Learning from Participatory Vulnerability Assessments – Key to Identifying Ecosystem Based Adaptation Options

Learning from Participatory Vulnerability Assessments – key to identifying Ecosystem based Adaptation options

Ali Raza Rizvi, Edmund Barrow, Florencia Zapata, Anelí Gómez, Karen Podvin, Sophie Kutegeka, Richard Gafabusa, and Anu Adhikari

December 2016

Learning from Participatory Vulnerability Assessments – key to identifying Ecosystem based Adaptation options1

Ali Raza Rizvi2, Edmund Barrow2, Florencia Zapata3, Anelí Gomez3, Karen Podvin2, Sophie Kutegeka2, Richard Gafabusa2, and Anu Adhikari2

1. Introduction The accelerating rate of climate change causes catastrophic effects globally that impact human livelihoods, economies and ability to sustain populations all over the world. The effects of climate change, such as rising sea level and species loss, have led to the decline of ecosystems that threaten the wellbeing of human societies. Ecosystem-based Adaptation (EbA) is an approach to enhance human resilience to climate change, through the use of biodiversity conservation and ecosystem management. This approach aims to reduce ecosystem vulnerability, impacts of climate change on biodiversity, as well as increase the capacity of the ecosystem for resilience. Healthy ecosystems are more resilient and can better resist the negative effects of climate change, thus supporting human societies that depend on them directly (e.g. for food, water) and indirectly (e.g. for removal of pollutants, carbon storage). Assessments of ecosystems are vital in order to measure and target appropriate areas and efficiently use resources for EbA projects. Vulnerability Assessments (VAs) are a useful tool to measure the stability of a particular ecosystem as well as the vulnerability of human communities. It has proven to be essential in the planning and implementation of EbA projects that foster adaptation and mitigation to deal with the negative impacts of climate change.

Participatory planning combines the involvement of field experts and local community members in order to obtain reliable information on the ecosystem(s) and communities of focus. Community perceptions of local climate related problems allow communities, practitioners and policy makers, to directly address community impacts, through the process of vulnerability assessments. VAs use a combination of qualitative and quantitative data to understand how socio-ecological systems respond to climate change. Rapid rural appraisal involves experts working with local communities and working together to better understand the local situation and problems they are facing, as well as working together to identify solutions based on local priorities and knowledge with the support of scientific information and technologies, through methods such as, transect walks, focus group discussions, and seasonal trends. Part

1 This paper has been developed based on the Flagship Mountain EbA project implemented globally by UNEP, UNDP and IUCN with funding from the BMUB Climate Initiative of the German Government. 2 International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). 3 The Mountain Institute (TMI), IUCN’s implementing partner in Peru.

2 of the EbA process, the no-regret approach, focuses on maximizing positive and minimizing negative aspects of nature based adaptation strategies and options (ref. IUCN EbA Technical Paper No-regret Actions Lima Cop 20). The combination of community input and diagnosis, expert observations and analysis and data allow for an accurate assessment of a community’s resilience to climate change, resulting in effective and efficient subsequent adaptation.

Introduction to Peru The Nor Yauyos-Cochas Landscape Reserve (NYCLR) is located in the Andean highlands in the southern part of the Lima and Junín regions and is one of the two landscape reserves in the System of Protected Natural Areas (SINANPE). Its main goal is to conserve the Cañete and Pachacayo River watersheds (important rivers for hydroelectricity), which include various ecosystems in an area of great landscape beauty and unique value (INRENA, 2006). The reserve has an area of 221,268.48 ha, of which 62.1% is located in the Cañete River watershed and 37.9% in the Cochas-Pachacayo basin (MINAM, 2011). The NYCLR’s geomorphology is dominated by landscapes with high mountains (between 2,000 and 5,800 meters above sea level), steep slopes and hillsides, as well as deep valleys (MINAM, 2011). There are 19 communities located within the limits of the reserve, divided into 12 districts, with around 14,919 inhabitants (INEI, 2007). This reserve is mainly classified as a direct-use protected area, in which natural resource extraction and use are allowed ‒ such as grasslands for pastoralism activities which is the main livelihood, and water resources for hydropower ‒ primarily by the local populations in the areas defined in the management plan (Q’Apiriy, 2012). It falls within IUCN’s protected area category V4. Land tenure in the reserve is mostly communal; private farms are obtained by communal landholders’ agreements, inheritance, or estate sale and purchase (INRENA, 2006). Land use is according to the reserve’s guidelines. The community of Canchayllo is located in the Jauja Province, Junín Region (Map 1). Founded in 1942, the community has around 800 inhabitants; it has an area of 7,650 ha ranging between 3600 m and 5700 m above sea level. Their main livelihood is livestock farming (mainly sheep), although many families supplement their income with other activities (e.g. employment with nearby hydro-electric company). The community is part of the Cochas-Pachacayo watershed, which drains into the Mantaro River (TMI, 2014c). The community of Miraflores is located in the Yauyos Province, Lima Region (Map 1). Founded in 1925, it covers an area of 17,385 hectares ranging between 3,000 m and 5,400 m above sea level and belongs to the Cañete River watershed. It has around 100 inhabitants. Their main livelihood is cattle farming, together with small scale cultivated agriculture. In this community, there is a high level of migration and a low birth rate (TMI, 2014a).

4 ‘A protected area where the interaction of people and nature over time has produced an area of distinct character with significant ecological, biological, cultural and scenic value: and where safeguarding the integrity of this interaction is vital to protecting and sustaining the area and its associated nature conservation and other values’ (IUCN, 2014).

Figure 1. Map of the Nor Yauyos-Cochas Landscape Reserve where the Mountain EbA Project is implemented in Peru; Canchayllo and Miraflores communities are where the no-regret adaptation measures have been implemented (IUCN, 2014). As these communities rely primarily on livestock farming and subsistence agriculture for their livelihoods, access to water and pastures is essential. According to local stakeholders, the reserve has been experiencing increasing pressures, mainly due to grassland overuse by the local people and changes in precipitation patterns. Low agricultural production, especially of native crops, associated with the loss of traditional knowledge and the lack of market access has led to the migration of the local population, especially youth. This migration (especially high during the 1980s and 1990s), along with other market- driven factors, led many households to shift from a livelihood consisting of a variety of agricultural activities towards less labour-intensive cattle farming. This shift towards cattle farming, along with weak community organization and dense cattle distribution5, is causing degradation of the native grassland ecosystem in certain areas (Podvin et al., 2015). According to the Vulnerability Impact Assessment (VIA) for the NYCLR and its buffer area6, there is a high level of uncertainty regarding climate trends and future scenarios for the Reserve (FDA, 2013). The most precise projections indicate that temperatures will increase between 0.61°C and 1.12°C between 2011 and 2030. Trends indicate no changes in annual rainfall, but changes in precipitation patterns will occur, as well as a reduction in surface water runoff (Ibid, 2013). The potential scenarios for the NYCLR suggest changes in hydrological patterns that may affect grassland and water resources, which are vital for livestock-dependent communities.

5 In addition to this, a number of households have migrated to the cities, but have bought cattle and have their family members taking care of them in the reserve, which has increased the livestock population. 6 Conducted as part of the Mountain EbA Project in Peru and led by UNEP (See FDA, 2013).

The Mountain EbA Project has been implemented in the NYCLR since 2012. Its aim is to reduce the vulnerability of the reserve’s populations to climate change and increase their capacity for resilience through the EbA7 approach (Mountain EbA Project, 2014). As part of component 3, related to the design and implementation of EbA measures and capacity building activities on the ground, IUCN, in alliance with its implementing partner, The Mountain Institute (TMI) have been implementing no-regret8 EbA measures in the communities of Canchayllo and Miraflores within the NYCLR.

Why this participatory process in Peru? If we expect to design an effective adaptation measure, we have to give locals the leadership in the process of understanding and analysing their situation, identifying and designing the measures and developing them. This ownership of the process is essential in order to gain both effectiveness and sustainability. Role of external practitioners and scientists is mostly that of facilitators and to share scientific and knowledge and technologies. We consider these premises to be relevant not only in Peru, but elsewhere. However, some reasons as why implementers in Peru chose participatory approaches include:

Firstly, it was discussed among partners, that using participatory approaches will allow re-valuing local and traditional knowledge, as well as ensuring the project activities uptake among local stakeholder. In this sense, the socio-ecological systems approach used as the main guiding framework, proposes that the landscape and their management are the result of joined environmental and social processes, which highlights the need to work using a participatory process.

Secondly, the team based its decisions and actions based on the no-regret measures concept: measures that are worthwhile and yield positive outcomes (i.e. socio-economic and environmental benefits) under any climatic scenario; also, they have to be based on community priorities and vulnerability perceptions; they act as starters for building trust with communities; and, they don’t require exhaustive assessment. In this sense, the best way to build trust with communities is through participatory approach where the measures are designed jointly, where community perceptions and priorities are included.

7 Ecosystem-based adaptation (EbA) is defined as the use of biodiversity and ecosystem services as part of an overall adaptation strategy that aims to be cost-effective and generate social, economic and cultural co-benefits while contributing to the conservation of biodiversity. It integrates the sustainable management, conservation and restoration of ecosystems to provide services that help people to adapt to the adverse effects of climate change (CBD, 2009). Its purpose is to maintain and increase resilience and reduce the vulnerability of ecosystems and people facing the impacts of climate change. In EbA, the role of ecosystems and the traditional knowledge of local communities are crucial to the development of climate change adaptation measures and the reduction of the impacts of extreme weather events. EbA activities that are appropriately planned and designed can improve livelihoods, food security, and disaster risk reduction (DRR), as well as promote the conservation of biodiversity and carbon sequestration (Ibid, 2009). 8 Working definition of no-regret actions by UNEP, UNDP, and IUCN under the Mountain EbA Project is “measures taken by communities [and/or facilitated by organisations] which do not worsen vulnerabilities to climate change or which increase adaptive capacities and measures that will always have a positive impact on livelihoods and ecosystems regardless of how the climate changes”.

Thirdly, considering the local communities and district municipalities within the Reserve have direct use over the land, and with land use guidelines from the protected area, any proposed actions in the Reserve should be implemented using a bottom-up approach.

Fourthly, TMI’s knowledge and capacities in participatory approaches and methods in mountain ecosystems (with experiences in other areas in Peru) also was one of the reasons to choose for these approaches since the early phases of the project. Besides this rich experience, added on IUCN’s experience in other tools with participatory approaches that were proposed/discussed in these early stages, project partners moved forward with the participatory approach path for the selection, design and implementation of the no-regret measures.

Introduction to Nepal Panchase area belongs to Kaski, Parbat and Syangja districts of Gandaki and Dhawalagiri zone of Nepal and is located in mid hill regions of the country. It is situated between the longitudes 830 44' 11" to 830 58' 13" E and the latitudes 280 08' 36" to 280 18' 25" N in Western Development Region of Nepal, and around 165 kilometres south-west (273°) of the capital Kathmandu. The altitude varies from 815 m above sea level (asl) at Harpan River to 2517 m asl at the peak of Panchase hill. The land is characterized by many steep gorges and slope varies from 30 per cent more than 100 per cent (CBS, 2011).

Panchase, a mountainous area rich in socio-cultural and natural values is comprised of 17 Village Development Committees with a total population of 62,001 out of which 27,406 is male and 34,595 female residing in 15,964 households (MoFSC/EbA, 2013). Brahmin, Chhetri, Gurung and Dalit are the major castes ethnic groups in the 17 VDCs of Panchase (CBS, 2011). The Gurung communities inhabit a higher elevation, while the Brahmins and Chhetris reside at lower elevations. The majority of the inhabitants in Kaski are Gurung, whereas in Syangja and Parbat, the majority are Brahmins and Chhetris. There are more than 15 ethnic groups, each with its unique culture and social values. Subsistence farming and livestock rearing are the integral part of their livelihood. The literacy rate is above 65 per cent. There are total 104 Community Forest Users Groups (CFUGs) in Panchase. People here mainly speak Nepali, with spatters of indigenous languages like Magar, Gurung etc. The migration rate of the area has been increasing, with mainly the younger generation migrating to the United Kingdom and gulf countries as well as in-land city centres, in search of employment and incomes.

The Panchase area has high climatic variation resulting from variation in altitude i.e. subtropical, temperate monsoon, cool temperate. The area is rich in natural and socio-cultural resources but vulnerable from climate change, with negative impacts on forests, water resources, agriculture and biodiversity. Observing the past trend in the area climate change pattern has been changing in the area, where temperature has increased along with changes in pattern and intensity of rainfall, and frequency and intensity of extreme weather event. Over the last 30 years (1981-2011), the maximum and minimum average temperature has increased by 0.81°c and 0.2°c, whereas winter rainfall has decreased from 30 mm to 17 mm per day, and total rainfall days has decreased from 135 to 120 days (shah et al 2012). These patterns will have profound adverse impacts on agriculture, forest, water ecosystems and overall livelihoods of the community.

Whereas in the agriculture ecosystems there is a decrease in crop productivity, quite changing in cropping calendar, pest and disease infestation and invasion of invasive species in agricultural lands. Beside this, most of the agricultural land is left permanently fallow mainly due to labour shortage from the result of outmigration. Similarly, in the forest ecosystem there is a shift of the tree line, changes in species composition, appearance of new species, increase incidence of forests’ fires, invasive plant species invasions, etc., as well as fragmentation of habitats from natural disasters, especially floods and landslides. Likewise, unplanned infrastructure development, particularly rural road construction from the forest areas further escalates the problem of deforestation and forest degradation. Furthermore, freshwater is undoubtedly a valuable natural resource that has a crucial role in the livelihood and advancement of economic development. In recent years it has been realized that freshwater and the freshwater ecosystem has been degraded due to many anthropogenic activities, for example, over exploitation of natural resources, encroachment in water bodies (river, stream, lake, and underground resources), changes in land use, advancement in industries and technology etc. Climate change in other side has greater threat in the availability of freshwater especially drying of natural springs and wetlands and less ground water recharges that keeps the ecosystem services intact.

Why this participatory process in Nepal? Effective project implementation and completion requires cooperation and participation of all stakeholders, at all stages of the project cycle. In light of this, the participatory process has been adopted at all stages of the project, from participatory planning to joint activities. This helps all the stakeholders to not only understand the issues, but also for everyone (especially the poor and marginalized) to be more involved in project activities. This kind of participation also improves motivation, leaning and self- realization and ownership, all of which will contribute to effective implementation.

The project has been working closely with key government ministries and departments. The Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation (MoFSC) has been taking lead in implementation through its Department of Forests (DoF). The Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment (MoSTE) has been coordinating the project outcomes with other climate change adaptation results at the national level. Likewise, the Ministry of Agriculture Development (MoAD) has been providing support in the implementation at the field level through relevant departments and local government bodies. To date the project has been working closely with the local organisations and committees of Panchase, and build on the previous and on-going work being done in the area supported by different organisations.

For the effective implementation of activities the project has the provision of some structural arrangements, such as at the national level a Project Executive Board (PEB) as a decision making body of the project and a Project Management Unit (PMU) to oversee the overall project activities. Similarly, at the local level there is provision of a Regional level Project Coordination Committee to reinforce ownership of District Line Agencies, partner organisations and local government and project field office for day to day management of the project activities. The PEB has been taking necessary management and policy decisions needed for the effective implementation of project activities; the PEB approves work plans and budget, reviews progress and provides support for project implementation. The PEB has

7 consisted of representatives from the MoFSC, MoAD, MoSTE, UNEP, IUCN and UNDP. The DoF through the MoFSC nominated Deputy Director General/Chief of Planning and Monitoring Division of DoF as a NPD for the project and has been playing the Executive role in the Project Board.

Introduction to Uganda The Mount Elgon ecosystem straddles the border between Kenya and Uganda with its highest peak lying in Uganda. Mt. Elgon —the seventh highest mountain in Africa— is an extinct volcano, its base covering an area of approximately 4,000 km2 and its height is over 2,000m above the surrounding ground, rising to 4,321m above sea level. It constitutes a major catchment area, with its many tributaries draining into the major rivers that lead to three large water bodies: Lakes Victoria, Turkana (in Kenya) and Kyoga. The drainage to Lakes Victoria and Kyoga finally joins the River Nile System (IUCN, 2005). Major rivers originating from the Mt Elgon ecosystem on the Ugandan side include: Simu, Bukwa, Sipi, Sironko, Manafwa; while the Kenyan side is drained mainly by Kimothon, Mbere, Kaptega, Sosio, Kibusi, Kyube, Rongai, Kassawai, Kabewlyan and Malikisi. Two big rivers from Mt. Elgon mark the border between Uganda and Kenya namely, Suam to the north and Lwakaka to the south (MUIENR and NMK 2005). It also contains habitats that support unique and diverse fauna and flora. Mt. Elgon supports many species of extreme conservation importance by virtue of their rarity and/or limited distributions (IUCN, 2005). Thirty- seven faunal species in the area have been classified as "globally threatened" thus making the area a priority for species conservation. Four broad classes of vegetation occupy different altitudinal zones on Mt. Elgon.

The region is home to Mt. Elgon National Park in both Uganda and Kenya sides of the mountain. The main economic activity in the Mt. Elgon region is agriculture, employing about 82 per cent of the population with significant sections of the population participating in coffee production. The rest of the population is employed in the industry and services sector. The region is characterized by high levels of poverty, unemployment and diseases (e.g. HIV/AIDs, malaria), and is particularly vulnerable to climate change impacts, including floods, droughts, and landslides.

Out of the eight districts within the Mt. Elgon ecosystem on the Uganda side, Kapchorwa and Kween were identified for the project interventions. The selection was based on earlier lessons and experiences, which revealed the two districts as hotspots within the landscape.

Figure 2. Map of Mt Elgon region

International boundary I Mt Elgon National Park (Uganda) I Namatale Central Forest District boundary Reserve j Mt Elgon National Park Catchment boundary Source: Andreas Brodbeck

Why this participatory process in Uganda? IUCN Uganda applied a participatory approach to ensure that all relevant stakeholders especially the communities and policy makers are fully and equally involved in the process from the initial stages, for ownership and sustainability of the project. In order to achieve this, IUCN conducted stakeholder mapping and analysis to identify and understand the relevant actors with a stake in the project, their interests, expectations, level of understanding, and influence. This enabled the project to prioritize and put in place the right communication channels and entry points.

The implementation approach of the project is centred on enhancing awareness and creating a forum for various actors and groups to fully and equally participate in making decisions about the project activities and level of engagement. The selection of this approach was based on previous experiences where powerful groups would position themselves to access the relevant project information, skills and benefits, preventing the less powerful from being involved in the decision-making processes, and even actual implementation of the project activities on the ground. In addition, given the fact that this is a climate change project, the participatory process promoted the inclusion of the less powerful sections of society, especially women, the very poor and youth, who are more at risk and less able to adapt.

Through the participatory process, IUCN was able to integrate local knowledge in climate change analyses of vulnerability and adaptive capacity. By doing this, local people were given an opportunity to articulate and enhance their own knowledge and understanding, and to plan actions for all-inclusive implementation of the project activities. Beyond the communities, the relevant local government departments were engaged to ensure better coordination and harmonization of activities within districts.

Because of this involvement right from the onset, the local governments took responsibility and ensured that the project was integrated in their government plans.

In addition, the coordination meetings between the districts called for better harmonization of the interventions within the Mt. Elgon landscape to ensure concerted efforts, which would then lead to a more resilient ecosystem and livelihoods. This led to the birth of the Mt. Elgon Stakeholders forum (MESF) with the overall aim of providing a platform for coordinating the scattered interventions within the ecosystem. The forum provides an opportunity for considering Mt. Elgon at a landscape level where various stakeholders get a common understanding of the issues within their landscape, how they affect or are affected by the various interventions, and hence the various inter-linkages within the landscapes, which then guide strategic interventions. Through this forum, partners have been able to share information, and to understand the inter-linkages imbedded in partners’ programmes on issues such as markets, governance, restoration, and ecological perspectives.

The forum has also empowered stakeholders to underscore the economic and ecological perspectives in and across the landscape, and provide a platform for diverse stakeholders to work together for a common cause. In addition to the participation through the forum, the project ensured effective participation at the national level through co-opting the National policy committee on climate change as the project steering committee. This was a strategic move to ensure that all the relevant government institutions directly influence and participate in the design and implementation of the project. With this level of engagement, there was assurance that the lessons and experiences from the project would directly feed into the relevant national policy processes.

2. Approaches and Tools used

Global Introduction IPCC (2001) has defined vulnerability in the context of climate change as the degree to which a system is susceptible to, or unable to cope with, adverse effects of climate change, including climate variability and extremes. It is an outcome of the intersection of exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity" (IPCC, 2007). While considering the vulnerability natural scientists and engineers consider in terms of physical exposure to extreme events and their adverse outcomes, social scientists consider it in terms of socio-political factors, which differentially impede certain groups in the face of external shocks and the absence of entitlement to resources (Adger, 2006). Information vital to vulnerability assessments consists of: (1) the knowledge of the people experiencing climate variability (and in some cases even climate change), their perceptions of vulnerability and where changes are experienced; (2) the available literature on change trends and/or databases on a wide scale extreme events (much of it available on the Internet); and (3) experts opinion on climate change and major resources affected that have priority for the population. Integrating this knowledge requires managing participatory, interdisciplinary and trans-disciplinary approaches and methodologies, allowing establishing a dialogue between the various actors, knowledge

10 and cultures. Understanding the unique context and culture of each community, its land and society, and their knowledge and codes which are expressed in the specific context of a particular community helps us to estimate how a measure will work and the challenges of its implementation or sustainability along the process.

Tools and approaches used in Peru The conceptual framework used for this program is the socio-ecosystem approach (used by TMI in their work), in which the landscape and its management are the result of ecological and social processes governed by changing variables (both fast and slow), which require integrated management to address both social and ecological dimensions (Chapin et al., 2009). The implementation process of the no-regret EbA measures in Peru followed a participatory approach, in order to identify and design adaptation measures responding to vulnerability perceptions and priorities of the communities of Canchayllo and Miraflores, while seeking to strengthen decision-making capacities of local partners to manage their land and resources. In practice, this participatory approach resulted in an initial phase of consultation, diagnosis and design with local people. Over a period of eight months (April to November 2013) TMI led the process and involved local researchers (designated community members with skills and knowledge in grassland and water aspects), community members; local authorities; specialists in grasslands, hydrology, archaeology, anthropology and production systems; NYCLR’s staff and Mt. EbA project partners. The measure was presented to SERNANP and was validated by the community in a communal assembly. The consultation, diagnosis and design process of the measure was according to local priorities and interests, the criteria for EbA and no-regret measures, and the priorities and objectives of the NYCLR. Initially, consultations with local villagers were made through workshops and field visits to meet their own interpretation of their vulnerability and to identify preliminary proposals to address that vulnerability. The preliminary proposals were selected and prioritized with local people based on a set of criteria: ability to reduce local vulnerability, additionality, population’s interests, potential sustainability and cost- effectiveness (TMI, 2013). The preliminary proposals from both communities were aimed at improving the water availability in the upper area, and grassland and livestock management. These preliminary proposals were then analysed by a group of specialists, who recommended the development of an early stage of diagnosis, selection and design of adaptation measures before implementation (Ibid.). Consequently, TMI developed the methodology to carry out an “Integrated Participatory Rural Appraisal” (IPRA) for the design of the no-regret measures (TMI, 2014b). This methodology aimed to design an adaptation measure based on local interests and scientific knowledge. In addition, it also aimed to lay the foundations for the next stages of the project, beginning a process of social learning focused on local empowerment: "Our view is that men and women in the community strengthen their ability to think and act in groups, see the results of their actions and make corrections " (TMI, 2014b:5). The methodological framework for the no-regret measures implementation was a Participatory Action Research (Greenwood and Levin, 1998; Gonsalves, J. et al, 2005). Specifically, the IPRA methodology took elements from the Rapid Rural Appraisal and Participatory Rural Appraisal (Chambers, 1997; Townsley, 1996). The term "integrated" refers to (1) the stated objective of mainstreaming multiple disciplines and

11 specialists’ perspectives with the view of local actors and (2) also to integrate conceptual attributes of EbA and no-regret actions. The process was based on the premise of following a "simple" strategy, consistent with the no-regret measures approach. Therefore, replicable, inexpensive and accessible methods were used. A workshop/seminar approach was used in which external and local specialists shared their knowledge and perspectives to the debate, which resulted in a proposal and design of adaptation measures in "co- authorship" (Zapata et al., 2013). The main IPRA methods and tools included field visits, the development of timelines, calendars of activities and trend lines, interviews, focus groups, participant observation, among others. The IPRA aimed to generate information that would identify and design adaptation measures so that: they ensure the provision of ecosystem services; generate multiple and comprehensive benefits for the entire ecosystem and communities; reduce the ecosystem and populations vulnerability, reduce their exposure and sensitivity levels; and respond to climate trends in the area, either on the basis of the available scientific information and/or perceptions of the local population (Zapata et al., 2013).

Photos showing the IPRA studies and process (© TMI& IUCN 2013).

Table 1. Studies and methods by specialization used during the IPRA (TMI, 2014b). Hydrology Productive Systems Agrostology-soil Archaeology Anthropology science • Define the basin • Agro-ecological • Vegetation and Field work: Memory • Water availability recognition rainfall • Archaeological climate • Water balance • Agricultural and rapid assessment survey • Understand • Channels livestock production • Define carrying • Review and the role of • Legal Procedures systems capacity registration of migrants in the • Proposals and design of characterization • Soil and vegetation private management a no-regret measure for • Climate change characterization collections of natural water management. analysis • Map with slopes and Office work resources • Analysis of the • Robust or no-regret vegetation overlay • Intra-site • measures’ impacts on the proposals • Define how analysis Socia hydrological system • Analysis of the collective resource • Inter-site l organization measures’ impacts in management works; analysis • Map of the on farming strengthen common • Resource actors. systems good organization analysis • Facilitate • Map other initiatives • Laboratory knowledge and programs study dialogue • Proposals and design • Support the between of measure for development community grassland and and external management considerations specialist. Analysis of the for the no-regret measures’ impacts on measure design grasslands • Analysis of the measures’ impacts in the on

the archaeological

Studies remains. • Flows • Observation of the • Livestock calendar • Identify and • Interviews • Historical climatic Data rotation system • Organizational chart map sites and • Workshops • Range PP / T ° • Geocoding • Validation workshop features with • Evapotranspiration • Workshop with • Interviews with community • Location of possible community members people members. water infrastructure • Production calendar • Records : • Surveys - Planimetry • Water and soil - Pictures analysis - Topography • Count crops with low • Interviews water consumption • Recognition of local knowledge technologies for production systems • Observation of

conformation and organization of

Methods producers

Tools and approaches used in Nepal EbA project activities have been started in three watersheds, representing each district and Village Development Committee (VDC) (one VDC from each watershed and district) of Panchase area (i.e. BhadaureTamagi from Hapran,Khola watershed of Kaski, WangsighDeurali from AndhiKhola watershed of Syangja and Chitre from Rati Khola watershed of Parbat district). The VDCs were selected using participatory methods, employing the following site selection criteria: a) ecosystem services are vulnerable to climate change; b) human wellbeing is highly dependent on ecosystem services; c) EbA options are available and will be acceptable to local communities for implementation; d) partners are ready and have the institutional capacity to implement the available EbA options; and e) potential for scaling up lessons exists. For the identification or finalization of initial pilot VDCs, a series of consultation meetings with different stakeholders were conducted. Furthermore, a simple ranking exercise was done at the district level, as well as a cross sectional transect walk, direct field observations and focus group discussions (FGD) with community people for six most vulnerable sites were done, which provided further detailed analysis based on input from stakeholders. The different sites were analysed against the information gathered from field observation, stakeholder consultation, FGDs and indicators and a matrix ranking exercise were undertaken. Some local level indicators, such as areas more prone to disasters, ecosystem more vulnerable, high climate change impact areas and non-climatic stresses etc. were also taken into consideration for analysis.

A literature review led to the decision of conducting a participatory community based vulnerability assessment. In Nepal, vulnerability is exacerbated by poverty, caste, and gender and many individuals struggle to recover from the damage that external issues such as extreme climate events cause (Mustafa, 1998; McCarthy, 2001). The concept of vulnerability was considered while selecting EbA option’s to understand how ecosystems, communities, institutions and social relationships will be affected by climate change. Climatic and non-climatic, physical and socio political factors were considered in assessing the vulnerability of the Panchase area.

The major tools applied for vulnerability assessment was Community based Vulnerability Assessment (CbVA), which assesses local climate change or exposure, effect of climate change or sensitivity, adaptive capacity and interpretation of vulnerability. The major approaches followed included participatory, integrative, consultative, gender sensitive and interactive. The specific participatory methods used for the assessment were scoping, rapid vulnerability assessment, district level and field level consultations, key informant interviews, priority ranking, focus group discussion, hazard mapping, historical trend analysis, seasonal calendar, and resource mapping. The information collected from the different tools were

14 compiled and critically analysed by the stakeholders and project team to finalise the site for implementation of no-regret EbA measures. The analysis attempts to reduce social and ecological vulnerability, as the poor people from rural Nepal are the most vulnerable to severe climate change and degradation of ecosystem services.

Tools and approaches used in Uganda Several participatory tools were applied to support stakeholder involvement in the selection of hotspots, joint planning and implementation of agreed interventions as described below.

The Climate Vulnerability and Capacity Analysis (CVCA) framework The CVCA methodology provides a framework for analysing vulnerability and capacity to adapt to climate change at the community level9. It recognizes the need for local actors to drive their own future, hence prioritizing local knowledge on climate risks and adaptation strategies in the data gathering and analysis process. IUCN chose to apply this framework because of the various tools and processes it provides to collect, organize and analyse vulnerability and adaptive capacity.

Through this tool, IUCN was able to combine community knowledge and scientific data to yield greater understanding about local impacts of climate change.

Application of the CVCA framework was also crucial in building the capacity of local governments to undertake vulnerability assessments. Given the relevance of the study to the local governments, a team, which included staff from the district planning and natural resources departments, were trained on how to apply the CVCA tools for community consultations and data collection. These formed part of the facilitators and greatly enriched the study because of their expert knowledge and appreciation of the issues within the districts.

The Community-Based Risk Screening Tool: Adaptation and Livelihoods (CRiSTAL) In order to complement the community perceptions which had been generated using CVCA, a deliberate choice was made to apply CRiSTAL. CRiSTAL10 is a decision support tool, which provides a logical, user- friendly process to help users better understand the links between climate-related risks, people’s livelihoods and project activities.

9 Climate Vulnerability and Capacity Analysis Handbook. 10 The tool was developed jointly by IISD, IUCN, the Stockholm Environment Institute in Noston (SEI-US) and the Swiss Foundation for Development and International Cooperation

The most important aspect of applying CRiSTAL is that it provided a platform for all key actors to build a common understanding of the climate issues and a strong ownership of the solutions proposed, because it is based on local needs and priorities11. Key to the project was that it provided insights about the no- regret activities that needed to be implemented in the project, as discussed and agreed with the affected communities and their leaders.

Forests – Poverty linkages toolkit The Forests-Poverty linkages toolkit12 provides a framework, fieldwork methods and analytic tools to understand and communicate the contribution of forests to the incomes of rural natural resource dependent households.

IUCN applied this toolkit as a means of understanding the contribution of the Mt. Elgon forest products to peoples’ livelihoods, and evaluate the different ways of how the goods and services were being impacted, in order to inform the project interventions. Six tools were used as rapid appraisal methods to gather information and economic as well as other contributions from forests to households, especially the poor in the selected sites.

Application of the toolkit was instrumental in providing insights into the potential role of forests in reducing poverty and vulnerability, and policy options for improving the contribution of forests to rural livelihoods. The tool also provided an opportunity to solicit community views and contributions regarding potential solutions to the issues increasing their vulnerability and how they can be addressed. IUCN has used this toolkit as a monitoring tool for regular reflections with the community, in terms of gauging the changes in their livelihoods as a result of the interventions proposed at the beginning of the project.

Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping A rapid GIS mapping was undertaken to generate baselines, upon which no-regret activities would be developed while awaiting the main Vulnerability Impact Assessment. From the GIS mapping, soil and land degradation maps were developed, along with catchment delineation for the main rivers. In general, the GIS mapping supported the generation of no-regret activities through providing specific information about the quality of soils, water, land and providing projections. For example, agriculture expansion, deforestation and grazing were identified as the key causes of soil degradation in the area. Light and strong degrees of degradation were very frequent, making the region strongly affected by soil degradation.

The GIS mapping made a number of recommendations, upon which most of the no-regret activities were generated. These included creation of buffer zones along main rivers, integrated watershed management and agroforestry systems on farmlands. A combination of tools and methodologies were applied to dig out key areas of concern and livelihood issues that needed intervention. From the application of tools, it was clear how the various ecosystem goods and services that were supporting people to adapt, were

11 CRISTAL stories; www.iisd.org 12 The toolkit was developed by PROFOR (Program on Forests), a multi-donor partnership formed to pursue a shared goal of enhancing forests’ contribution to poverty reduction, sustainable development and protection of environmental services.

16 negatively getting impacted by changing climate. The tools also provided a deeper understanding of the areas that were more vulnerable and the kinds of interventions that were required to support their resilience. These formed the basis of the no-regret activities, which were picked up by the project for implementation.

3. Description of what was done

Peru To carry out the IPRA, an interdisciplinary team consisting of external researchers and a team of local researchers, including community specialists and park rangers, was formed. In addition, there was a scientific coordinator who helped in the integration of diverse knowledge and collective analysis (TMI, 2014b). The IPRA was held between July and November 2013 and focused on the two issues prioritized by the community during the consultation phase: improve water availability and distribution in the upper area, and improve grassland and livestock management. The IPRA began with an intense period of office work that included the selection and hiring of a team of external specialists known as ‘external researchers’ (hydrologist, anthropologist, archaeologist, grassland specialist, production systems specialist and scientific coordinator); also, forming a group of local researchers, literature review, procurement of equipment and materials, meetings and workshops. The field phase, involving the work of external specialists, local researchers and specialists, and reserve’s rangers, took place for five days in each community, focusing on the community’s pre-selected areas (TMI, 2014c and 2014d). Soil and water quality samples were taken and a quick grassland survey was carried out; in addition, information was obtained from the IPRA’s tools (e.g. timeline, event calendar, trend lines, and organizational system). Both communities pre-selected sites of communal interest in which they wanted to implement adaptation measures. Local researchers presented each site, explaining their interest and the environmental, social and economic context. Several in situ conversations and walks were conducted to gather information from each pre-selected site. Each external researcher collected necessary data, which was then used as input to be analysed and discussed with the aim of gathering final selection criteria for site implementation. In addition, there were opportunities for debate and collective reflection at the end of each day, to analyse the proposed measures from various perspectives (technical, contribution to ecosystem services, robustness, sustainability, cost, duration, feasibility, contributions to climate change, among others) (Ibid.). After the field trip, there was another phase of office work to analyse the results and make the preliminary design of the measure, including internal workshops of the project team and outside researchers and larger workshops with the participation of local researchers, NYCLR representatives and EbA project partners (Ibid.).

Table 2. Main studies carried out during the IPRA in Canchayllo and Miraflores.

Study People leading the process Rapid Hydrological diagnosis to characterize watersheds and water Aldo Cardenas ecosystem services they provide (Cárdenas, 2013) Agrostological-soil science inventory (Ñaupari et al., 2013) Javier Ñaupari, Enrique Flores and Bill Yalli from LEUP - UNALM

Archaeological reconnaissance of micro-channels and dams Favio Ramirez and Alexander Herrera (Ramírez & Herrera, 2013) Ethnographic study, gathering local knowledge on climate, water Elmer Segura and Jorge Recharte management and grasslands (Segura, 2013) Production systems study (Ruiz, 2013) Jose Ruiz

As noted, the studies were the result of collaborative work of external specialists with local researchers, the fruit of a ‘knowledge dialogue' (‘diálogo de saberes’ in Spanish).

Photos showing what was done during the IPRA (©TMI, 2013).

Nepal Data collected from participatory methods were compiled and analysed with respect to environmental, socio-economic and cultural impacts of identified no-regret EbA measures by the project team, local community and stakeholder support, to identify the most suitable and relevant no-regret EbA measures with respect to identified sites. Based on the findings of the Community based Vulnerability Assessment, a set of adaption strategies and options were identified at the VDC level. The options were then analysed from the lens of EbA and major EbA principles, such as public choice, multiple benefits etc. The results were presented and validated by local partner organisations, local stakeholders, and project partners within the Panchase Ecosystem. Initially, three watersheds: Harpan Khola (Bhadaure Tamagi VDC) from Kaski, Rati Khola (Chitre VDC) from Parbat and Andhi Khola (Wangsing Deurali VDC) from Syangja district were selected, and the following year the area has been expanded to other VDCs i.e. Chapakot, Kaksikot and Sarangkot VDCs of Kaski, Arthar Dandakharka and Ramja Deurali VDCs of Parbat and Bangefatake, Aarukharka and Bhatkhola

VDCs of Syangja district. The rapid vulnerability analysis showed the Syangjaas vulnerable to water resources, focusing subsequent activities on water resources. The following no-regret EbA options were implemented in these VDCs (Table 3). Table 3. No-regret EbA options implemented in the selected VDCs in Nepal. Districts VDC No-regret EbA measures Kaski BhadaureTamagi  Pond conservation  Water source protection  Broom grass plantation along the roadside  Demonstration of bioengineering  In situ conservation of indigenous species such as Cythea species, Lautsalla, Nagbeli (Lycopodium phlegmaria), Chiraito (Swertiachirayita), Rhododendron (Rhododendron anthopogon) etc.  Improvement of livestock shed  Promotion of Ecotourism such as Home stay promotion  Establishment of new bio-gas plant and repair and maintenance of old bio-gas plants  Promotion of Bee farming  Improvement of dishwashing places  Improvement of organic manure and organic farming  Promotion of agro-forestry  Establishment of biodiversity garden  Establishment of Tea and Coffee nursery  Establishment of Agriculture nursery  Plantation of Tea and Coffee seedlings  Community Biodiversity Registration  Soil nutrient test and improvement  Establishment of information center and museum Parbat Chitre  Pond conservation  Water source protection  Improvement of livestock shed  Promotion of Ecotourism such as Home stay promotion  Establishment of bio-gas plants  Promotion of Bee farming  Promotion of agro-forestry  In situ conservation of indigenous species such as Cythea species, Cythea species, Lautsalla, Nagbeli (Lycopodium phlegmaria), Chiraito (Swertiachirayita), Rhododendron (Rhododendron anthopogon) etc.  Improvement of dishwashing places  Community Biodiversity Registration  Soil nutrient test and improvement  Establishment of information center Syangja WangsinghDeurali  Pond conservation  Water source protection

 Broom grass plantation along the roadside and public land  Improvement of livestock shed  Establishment of bio-gas plants  Improvement of dishwashing places  Integrated Soil Nutrient Management and demonstration of Integrated Plant Nutrient System (IPNS)  Promotion of Bee farming  Promotion of agro-forestry  Conservation of indigenous and local agricultural crop species  Promotion of Improved Smokeless Cook stove  Improvement of organic manure and organic farming  Soil nutrient test and improvement  Community Biodiversity Registration

Uganda i. Stakeholder Mapping and Analysis At the beginning of the project, a stakeholder mapping and analysis was undertaken to ensure that all the project activities target the intended beneficiaries at the grassroots level, as well as relevant actors, at the national and sub-national level. Given the fact that this project was expected to demonstrate through pilots at the grassroots level, there was a need to identify key players, including partners undertaking similar interventions, community leaders and champions. It was through this process of mapping that the need to organise and merge existing community groups evolved, because community members and their leaders felt they already had loose structures, both formal and informal that could be supported for better implementation of the interventions. This helped in avoiding duplication and instead building on already existing systems and structures to bring positive change through filling gaps, and enhancing strengths. At the sub-national level, the need to harmonise interventions within Mt. Elgon also emerged through this stakeholder mapping process. It is this process that led to the formation of the Mt. Elgon Stakeholders Forum, which has been very instrumental in coordinating interventions and sharing lessons and experiences.

ii. Joint planning meetings In addition to the inception meetings, which were convened to launch the project both at the national and sub-national levels, a joint planning meeting was organized to ensure direct involvement of relevant

20 stakeholders in the project. The meetings brought together local civil society groups, local governments, private sectors and representatives from central government. This meeting provided an opportunity for partners to understand the project specifics including planned activities, budget and visits to the target sites. This process facilitated a discussion of the various roles and responsibilities that would be played by different partners during implementation of the project, including both direct and indirect contribution. The key outcome of the meeting was a shared understanding of the project objectives and the expected contribution from each partner. In addition, the meeting proposed key stakeholders to be involved in the direct implementation of the project, to ensure effective participation of all relevant actors. A district implementation and sustainability plan was developed to guide direct involvement of the local governments in the implementation of the project activities.

iii. Visioning Following the stakeholder mapping and analysis conducted during the initial inception and planning meetings, IUCN engaged the relevant stakeholder in a visioning process. This was in form of focused discussions around people’s dreams for the future of the EbA project in relation to the changes they would like to see in their landscape and changes to their livelihoods. This was done at various levels, starting with the overall visioning of all the stakeholders and then site level visioning for each of the micro-catchments that were selected.

At the site level, communities were facilitated to discuss their current situation with regards to natural resources, linkages between the Mt. Elgon landscape and their livelihoods, what they would like to change and how it they should change within a specified period of time. The discussions were focused on the positives and opened up people’s minds to other ways of overcoming problems, rather than the standard ways. A case in point is the participatory reflection and visioning among the Sanzara communities, focusing on the realities of climate change and the need to work together as a parish, with a shared vision to address the climate related challenges being faced.

iv. Participatory development of implementation plans for the no-regret activities As a result of the planning activities described above, plans for the no-regret activities were developed as summarized below (Table 4): Table 4. No-regret activities developed in Mt. Elgon, Uganda.

Site No-regret activities implemented  Establishment of tree nurseries for capacity building and Sanzara parish landscape restoration  Construction of a gravity flow scheme to provide water for irrigation and domestic use  Riverbank Rehabilitation along Sipi  Agroforestry on farmlands  Soil and water conservation structures  Promoting climate smart agriculture  Soil and water conservation structures Kaptokwoi catchment  Promotion of the Community Environment Conservation Fund to promote forest landscape restoration  Riverbank rehabilitation of the Kaptokwoi river  Promoting Agroforestry  Promotion of bee-keeping in and outside the protected area  Soil and water conservation structures Ngenge catchment in Benet Sub-  Promotion of the Community Environment Conservation Fund to country promote forest landscape restoration  Riverbank rehabilitation of the Ngenge river  Promoting Agroforestry

4. Discussion- key learning, key challenges

Peru Main results from the IPRA process in Canchayllo The main findings of the IPRA13 (2013) showed that people perceive that water is declining and there is a high degree of concern regarding its future availability. One of the community’s priorities is to have water in the communal farm and in troughs for animals. The Chacara Lake has a capacity of 70 L/s in October, but its dam leaked and the channel that brings water to the farm was out of use since 1973. The lack of manpower and the topography make it extremely difficult to repair and maintain the current channel. As a result, the population needs better community organization for water management. With regards to grasslands, the upper part (communal farm) is under-grazed (in fair to good condition), while the middle zones (Pumapanca and Yanaututo) are over-grazed (poor to regular condition)(TMI, 2014c). There has been a weakening of social organization for grassland management, with the regulations that limit the number of animals not being met. While there is no defined organization for water management, there is interest in creating one. A large percentage of the population prefers working in mining or hydroelectric companies rather than in farming; however, there are groups of families who are experts in livestock management (60 families are directly dependent on livestock). There is interest of some young people to continue with livestock (young people working in the mining sector are buying sheep with their surplus). Grazing in the upper area is lower because it does not have the amenities that the lower area has (especially electricity). The community has few technicians and little technical capacity to manage grasslands, livestock and water. There is interest in strengthening community organizations and in supporting the development of the communal farm, identified as a common good from which everyone benefits (TMI, 2014c). The initial emphasis from the community was on the infrastructure component, consisting of the eave repair in the Chakara Lake, and rehabilitation of the Chacara-Jutupuquio channel for water storage and use during the dry season for wetland forming and watering troughs in the area of collective management called La Granja (the farm). This area is underutilized due to lack of water in the dry season, and therefore the grasslands are in better condition in the neighboring Yanaututo and Pumapanca areas, where the grasslands are over pastured. The reflection process during the IPRA led to community members stating their enthusiasm, created by the infrastructure component, and the need to strengthen skills, knowledge and community organizations to improve the management of communal land and water management, grasslands and livestock not only in the farm but in the surrounding Pumapanca and Yanaututo areas and in their community. In short, through the IPRA, it was proposed to the community to integrate elements of the measure in a grasslands and water management plan, as an exercise to organize their land in the context of climate change (TMI, 2014c).

13 These were results from the IPRA back in 2013, from which the measures have been designed and implemented until October 2105; therefore, the results show the initial conditions in both communities.

Main results from the IPRA process in Miraflores The IPRA showed the contrast of a community with complex systems of land management that is in a deep demographic and productive crisis, and according to local perception, aggravated by climatic stresses. The production system consists of eight high areas for different types of livestock; a high agricultural area in rainfed called Aysha and irrigated soils called Maguay that includes two types of use: maizal and canchía. Maguay land −for maize production− and Aysha rotation fields −for planting tubers and grains− are being abandoned as a result of outmigration for the past four decades. Irrigation of cornfields has deteriorated because the custom of "cleaning the ditches" is being abandoned due to the demographic change. However, grasslands in the upper areas remain over-grazed because it’s feasible to have pastors or family members supporting the grazing activities. In this context, part of the community opts for a specialization strategy in dairy farming and the conversion of high corn and rotational fields into alfalfa and improved mixed pasture grasses (thus reducing the systems’ diversity); meanwhile another group of people committed to more diversified strategies are seeking support from the community to use abandoned cornfields for promoting tourism, but are faced with limiting labour force, market and conflicts over land ownership (TMI, 2014d). In this rural community the IPRA allowed the definition by consensus of a set of measures: the extension and conservation of wetlands in the Yanacancha Lake, to repair and expand the Yanacancha-Curiuna- Huaquis channel deriving water from these lakes to a native grassland area, and improved community native grassland and water management. The second part of the measure proposed (finally not implemented), which consisted in developing the irrigation system and the conversion of Aysha land in paddocks for dairy farming in the area called Larawcancha, reflects the community’s adaptation trends and the dairy farming specialization in the lower area. With regards to this second measure, it was agreed upon to initiate a process of reflection in the community to ensure that action takes into consideration the communal crisis mentioned before (TMI, 2014d). 14 The proposal for Lawracancha was not implemented because of a lack of consensus and viability. After the IPRA, and jointly with the NYCLR, the community and the project, it was agreed to fence an area of 2.4 km in the Curiuna-Pampalpa area; this allowed to consolidate and to strengthen the first part of the infrastructure actions and to improve the grassland condition due to a better community livestock management and rotation. Lessons learned from the IPRA process in Canchayllo and Miraflores  The design of no-regret measures with a socio-ecosystem approach poses the challenge of integrating social, environmental and economic variables. It involves looking beyond the technical specialties and making socio-ecosystem proposals that meet the direct needs of the communities.

14The second part of the measure (not defined during the IPRA; bur later in July 2015 agreed with the Reserve, he community and the project) was to fence 2.8 km in a production area of Aysha, so the grass would be sectorized as well as the cattle farming and the agricultural production Aysha area would be protected. This would provide another sector for cattle rotation. Also, it was decided to extend the water pipe that reached Curiuna for additional 2.4 km in areas known as Pampalpa and Tuntinia. The water finally reaches two troughs, one located within the enclosure and the other one outside. This would improve the water distribution and therefore livestock implying the grassland condition recovery.

 The IPRA is a comprehensive process that enabled the team to know more about the communities’ context, dynamics and governance in greater depth (not only focused on climate change vulnerabilities and impacts but rather with a broader approach).  The effort to develop the IPRA methodology, based on existing methodologies and adapted to the communities’ context, was vital for the communities ownership and commitment in the measures’ implementation; these processes of developing and adapting methodologies are key in participatory processes (for instance, in these early stages of vulnerabilities and impacts assessments within climate change adaptation initiatives). To illustrate this, 45% of the budget for the infrastructure component was a community investment in the case of Canchayllo, demonstrating their empowerment, interest and contribution as co-partner in the designed measure.  The joint work between local researchers (local knowledgeable and experts) and external researchers allowed collection of the population's interpretation of local vulnerability and the ability to build proposals responding to these.  Facilitating a knowledge dialogue (local and scientific knowledge) was crucial for proper design of the measure. Thus, it was important to have an interdisciplinary team trained in participatory methodologies. Equally vital was facilitating the process, allowing the integration of information for the design of a measure having a positive impact on the socio-ecosystem under any climate scenario.  The methodology allowed building relationships of trust with communities, empowerment in the design of the measure and thus having their commitment and responsibility in implementing the measures.  The IPRA was a milestone in the beginning of the participatory process in the design and implementation of the no-regret measures; for instance, during the fieldwork and workshops with local researchers, the process of involvement and local ownership began and continued for the rest of the project.  This process generated groundwork for the next stages of the project, beginning a process of social learning focused on strengthening local capacities and knowledge.  The time and resources to develop the IPRA depend on the level of detail in which the assessment is made (Dourojeanni et al., 2015); sometimes additional studies are required. For instance, in the case of Canchayllo a hydrogeological study was later carried out to deepen the understanding of hydrogeological characteristics and dynamics, followed by an analysis of the green-grey infrastructure measure already in place (Hidroandes, 2015).  The information generated by the VIA as part of the project confirmed and complimented the IPRA information (Dourojeanni et al., 2015), corroborating the effectiveness and validity of IPRA methodology.  By addressing the relevance of local knowledge and participation, the IPRA contributed to the communities’ empowerment, as well as strengthening of the NYCLR governance.  By involving the NYCLR team, the IPRA allowed designing measures with components that support/are aligned to the Reserve’s conservation goals.

Besides these lessons that were quite positive, we also had some important lessons that became apparent during the systematization process, especially in the case of Canchayllo (Zapata et al. 2015). For instance: It would have been necessary to deepen and broaden the social assessment to better understand not only the current situation but also the past and present conflicts, tensions, trends and other local aspirations that were not so obvious during the IPRA, such as the interest of some Canchayllo people in developing mining activities, which complicated the project scenario. Moreover, since we are working on EbA, it would have been useful to map the percentage of the local population dependent on ecosystem services. That would have allowed us to be aware that in Miraflores more than 70% of the population depends on the ecosystem services, while Canchayllo is only around 40%. This information would have allowed us to develop a better strategy in the case of Canchayllo. Even more, this is key information in order to select EbA sites of work; having a better understanding of the context and ecosystem services dependence could have made us question the selection of Canchayllo as a pilot site.

Nepal Some key lessons learned and challenges of EbA include: participatory approaches followed throughout site selection, planning, design, validation, implementation of activities and delivering the results on the ground, is a key factor to deliver bottom-up activities that empower and enhance the ownership and involvement of local communities in the project. Capacity development in EbA is crucial at different levels as it becomes difficult to consult with the stakeholders on specific elements of EbA and criteria for EbA activities. Thus, it is crucial to have multidisciplinary teams comprised of local stakeholders, researchers, community representatives and technical experts to define the no-regret measures and further analyse selected no-regret measures and their potential impacts on society and the environment. Some of the no- regret activities can be easily identified without vulnerability assessments, as these activities directly address climate change impacts, such as drought, whereas some activities will need research, which can indicate whether potential EbA activities/options could be recommended. Furthermore, the participatory approach has been playing an important role in helping communities, stakeholders and researchers to reach a common understanding of local vulnerabilities to climate change and possible adaptation strategies.

A combination of different approaches such as participatory, integrative, consultative, gender sensitive and interactive would be more useful and effective for identification and implementation of no-regret EbA measures. Gender, social inclusion, access to resources and rights are also integral parts for the successful implementation of any activities, particularly using the participatory approach.

Uganda The rural communities are very knowledgeable about the critical issues affecting them, including the solutions to address those challenges. However, they feel left out in decision making as most projects are designed and activities pre-determined without their prior engagement. It is very important to recognise the value of local knowledge and use it to make decisions. In Uganda, the main VIA confirmed the hotspots and interventions that had earlier been identified through rapid assessments and the IUCN participatory processes. The VIA has helped the project to strengthen the EbA aspects from the ecosystem angle, and the catchment approach. This confirmed the wealth of knowledge and skills within the community, and

26 the need to take advantage of these. As a result, there has been sustained engagement, with a high rate of adoption and scaling up in all the IUCN sites in Kapchorwa and Kween districts.

A number of assessments have been conducted in Mt. Elgon, with various interventions already in place, being coordinated by various partners. The process of applying the poverty-forests linkages toolkit involved collection of all existing interventions and data about the landscape, community consultations and discussions with the relevant local government officials, NGO partners and local leaders. This process revealed a number of existing interventions and the need to harmonize them all. Through this assessment, it was revealed that most of the interventions were mainly focusing on the livelihood support in general, and promoting natural resource management. EbA was therefore seen to provide an opportunity for strengthening ecosystem management aspects and also coordinating all the interventions within the landscape. As a result, the Mt. Elgon Stakeholders Forum was formulated to harmonize and coordinate all the interventions within the Mt. Elgon landscape. The forum provides a platform for partners to share lessons and experiences, and also act as a one-stop Centre for information about Mt. Elgon interventions.

The case studies from Peru, Nepal and Uganda all demonstrate the importance of the EbA participatory planning process in addressing climate change impacts on communities. Common to all case studies is the importance of involving the community throughout the entire planning, implementation and monitoring process. First-hand experiences of the impacts of climate change from community members enhances the understanding of the community’s needs and allows for the appropriate measures to take place that will directly address and benefit the specific community. Using a multifaceted approach —that is participatory, consultative, integrative and interactive— yields greater success in understanding and addressing the community. An interdisciplinary team incorporating the skills and knowledge of both local and external researchers, local stakeholders and community representatives enhance the participatory process. The key challenge faced was implementing a truly integrated approach that simultaneously addresses social, economic and environmental variables.

5. Conclusions

Peru The IPRA supported that the no-regret adaptation measures selected by the communities of Miraflores and Canchayllo were associated with the communities’ own social processes. The measures’ infrastructure component, in both cases, is a short-term intervention to be associated with opportunities and action to strengthen local organizations and to consider collectively in long term adaptation strategies. In addition, the IPRA participatory approach fosters reflection-action-reflection cycles that contribute to the landscape’s governance in the NYCLR promoting (i) participation, through local researchers and their organizations who should be prepared to influence (ii) the conservation policies direction and design in the NYCLR territory, (iii) a better understanding of local interests and perspectives for management

27 decisions and (iv) the definition of responsibilities of each party (community, local government and protected area) and monitor compliance with those obligations (Q'apiriy 2012). In this regard, an important finding in the IPRAs validation stage was compromising that the proposed no-regret measures is integrated in the best possible way in the long-term NYCLR’s planning process and contribute to the strategy’s institutionalization.

Nepal Under combined pressure of climatic change and non-climatic stress on the natural resources, the natural environment in Nepal has steadily degraded, affecting ecosystem services. Impacts of climate change are especially visible on various sectors across different ecosystems. Environmental and ecosystem services sustainability are under serious threat, making climate change one of the main emerging issues faced by the ecosystem. To overcome the effect of climate change impacts, different no-regret measures were implemented in the Panchase region of Nepal. The key drivers of ecosystem vulnerability are both climatic and non-climatic stresses. Implementing EbA options by considering only climatic stress would not increase the resilience of the ecosystem. Therefore, both drivers were focused upon.

Capacity development on ecosystem adaptation is very crucial at different levels as it becomes very difficult to convince stakeholders on specific elements of EbA and why certain activities are not EbA. The rapid and community based vulnerability assessment is sufficient to identify the most vulnerable and no- regret EbA options. Some of the no-regret activities can be easily identified from participatory approaches without detail vulnerability assessment, as these activities directly address climate change impacts.

Stakeholder participation is crucial at all stages of the assessment and identification of no-regret EbA options. Among the different actors in the participatory approaches, local communities were fundamental. Additionally, participation of local communities increases the ownership and responsibility towards the decision of what, how and where adaptation measures should be implemented, which lead or guide the experts and researchers for further refinement of the options. Community participation further ensures the social, cultural, political, economic and ecological relevance of the area. Similarly, for the sustainability and policy influence of the results, the participation of local government and political stakeholders from the beginning of the implementation (i.e. planning, designing, monitoring and evaluation) is a necessity.

Uganda EbA options provide a range of benefits to communities, but this needs to be clearly defined and understood for collective action and ownership. To most of the community members, these ecosystem goods and services are freely provided by nature and they are “here to stay”. The process of helping them think through the trends, the changes and what needs to be done helps in changing that mind-set. Lack of this leads to laxity among community members due to the common notion that “what belongs to everybody belongs to nobody”. When all community members are involved in the planning and design of activities, both the roles and responsibilities and the benefits to individuals and households are clarified, allowing people to be sure about their stake in the interventions.

Radio is an important tool for creating awareness, enhancing participation and ownership of processes and interventions. This is because there are certain categories of people within the communities who are interested in the programmes but never get the time to participate in the community meetings and trainings. Through radio, a number of people have been able to learn and take on the interventions, even beyond the project sites.

Sustained community involvement and implementation of desired changes requires continuous and in- depth social assessment. This is needed in order to build trust and to better understand the key, underlying social dynamics and issues that have resulted in current behaviours and actions. Such assessment is often complicated by the very dynamic nature of peoples’ attitudes. IUCN’s work, with and through local partners, to informally unearth some of these issues has helped the project to adjust accordingly and ensure that it remains on track.

Take home messages As climate change is creating significant impacts around the world, Ecosystem based Adaptation aims to address climate-related needs of communities and increase their resilience to climate change impacts, without compromising the environment. In several communities, such as those involved in the featured case studies in Peru, Nepal, and Uganda, community livelihoods depend on utilization of the environment. Ecosystem services, such as drinking water, fertile soil and healthy grasslands support the locals, many of whom rely on these sources for farming, agriculture, and livestock rearing. As in the Peru case study, restored grassland ecosystems and healthy water system, combined with better grassland and livestock management, supports the local, daily life. Because a healthy ecosystem is vital for such communities, addressing climate change impacts that threaten these resources is of extreme importance, and can even prove to be lifesaving.

Through a participatory planning, no-regret approach, Ecosystem based Adaptation can increase the resilience of ecosystems against climate change impacts. The most effective way to do so is through the integration of social, economic, environmental and climatic factors, which fosters a socio-economic approach to increasing community resilience. An understanding of the community specific context, dynamics and governance is essential in implementing the appropriate adaptation program. By involving local and expert researchers, local stakeholders, and community representatives in an interdisciplinary team, the direct needs of the community may be addressed. Using participatory planning that also utilizes integrative, consultative, interactive and gender sensitive approaches, maximizes success in achieving a common understanding and reaching a common goal. The case studies in Peru, Nepal and Uganda have shown that Participatory Vulnerability Assessments serve as successful and meaningful methods in implementing approaches to increase the resilience of communities to climate change.

References Banana A.Y., Byakagaba, P., Russell, A.J.M., Waiswa, D and Bomuhangi A. 2014. A review of Uganda’s national policies relevant to climate change adaptation and mitigation: Insights from Mount Elgon. Working Paper 157. Bogor, Indonesia: CIFOR.

Bhattarai K, R Maren IE and Chaudhary RP. 2012. Medicinal plant knowledge of the Panchase region in the Middle Hills of the Nepalese Himalayas. BankoJankari vol.21 no 2 Cárdenas, P. A. 2013.Reporte del especialista en hidrología. Diagnóstico Rural Participativo Integrado para el diseño de medidas robustas de adaptación al cambio climático en las comunidades campesinas de Canchayllo y Miraflores (Reserva Paisajística Nor-Yauyos Cochas - Perú). Lima: Instituto de Montaña. Documento interno. CARE International. 2009. Climate Vulnerability and Capacity Analysis Handbook (2009). Central Bureau of Statistics, CBS. 2011. Nepal Living Standard Survey 2010/11.Retrieved from http://cbs.gov.np/?p=158. First edition Chambers, R. 1997. Whose Reality Counts? Putting the First Last. London: ITDG Publishing. 297 p. Chapin, F. S., G. P. Kofinas, and C. Folke. (Eds). 2009. Principles of ecosystem stewardship: resilience-based natural resource management in a changing world. New York: Springer Science and Business Media. CRiSTAL helps farmers adapt to drought on the slopes of Mount Elgon, Uganda, By Julie Karami-Dekens (IISD) and Sophie Kutegeka (IUCN); Article on www.iisd.org. Dekens J, Kutegeka S, Bagyenda R, et al (2013); Climate Risk Management for Sustainable Crop production in Uganda: Rakai and Kapchowa districts (IISD). Dourojeanni, P., E. Fernandez-Baca, S. Giada, J Leslie, K. Podvin and F. Zapata. (in press) Vulnerability assessments for Ecosystem based Adaptation: Lessons from the Nor Yauyos Cochas Landscape Reserve in Peru. In Climate Change Adaptation Strategies: An upstream – downstream lens, eds. Huggel, C., Salzmann, N., Ziervogel, G., & Nussbaumer, S. Springer. Enviro-Impact ad Management consults. 2004. Baseline survey on the use of natural resources in Mt Elgon ecosystem. Fundación para el Desarrollo Agrario (FDA). 2013. Estudio de la Vulnerabilidad e Impacto del Cambio Climático sobre la Reserva Paisajística Nor Yauyos Cochas, Perú (VIA RPNYC). Elaborado en el marco de la colaboración interinstitucional CDC-FEP-Universidad Nacional Agraria La Molina, Escuela de Ingeniería de Antioquía y IRI-EICES-Columbia University. Lima: PNUMA. Informe 4. Government of Uganda. 2009. National Development Plan 2010/11 – 2014/15. Government of Uganda (2009); The State of Uganda Population Report, 2009: Addressing the Effects of Climate Change on Migration Patterns and Women (Funded by UNFPA Uganda). Gonsalves, J. et al (eds). 2005. Participatory Research and Development for Sustainable Agriculture and Natural Resource Management: A Sourcebook. International Potato Center-Users' Perspectives With Agricultural Research and Development, Laguna, Philippines and International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada. Greenwood, Davydd; and Levin, Morten. 1998. An Introduction to Action Research. California: SagePublications. HidroAndes Consultores S.A.C. 2015. Informe Final “Estudio hidrogeológico Conceptual del Área de influencia del Proyecto Chacara-Jutipuquio”– Fase I”. Preparado para UICN y el IM. MoFSC/EbA. 2013. Ecosystem and ecosystem services of Panchase. An overview: based on baseline and socio-economic survey.

Mumba Musonda, et al. 2015. Ecosystem based adaptation (EbA) of African Mountain Ecosystems – Experiences from Mount Elgon, Uganda. Mustafa, D. 1998. Structural causes of vulnerability to flood hazard in Pakistan.Economic Geography Ñaupari, J; Flores, E; Yalli, B. 2013. Reporte del especialista en agrosto-edafología. Diagnóstico Rural Participativo Integrado para el diseño de medidas robustas de adaptación al cambio climático en las comunidades campesinas de Canchayllo y Miraflores (Reserva Paisajística Nor-Yauyos Cochas - Perú). Lima: Laboratorio de Ecología y Utilización de Pastizales de la Universidad Nacional Agraria La Molina; Instituto de Montaña. Documento interno. Podvin, K., Cordero, D. y Gómez, A. 2014. Climate Change Adaptation in the Peruvian Andes: implementing no-regret measures in the Nor Yauyos-Cochas Landscape Reserve. In: Murti, R. &Buyck, C. (ed.). (2014). Safe Havens: Protected Areas for Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. https://portals.iucn.org/library/node/44887. PROFOR. Poverty-Forests Linkages toolkit, Overview and National Level engagement. http://www.profor.info/sites/profor.info/files/Overview_FINAL_0.pdf Q’Apiriy Consulting. 2012. Análisis de la problemática y planteamiento de propuestas para la correcta adopción de roles y funciones de los actoresvinculados a la gestión de la NYCLR. Informe Final. Consultoría encargada por el Patronato de la Reserva Paisajística Nor Yauyos-Cochas (NYCLR). Ramírez, M. F; Herrera, W.A. 2013. Reporte del especialista en arqueología. Diagnóstico Rural Participativo Integrado para el diseño de medidas robustas de adaptación al cambio climático en las comunidades campesinas de Canchayllo y Miraflores (Reserva Paisajística Nor-Yauyos Cochas - Perú). Lima: Instituto de Montaña. Documento interno. Ruiz, C. J. 2013. Reporte del especialista en sistemas productivos. Diagnóstico Rural Participativo Integrado para el diseño de medidas robustas de adaptación al cambio climático en las comunidades campesinas de Canchayllo y Miraflores (Reserva Paisajística Nor-Yauyos Cochas - Perú). Lima: Instituto de Montaña. Documento interno. Segura, J. E. 2013. Reporte del especialista en organización social y cultura. Diagnóstico Rural Participativo Integrado para el diseño de medidas robustas de adaptación al cambio climático en las comunidades campesinas de Canchayllo y Miraflores (Reserva Paisajística Nor-Yauyos Cochas - Perú). Lima: Instituto de Montaña. Documento interno. Shah. R., Adhikari. A & Khanal, R . 2012. “Scoping of Piloting Ecosystem Based Adaptation in Pahchase” A Report. IUCN, Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal. The International Institute for Sustainable Development. 2012; Community-based Risk Screening Tool – Adaptation and Livelihoods. TMI (The Mountain Institute). 2013. Consultoría para la definición de medidas de adaptación “no-regrets” al cambio climático. Reporte final. 48 p. TMI (The Mountain Institute). 2014a. The Mountain Institute Report on Action Learning for Mountain EbA Project, Perú / RPNYC. First cycle of Action Learning. Internal Report.10 p. TMI (The Mountain Institute). 2014b. Diagnóstico Rural Participativo Integrado para el Diseño de Medidas Robusta. Diseño de Medidas de Adaptación Robustas al Cambio Climático en las comunidades campesinas de Canchayllo y Miraflores (Reserva Paisajística Nor-Yauyos Cochas). Internal Report. TMI (The Mountain Institute). 2014c. “Diseño preliminar de la medida robusta de adaptación al cambio climático en la Comunidad Campesina de Canchayllo - Reserva Paisajística Nor-Yauyos Cochas:

Ampliación y conservación de humedales y gestión comunal de praderas nativas”. Internal Report. 28 p. TMI (The Mountain Institute). 2014d. “Diseño preliminar de la medida robusta de adaptación al cambio climático en la Comunidad Campesina de Miraflores - Reserva Paisajística Nor-Yauyos Cochas: Ampliación y conservación de humedales y gestión comunal de praderas nativas”. Internal Report. 41 p. Townsley, P. 1996. Rapid rural appraisal, participatory rural appraisal and aquaculture. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper.No. 358. Rome: FAO. 109p. UKCIP (Climate Impacts Programme). (2007). Identifying Adaptation Options. Available at: http://www.ukcip.org.uk/wordpress/wp-content/PDFs/ID_Adapt_options.pdf (28-07-2015). Zapata, F.; Recharte, J.; y Gómez, A. 2013. “Diagnóstico Participativo Integrado para el Diseño de Medidas Robustas”. Presentación para la reunión de trabajo para el diseño metodológico del Diagnóstico Rural Participativo Integrado. Zapata, F., Torres, M., Gómez, A. y Podvin, K. 2015. "Informe de sistematización de la experiencia: Implementación de las medidas robustas de adaptación al cambio climático en las comunidades campesinas de Canchayllo y Miraflores (Reserva Paisajística Nor Yauyos Cochas)". Documento interno. Instituto de Montaña y UICN.