Download Climate Change - Food Security Cluster

Proposal Writing:
for Poverty and
Environment;
DRR, Resilience
and Livelihoods
in Afghanistan
Andrew Scanlon, UNEP AFG
8th of December, 2015
[email protected]
Climate Change
and Hazards
Exposure/Vulnerability
Hazard is just
one
aspect of risk!
Climate Change increases vulnerability
Climate Change
Decreasing agricultural productivity
Poverty
Simplified scheme
Vulnerability
Increase of Hazards
Disaster
Observed Changes in Afghanistan´s Climate
Results of reanalysis product
(GSWP3):
Warming signal is consistent with
large scale global observations
There are strong regional differences
Difference
between
1981-2010
and
1951-1980
There are strong regional differences
Difference
between
1981-2010
and
1951-1980
There are strong regional differences
Difference
between
1981-2010
and
1951-2015
Future Climate Change in Afghanistan
Regional Climate Models Projections
for Afghanistan
• CORDEX (Coordinated
Regional Climate
Downscaling Experiment)
• 9 Global-Regional Model
combinations
• 0.5° grid
• Daily
• 2 emission scenarios
3. Future Climate Change in Afghanistan
Temperature
Spring precipitation
Heavy precipitation
Approaches
• Quantative science combined with local stakeholders for a
risk assessment
• Better scientific basis
• INGO facilitator betw govt agencies and communities
• Interdisciplinary
• Economic Analysis (long term benefits)
• Regulatory
• Convening the right stakeholders
• Livelihoods restoration
• Roundtables, training
• Building into existing projects
to other DRR, livelihoods and
ecosystems
• Multi-stakeholder approaches
• Participatory comm approach
Perfect project summary
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Grassroots driven- bottom up
Multi-stakeholder participation and support
Govt, private sector, NGOs
Comm strategy between stakeholders and external stakeholders
Clear exit strategy
Clear objectives
Long-term political buy-in
Manage conflict of interest
Improved livelihood and ecosystem resilience
Ecosystem baseline and monitoring
Perfect data about everything
Ensure ownership
Sustainable long term impacts
Dynamic
Monitoring and Evaluation
Understanding the nature of the problems
Clear concepts for every part
Transparency through independent party, responsibility,
commitment
• Traditional knowledge
Perfect project summary, cont
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Results based
Balanced
Unlimited funding
SMART objectives
Sufficient time
Adaptive Management
Flexibility
Interdisciplinary
Strong research component and partners
Good practices and guidelines
Perfect outcomes!
Upscalable results
Problem-oriented
Disseminated results and community owned
Short, Medium and Long term impacts
Paris declaration on aid effectiveness, aligned with national
policies and priorities
• Ecosysyem management needs to be integrated with the ministries
• Possible entry point for integrating ecosystem concerns in
humanitarian projects and build back better.
Knowledge, tools and methods
• Multi-sectoral govt cooperation
• Interdisciplinary
• Community participation
• Multiple stakeholders
• Dialogue between scientists and communities
• Communication between stakeholders
• Nagging and pushing stakeholders
(strategic repetition, evidence-based advocacy)
• Building on existing work
• Science based
• Ecosystem and livelihoods link
• Local and national government
• Land-use planning
• Degraded Land and drought management
• Spatial analysis, the geographic approach
• Statistical analysis
• Participatory methods
• Ecological restoration
Obstacles
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Shifted Objectives
Data Availability
Expertise and Cost
Time and Money
Changes in donor policy
Differences in data
Long-term risk reduction and local buy-in
Benefits taking a long time to manifest
Guiding policy makers on best tools and
approaches
Working with traumatised communities
Funding issues
Communiction- stakeholders and within govt
Terminology between scientists and other
Coordination
Obstacles, contd
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Donor funding post-disaster makes it difficult to advocate for ecosystem-related funding
Environment specific projects and funding (GEF) often do not have a
DRR component
Ecosystem management is not always part of immediate post-disaster
concerns as it is considered more long term
Ecosystem damage is often not reported
Perceptions and awareness about ecosystems is often not there
PDNAs (ECLAC) are often not used
Whether ecosystem concerns are included may depend on the type of
hazard
Dichotomy between humanitarian and prevention type projects –
however there is a shift towards early recovery and build back
better
Can gain Political points with humanitarian projects and funding
Guidance on mitigation and prevention is not adequate and specific
and links with ecosystem based management and risk assessments
Risk assessments, values and upscaling integrated projects w.
Ecosystems is difficult
Lack of government capacities to deal with these issues
Lack of hard evidence to establish critical linkages for need to
include ecosystem based strategies for DRR
Driving Forces
•
•
•
•
•
Hazard Affected communities
Livelihoods Improvement and rehabilitation
Sustainable livelihoods
Local Needs
Policies (international agenda) (both pos and
neg)
• Water quality
• Hazard events
• INGOs
• Threat to infrastructure
• Govt
• Multiple uses of ecosystem,
entices more involvement
• Corporate Agenda
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Cost effectiveness of ecosystem services
Holistic approaches
Increased perceptions of risk
Memory of recent disaster
Increased risk in exposed areas
Ecosystem degradation
Climate change and increased awareness for forcing more
integration of DRR and ecosystem management
Actors and policies
Science influence on policies
Environmental restoration
Disaster funds available
International pressures
Paradigm shift towards prevention and mitigationecosystem part of this
ISDR Hyogo framework for action- Action Point 4 –
Sustainable development
Expected Achievements
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Increase in local awareness
Locally driven process
Interagency cooperation and collaboration
Changed mindset of local authorities and buy-in
Influence on the govt planning process
Sustainable water management
Upstream-Downstream stakeholder dialogue
Acceptance to include ecosystems in DRR project
Traditional knowledge
Restoration of ecosystems, (Shelter belts, river
systems)
Enhanced capacity to enhane forest capacity
Local govt was influenced
Improved human security
Managed and adapted for climate
Joint action plans
Reduced floods
Improvement of ministerial capacity
Expected Achievement, contd
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Enabling conditions for ideal risk management
Agreement among actors
Risk perceptions
More awareness about watershed management strategies
Improved relations betw stakeholders
Identified contributions to resilience and drivers of risk
Agroforestry intro
Comm-based NRM
Water and sanitation projects
River protection, high-alpine protection
Science papers
More effective rangeland management
Institutionalising the processes