xylem vulnerability to cavitation for Miombo Davies, R., Blignaut, J.N. (2016). Strengthening woodland canopy tree species. . School of Climate Resilience in the Kafue Sub-basin Geography and the Environment. Oxford, (SCRiKA) Project: Training Manual. OneWorld University of Oxford. PhD: 220. Sustainable Investments. Cape Town, South Wisner, B., Blaikie, P., Cannon, T. & Davis, I. 2004. Africa. Available online: http://oneworldgroup. At risk: natural hazards, people’s vulnerability and co.za/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/SCRiKA. disasters. 2nd ed. London: Routledge. 471 p. TM_.25.10.pdf World Bank Independent Evaluation Group. Petrie B., Petrik, D., Martin, L., Chapman, A., (2010). Cost-Benefit Analysis in World Bank Davies, R., Blignaut, J.N. 2016. Strengthening Projects. Washington, DC: World Bank. © World Climate Resilience in the Kafue Sub-basin Bank. Available online: https://openknowledge. (SCRiKA) Project: Final Report. OneWorld worldbank.org/handle/10986/2561 Sustainable Investments. Cape Town, South World Bank (2016). High and dry: climate change, Africa. water and the economy. The World Bank: Washington DC.
88 VULNERABILITY DECISION SUPPORT FRAMEWORK