Hannah Reid

Mainstreaming adaptation to climate change in Least Developed Countries (LDCs)

Abstract The Least Developed Countries (LDCs) are a group of 49 of the worlds poorest countries. They have contributed least to the emission of greenhouse gases (GHGs) but they are most vulnerable to the effects of climate change. This is due to their location in some of the most vulnerable regions of the world and their low capacities to adapt to these changes. Adaptation to climate change has become an important policy priority in the international negotiations on climate change in recent years. However, it has yet to become a major policy issue within developing countries, especially the LDCs. This article focuses on two LDCs, namely Bangladesh and Mali, where progress has been made regarding identifying potential adaptation options. For example, Bangladesh already has effective disaster response systems, and strategies to deal with reduced freshwater availability, and Mali has a well-developed programme for providing agro-hydro-meteorological assistance to communities in times of drought. However, much remains to be done in terms of mainstreaming adaptation to climate change within the national policymaking processes of these countries. Policymakers need targeting and, to facilitate this, scientific research must be translated into appropriate language and timescales.

Editorial Reducing risks to cities from disasters and climate change

The lives and livelihoods of hundreds of millions of people will be affected by what is done (or not done) in cities with regard to climate change over the next 5–10 years. As the paper by Patricia Romero Lankao points out, cities are key players both in the generation of greenhouse gases and in strategies to reduce this generation, especially in reducing our dependence on carbon-based fuels. Cities also concentrate a large proportion of those most at risk from the effects of climate change. While the need for city governments and civil society groups to act to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is well established – and with many city governments in Europe and North America already acting on this – the need to act to reduce vulnerability to climate change is not. In addition, most of the cities (and nations) that face the highest risks from the negative effects of climate change are those with almost negligible contributions to atmospheric greenhouse gases. Take, for instance, Cotonou, the economic capital of Benin, with around one million inhabitants, whose vulnerability to climate change is described in the paper by Krystel Dossou and Bernadette Glehouenou-Dossou. In 2004, average emissions of carbon dioxide per person in Benin were around one-fi ftieth that in highincome nations – or one-eightieth that in the USA.(1) Like many cities on the coast of West Africa, large parts of Cotonou’s economy and residential neighbourhoods are particularly vulnerable to sea-level rise and storm surges. Some roads, beaches and buildings have already been destroyed by the regression of the coastline in the last 10 years. Many other cities in Africa are also at risk from sea-level rise and storm surges. Half of the continent’s 37 “million cities” are either within or have parts that are within the low elevation coastal zone. Banjul, Lagos and Alexandria are among the cities most at risk, although many others are also likely to face much increased risks from storms and fl ooding – but because of the lack of local analysis, the scale of these risks has yet to be documented.(2) Many Asian cities are also particularly at risk. Asia has many of the world’s largest cities/ metropolitan areas that are in the fl oodplains of major rivers (e.g. the Ganges–Brahmaputra, the Mekong and the Yangtze) and cycloneprone coastal areas (the Bay of Bengal, the South China Sea, Japan and the Philippines).The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has emphasized how river deltas are among the world’s most valuable, heavily populated Saleemul Huq, Hannah Reid and David Satterthwaite are at the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED); Saleemul Huq and Hannah Reid with the Climate Change Group, David Satterthwaite with the Human Settlements Group. Sari Kovats is with the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. Saleemul Huq, Sari Kovats and David Satterthwaite also contribute to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Working Group II.

From everyday hazards to disasters: the accumulation of risk in urban areas

Many disasters take place in urban areas, affecting millions of people each year through loss of life, serious injury and loss of assets and livelihoods. Poorer groups are generally most affected. The impact of these disasters and their contribution to poverty are underestimated, as is the extent to which rapidly growing and poorly managed urban development increases the risks. But urban specialists do not see disasters and disaster prevention as being within their remit. At the same time, few national and international disaster agencies have worked with urban governments and community organizations to identify and act on the urban processes that cause the accumulation of disaster risk in and around urban areas. This paper summarizes the discussions from a workshop funded by UNDP on the links between disasters and urban development in Africa, highlighting the underestimation of the number and scale of urban disasters, and the lack of attention to the role of urban governance. It notes the difficulties in getting action in Africa, since the region’s problems are still perceived as “rural” by disaster and development specialists, even though two-fifths of its population live in urban areas. It emphasizes the need for an understanding of risk that encompasses events ranging from disasters to everyday hazards and which understands the linkages between them – in particular, how identifying and acting on risks from “small” disasters can reduce risks from larger ones. It also stresses the importance of integrating such an understanding into poverty reduction strategies.

Adaptation opportunities, constraints, and limits

Since the IPCCs Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), demand for knowledge regarding the planning and implementation of adaptation as a strategy for climate risk management has increased significantly (Preston et al., 2011a; Park et al., 2012). This chapter assesses recent literature on the opportunities that create enabling conditions for adaptation as well as the ancillary benefits that may arise from adaptive responses. It also assesses the literature on biophysical and socioeconomic constraints on adaptation and the potential for such constraints to pose limits to adaptation. Given the available evidence of observed and anticipated limits to adaptation, the chapter also discusses the ethical implications of adaptation limits and the literature on system transformational adaptation as a response to adaptation limits. To facilitate this assessment, this chapter provides an explicit framework for conceptualizing opportunities, constraints, and limits (Section 16.2). In this framework, the core concepts including definitions of adaptation, vulnerability, and adaptive capacity are consistent with those used previously in the AR4 (Adger et al., 2007). However, the material in this chapter should be considered in conjunction with that of complementary WGII AR5 chapters. These include Chapter 14 (Adaptation Needs and Options), Chapter 15 (Adaptation Planning and Implementation), and Chapter 17 (Economics of Adaptation). Material from other WGII AR5 chapters is also relevant to informing adaptation opportunities, constraints, and limits, particularly Chapter 2 (Foundations for Decision Making) and Chapter 19 (Emergent Risks and Key Vulnerabilities). This chapter also synthesizes relevant material from each of the sectoral and regional chapters (Section 16.5). To enhance its policy relevance, this chapter takes as its entry point the perspective of actors as they consider adaptation response strategies over near, medium, and longer terms (Eisenack and Stecker, 2012; Dow et al., 2013a,b). Actors may be individuals, communities, organizations, corporations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), governmental agencies, or other entities responding to real or perceived climate-related stresses or opportunities as they pursue their objectives (Patt and Schroter, 2008; Blennow and Persson, 2009; Frank et al., 2011).

Ecosystem- and community-based adaptation: learning from community-based natural resource management

Ecosystem-based adaptation (EbA) and its sister community-based adaptation (CBA) have gained traction over recent years, and policy-makers and planners are increasingly promoting ‘integrated’ EbA and CBA approaches. Improved learning from older natural resource management disciplines such as community-based natural resource management (CBNRM), however, could help inform EbA and CBA practice and policy-making. This viewpoint describes key lessons from CBNRM that EbA and CBA should address as they mature, including the need for EbA and CBA to ensure: communities are central to planning; the institutional, governance and policy context of initiatives is addressed; and, incentives and the need for better evidence of effectiveness is considered. The viewpoint argues that opportunities for scaling up EbA and CBA through mainstreaming and also replication and diversification to other sectors need exploring to reach the millions of poor people facing a climate change-constrained future. This is particularly important for the worlds poorest people who are worst hit by climate change and also disproportionately reliant on ecosystems and their services.

Review of the evidence base for ecosystem-based approaches for adaptation to climate change

BackgroundEcosystem-based approaches for adaptation (EbA) integrate the use of biodiversity and ecosystem services into an overall strategy for helping people adapt to climate change. To date, insight into these approaches has often been based on reports from isolated anecdotal case studies. Although these are informative, and provide evidence that people are using ecosystems to adapt, they provide rather limited insight in terms of measuring and evaluating the effectiveness of EbA, especially when compared with technical or structural adaptation interventions. The body of scientific evidence indicating how effective such approaches are is lacking in some aspects. Where evidence does exist it is often dispersed across a range of related fields, such as natural resource management, disaster risk reduction and agroecology. To date, there has been little attempt to systematically assemble and analyse this evidence. Therefore, the current state of evidence regarding the merits or otherwise of EbA is unknown and it has not been possible to identify prevailing knowledge gaps to inform research and analysis, which will enable policymakers to compare EbA with other adaptation options.MethodsThis protocol details the methodology to be used to conduct a systematic map of peer-reviewed published journal papers and a limited selection of grey literature, to give a methodical overview of the state of the evidence base for EbA effectiveness, and to identify the current knowledge gaps. It addresses the following question: What is the state of the evidence base regarding the ability of ecosystem-based approaches for adaptation to help people adapt to the impacts of climate change?

Mainstreaming community-based adaptation into national and local planning

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Versions of published Taylor & Francis and Routledge Open articles and Taylor & Francis and Routledge Open Select articles posted to institutional or subject repositories or any other third-party website are without warranty from Taylor & Francis of any kind, either expressed or implied, including, but not limited to, warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, or non-infringement. Any opinions and views expressed in this article are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor & Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

Building Capacity to Cope with Climate Change in the Least Developed Countries

The least developed countries (LDCs) are particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, due to a combination of physical vulnerability and limited coping capacity. The poor in these countries rely heavily on natural resources, are severely affected by climate variability such as floods and droughts and have limited savings and few alternative livelihood opportunities to respond to shocks and stresses resulting from climate change. This chapter outlines these challenges and describes the Capacity Strengthening in the LDCs for Adaptation to Climate Change (CLACC) programme, an initiative to build civil society capacity to address these. It evaluates the role of a range of activities – including supporting civil society participation at key meetings, conducting relevant research and facilitating outreach activities – that can help low-income nations and their most vulnerable citizens respond to the challenges of climate change.

A Framework for Assessing the Effectiveness of Ecosystem-Based Approaches to Adaptation

Abstract Ecosystem-based adaptation (EbA) integrates the use of biodiversity and ecosystem services into an overall climate change adaptation strategy. Globally, EbA projects are increasing in number, and experience to date suggests that EbA holds great potential to increase local resilience and adaptive capacity, especially for the poorest and most vulnerable communities. Evidence is largely case study-based and often anecdotal, however. Better consolidated, comparative evidence regarding EbA effectiveness would help policy makers make more informed choices about how best to design and implement climate change responses (such as National Adaptation Plans). This chapter outlines a recently developed question-based framework developed to qualitatively assess EbA effectiveness. It describes some early observations from framework application in five countries and outlines potential and emerging institutional and political challenges and opportunities to realizing the benefits of EbA on the ground in these five countries.

Ecosystem-based approaches to adaptation: evidence from two sites in Bangladesh

Ecosystem-based approaches to adaptation (EbA) involve the use of biodiversity and ecosystem services to help people adapt to the adverse effects of climate change. This research looks at two components of effective EbA: ecosystem resilience and the maintenance of ecosystem services. It assesses EbA effectiveness in terms of how such approaches support community adaptive capacity and resilience at two sites in Bangladesh: Chanda Beel wetland and Balukhali Village in the Chittagong Hill Tracts. Research findings suggest that more attention should be paid to EbA as an important climate-change response. Results show that the many diverse natural resources available and utilized at each site have increased the number of different subsistence and livelihood options available in the community and hence local adaptive capacity, especially for poorer households. Major structural shifts in ecosystem functioning observed at each site to date can be attributed primarily to non-climate-change-related factors, although climate-change-related factors increasingly threaten to dramatically alter ecosystems, especially in Chanda Beel. Such shifts have important consequences for adaptive capacity and have led to a number of trade-offs. The lack of effective institutions, good governance and enabling policy at both sites has limited potential resilience gains from sound ecosystem management.