MEETING NOTES

Principles for Effective Adaptation Programs

Climate Change, Food Security and Agriculture, Disaster Risk Reduction
Working Groups
September 3, 2009

Introduction (Ilana Solomon and Lew Leonard):

The purpose of this meeting is to capture practical field experience on climate

adaptation programs, to examine what works on the ground, and to distill principles
for effective programs. These principles can help us advocate effectively for more
resources that support more effective programs. It will also help make adaptation
more “real” & comprehensible to policy makers; help them understand similarities and
differences between adaptation and development work. This should also be useful to
NGO staff whose organizations are now implementing or plan to run adaptation
programs in the future.

Adaptive Agriculture & Cropping Systems – Food for the Hungry, Andrew Barnes

Ethiopia
Agricultural productivity depends on a number of key variables, including land, water,
political environment. Environmental degradation and climate change are now affecting
Ethiopian highland farmers. Soil erosion, increasingly intensive land use, decreased soil
fertility, variable and decreasing rainfall negatively affect agriculture. This has resulted
in difficulties for farmers in producing both subsistence and commercial crops; e.g.,
wheat — a staple crop, typically takes 6 months to mature — requires predictable
conditions for reliable growth. Result is that this traditional crop has become
significantly more challenging with unstable climatic conditions.

As the rainfall has become less reliable, more farmers have turned to potatoes (take 4
months to mature). Traditional potato varieties have been problematic because they are
low yielding and are susceptible to potato blight.

FH talked to government research centers and learned that high-yielding, blight

resistant varieties had been developed not yet disseminated to farmers’ fields. Working
with FH, 3 new varieties were tested, introduced and widely distributed.

Issues: need effective & efficient value chains to bring food to market (including
centralized markets), which are often inaccessible for remote farmers growing bulk crops
such as potatoes.

Principles behind this agriculture climate adaptation program:

• Local farmers may be ahead of the curve as far as awareness of the seasonal and
long term need to adapt. They will use any asset they have to adapt, so are
potentially good partners if offered useful options.
• Adaptation is as old as agriculture itself, and is something farmers know how to
do and can do if given the right tools.
• Using the appropriate local crops with potential will make adaptation “easier.”
 2

• In Ethiopia, the MoA had developed improved varieties of potatoes but they were
not getting off the research station and into the countryside. Partnership
opportunity allowed their investment to yield positive outcomes for farmers.
• FH job was to coordinate with the research center and the local MoA to get the
new varieties out to the public.

Nepal & the Himalayas – World Wildlife Fund, Judy Oglethorpe

WWF works at a landscape scale to address livelihood and environmental issues,
including those related to fresh water. Nepal’s glaciers, which feed major rivers in the
areas, are melting due to climate change.

Phenomenon of glacial lakes (new and unstable geological structures). WWF with
partners has been monitoring the creation of these lakes in Nepal and Bhutan to identify
potential flash floods.

• WWF has been working “downstream” with at-risk watersheds & communities
mapping vulnerability and working with stakeholders on risk mitigation (e.g., land
use zoning).
o This involves working at the national and regional governmental levels, as
well as the local level.

Fiji, sea level

• Water quality is an increasing local problem. As the sea level rises and storms
surges increase in frequency, people are dealing with increased salinity and
contamination of drinking water sources. This has many ‘ripple’ affects, including
health problems.
• WWF talked with communities and developed a participatory rural appraisal to
identify daily challenges.
• Communities worked to protect the coral reefs, address detrimental fishing
practices (e.g. practice of dynamiting coral reefs) and replanting mangroves to
protect shoreline from erosion.
• Communities learned how to better protect their water sources and local
ecosystems, on which so many quality of life issues depend
• Government of Fiji learned about program and has adopted, scaled up.

Lessons:
1. Importance of integrating livelihoods and ecosystems services, so people know
and understand how they are both socially and ecologically connected. Also that
together they make a positive difference in the long-term.
2. Work at different levels (e.g. regional levels to monitor melt, at local level to
create early warning systems and do land-use zoning, and at national level to
bring lessons to policymakers).
3. Have ‘no regret’s solutions: prioritize interventions that have beneficial
developmental (social, ecological, economic) outcomes even if they are less than
fully effective against climate change impacts.
4. Access to climate information is critical. We need to know that our interventions
address and prioritize emerging problems and do not risk “mal adaptation,”
which actually makes climate change worse.
 3

Disaster Risk Reduction - InterAction, Linda Poteat

Central questions or challenges for DRR work:

How to educate people about risks; how to prepare communities to address natural
hazards?
How to encourage governments to respond more proactively?

DRR programs work where the risk is highest, thus often at the local level

Examples of DRR programs

1. Focused on one community in Indonesia following the tsunami, along the
coastline. An IA member worked with the affected community and leaders on
how to do preparedness after the event. E.g. early warning systems, such as
community drills so people know what to do if a disaster hits.
a. This allows quicker return to community ‘normalcy’, also boosts
confidence about preparedness
2. Malawi: flooding caused deaths, interruption of schools, etc. Groups of
communities and NGOs were brought together to assess root causes of
vulnerability. Found much had to do with deforestation. Positive ripple affect:
grew from a 5 village project to 11 villages. Community members saw how, by
being proactive, they could effectively take action about become more
empowered in figuring out ways to preserve their livelihoods. Tangible result:
increased school attendance.
3. Namibia: fragile desert area, with increased population growth it had become
more difficult to feed everyone. Community tracked what was going on. By
creating indicators and tracking activities to figure out what does and doesn’t
work, they were able to influence the government to support more sustainable
farming techniques.

Lessons:
1. Work closely with the communities, which when activated & empowered are
often able to identify strategies for positive change.
2. Tap into existing DRR platforms to enhance the efficacy of national gov’t
advocacy.
3. Build on existing frameworks (e.g. .Hyogo Framework for Action, HFA) &
UNISDR.org.

Water Scarcities & Conflict, Church World Service, Rajyashri Waghray

Lessons from E Africa, particularly river boundary issues from Kenya/Uganda

border. Related lessons learned from post-tsunami SE Asia.

Project information:
o Vastly different physical terrain and variable, often low, access to data.
o Conflict trigger in most of the study areas: availability of resources (often
related to economics), and how they are managed (social).
One triggering factor is that many pastoralists do not view water as an
asset/resource, consistent with ethnic and culture histories.
Key caveats to informed program design: scale and trans-continental weather
patterns (beyond the control of project design).
 4

Key points to note in programming for adaptation:

1. Water availability: Variables included a) inflows into the river-affected by

dynamic predictability; 2) rainfall (surprisingly, this is not necessarily a bad
thing), which has impacted communities
2. Inter-user conflict —- can be very violent and carried over cross generations
3. Access vs. sustainability – greater access can imperil sustainability
4. Tension vs. trust
5. Conflict experience can produce psycho-social vulnerability
6. Community-based participation and integration into government processes is
critical because it changes what communities view as assets. Also necessary so
communities can be part of a successful negotiation process.
7. Communities sometimes need help in understanding vulnerabilities (e.g, that
water is a critical but limited element in all aspects of life). That understanding is
essential for building resolve, confidence and initiative to do something about the
problem. When this is learned, water becomes something that should be shared,
preserved, open to negations…..
8. Importance of gender based approaches in developing a strategy (women having
a voice in policy discussions, resources availability, etc.)

Key lessons:

1. Vulnerability is a critical term—it can be defined very differently. There is a very

big gap between community and institutional perspectives on vulnerability. These
are not wrong, but to have sustainability — the other side of vulnerability.
2. Water availability and accessibility varies greatly; must be viewed as an asset and
managed appropriately.
3. Integrating gender roles, from the beginning, to effectively implement and scale
adaptation programs.
4. Institutions — bias towards “community based”. This is important because all of
the levels must be linked; without institutional buy-in for adaptation program, it’s
very difficult to be successful. Development tied to public policy; dollars tied to
institutional outcomes is key for them to reach communities in the right ways when a
disaster hits.

Q&A

Q: In the case of the potatoes for wheat/teff crop shift in Ethiopia, did the shift affect
cultural identities?
A: In this case, no, because potatoes were already grown

Q: Potatoes have very different nutritional content than wheat and teff; was nutritional
status/health considered in decision making for the substitution?
A: For this project, it has not yet been looked at.

Q: Noting the intense focus on engaging at the community levels, has this required new
staff skills (e.g. technical expertise shifting to extension, participatory “engagement
intensive work), and have donors been responsive in supporting this more open ended,
capacity-building engagement, especially since this community engagement is harder to
define as “outcome”?
 5

A: For WWF, one of the main technical problems was how to access the climate info to
integrate into the community assessments and translating this information into language
that communities can understand. They have had funding (e.g. through MacArthur
foundation) for vulnerability assessments. Seems that donors are seeing the increasing
importance of this, but more funding is needed.

For FH, they found the technical aspect is the easiest, and the harder part is translating it
into something beneficial to the community, and is something the community actually
wants. As far as donors go, FH does see that donors are interested in capacity building,
but it is much harder to measure.

The DRR group see many challenges as field programs reach larger scales; it’s very hard
to keep quality and dynamic interventions.

One of the big challenges is finding the right people who can “mediate between scales”;
need a unique set of skills to see the big and small pictures — and to links them in ways
communities are able to understand. Like a “scaling up and scaling down.”

Q: For FH’s case study, when introducing new varieties, were there the typical challenges
often seen with GM crops requiring more resources (such as increased water, fertilizer).
A: Actually they are not really GMOs, but adapted from very old technology. However,
they do better with fertilizer and irrigation. But FH has not changed the system much.

Q: With WWF
A: Issue was that the reefs were being dynamited, polluted, over fished. WWF provided
technical assistance to the communities to identify the solutions themselves. Regarding
replanting mangroves, government takes much control, but it’s been a combination of
levels.

Q: What are the fundamental differences between sound adaptation approaches and
good development practice? Should we think of these as alike or not? What would the
implications be for programs?
Qb: In some respects these are similar, and in some different. There’s a continuum
between adaptation and development. And are we communicating this to communities
(as they do need to buy-in to change)?
Aa: The two are similar in important ways. Difference between the two is that
adaptation programs have a risk reduction and mitigation lens, without which conditions
will deteriorate rather than develop.

Also, we assume the change is linear and climate is linear (often we look at the
past 10-12 years). The latest climate info on East Africa shows, back from 60 years,
trends of changing patterns of rainfall. Hard to assess, but back 60 years, you also see
declining pastoral areas that reached breaking points—need to be able to identify and
understand these breaking points for effective programs. Appear to be tipping points or
thresholds for cascades of negative processes to occur in rapid sequence.

One of the major gaps in development practice is that development and

environment have been viewed in ‘trade off’ terms. We may not have had to go to such
extreme risk reduction (course correct), if we had better understood and integrated these
long ago. That would have enhanced the sustainability aspect, and reduce the
vulnerability.
 6

Ab: May not really be the communities that need convincing, rather the governments
that see environmental degradation as a set of problems not linked to likely to worsen
climate change. Scientists, different levels of policy makers and community members all
need to be in the room.

Q: Do we need to prioritize the issues we tackle? This difficulty is particularly acute in

the policy area, namely given limited resources.

A: We need to think about this collectively, as with the issue of scale. Priorities imply a
distribution of adaptation resources, especially since these resources come in at a multi-
national/national level we ensure these get to the right places. Also that community
knowledge initially informs and eventually feeds back to policy formation.

Principles, distilled from presentations and breakout sessions:

DISCUSSION:

Group 1:

Supplemental Principles:
1. Explicitly incorporate climate change lens to development practices. Identify
what has changed and what will change.
2. Emphasize most vulnerable communities and address the needs of the poorest
populations.
3. Improve flow and dissemination of information and data.
4. Respect and connect to local knowledge
5. Include a focus on changes and impacts of macro level economic policies.
6. ‘Do no harm’/’no regrets’ -- do a thorough analysis potential negative impact
(long and short term) of development interventions. Include a precautionary
lens.
7. Approach climate change as a human rights issue: Climate change affects human
rights, and there are many components of CC strategies related to human rights.
At many levels, adaptation that must be grappled with by governments and
institutions (e.g. the disappearance of nation states).

Consolidation and prioritization (*advocacy priority):

• Importance of scale: adaptation work needs to happen at all scales/levels, and
prioritize local knowledge.
• Importance of gender: integrate gender analysis in adaptation strategies.
• Link technological approaches with social, economic, institutional adaptation.

Group 2:

Supplemental Principles:
1. Multi-stakeholder & multi-level – social, political will.
2. Risk reduction – focus on vulnerable groups.
3. Draw on: new technologies, indigenous knowledge, existing sound development
practice, multi-sectoral, holistic, best practices and “no regrets”.
4. Integrate sustainable livelihoods and ecosystem approaches – manage
ecosystems as assets.
 7

5. Scalability – institutions and knowledge transfer.

Consolidation and prioritization (*advocacy priority):

*Scalability

Group 3:

Supplemental Principles:
1. Integrating systems and stakeholders at all levels.
2. Sustainability of adaptive approach.
3. Trade-offs regarding equity and risk reduction.
4. Consider unique complexities of urban settings.

Consolidation and prioritization (*advocacy priority):

• Prioritized integration
• Two-way information (local, national, feedback, etc.)
• Operationalizing policy to action.
• Coordinated. Integrated approach to adaptation within USG.
• Policy-makers vs. administrators.

Group 4:

Supplemental Principles:
1. Sustainability
2. Do no harm

Consolidation and prioritization (*advocacy priority):

• Creating linkages – information flows across sectors, geographically, between
institutions, across scales, research and project implementation.
• Flexible approaches – no one size fits all, not everything is scalable.
• Economic impacts/livelihoods – people think short term. Need to ensure
adaptations are sustainable over the long-term. Need to balance between
immediate response and long-term objectives. Think of alternative livelihoods.
• Local context – role of local communities vs. national goals. Think about how
local people perceive climate change. Think about institutional roles and buy-in.
Think about the role of states and services they provide. Think about capacity
building, self-determination, community-driven, participatory training.
• Adaptation goals: support local communities in identifying adaptation needs and
priorities, encourage national governments to empower local communities, fully
understand positive and negative impacts of adaptation.

Key Take Away:

There are important distinctions, but adaptation is largely about good development.
However, these differences (and similarities) still need to be further fleshed out.

Next Steps:

• Should we distill this and take it to program people? Should we translate it into
advocacy? We could actually do both.
 8

o Creating two separate but related “principles” documents: one more detailed,
technical program paper and one more policy relevant. Be clear on the
intended audience(s).
o WWF is working on a principles of adaptation document for the
environmental sector; could integrate principles drawn from this group.