Transcript An assessment sheet was used to compare the situation before and

World Resources Institute Side event in Montreal
Moving from Rhetoric to Action on Adaptation
Presentation Title: Lessons for Adaptation planning from
dealing with present climate variability in Sudan
By: Nagmeldin Elhassan & Sumaya Zaki-Eldeen
on behalf of AF14 project _SUDAN
Sudan AF14: Overview
http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/aiacc
One of the 24 regional studies of AIACC: Global Assessment of
Impacts and Adaptation to Climate Change in multiple regions and
sectors
Partners: Higher Council for Environment and Natural
Resources (HCENR) in Sudan and Stockholm Environment
Institute Boston Center (SEI-Boston)
Sudan AF14: Major Objectives
 To
prove that certain SL/EM measures increase the
resilience of communities to climate related shocks
 establish that these measures are effective and should be
considered as climate change adaptation options that could
be included in the planning of national adaptation strategies.


to explore what enables them to be effective – i.e. what factors
(participatory implementation, local governance, macroeconomic policies, etc.) made it possible for the measures to be
successful
Enhance and expand regional collaboration in the areas of
EM, disaster mitigation and climate change adaptation
AF14 case studies
• Three case studies of successful SL projects in drought-prone
communities
Community-Based Rangeland Rehabilitation
(CBRR) Project
Villages in the drought-prone Bara Province
(Gireigikh ), North Kordofan, Western Sudan
B are areas
R an gelan d
Ag ricu lture
w o ody ar eas
N
W
0
10 0
M ile s
E
S
Main Project objectives:
–Create locally sustainable NRM system to rehabilitate
overexploited lands , prevents degradation and improves
range lands .
–reduce the risk of production failure by increasing the number
of livelihood alternatives… so that out-migration will decrease
- reduce global warming through carbon sequestration,
-preserve bio-diversity, and reduce atmospheric dust in the
region
Major intervention of
CBRRP:
The villages undertook a package of SL measures. These
included:
 Institution Building
 Training and capacity building
 Community Development:
• Water development, Rural energy management,
• Introduction of revolving credit,
• Drought contingency planning

•
•
•
Rangeland Rehabilitation:
Replanting, Stabilization of sand dunes,
Creation of windbreaks,
Livestock restocking and management
Methods for assessing adaptive
capacity, adaptation options and
uncertainties
Climate variability and extremes as climate change proxy
 Sustainable Livelihoods Framework and its concept of the
five capitals (Natural, human, financial, physical and
social) has been used.
 These capitals were assessed based on three main
dimensions productivity, equity and sustainability. Risk
dimension was also considered
Cont.
 A number of indicators have been identified
with the community for three dimensions
for the five capitals
 An assessment sheet was used
to
compare the situation before and after the
intervention of the CBRRP
 Word picture
Results: Natural Resources (natural capital)
• Rangeland improved in area, and the grazing
allotment system introduced by the project improved
the quality and diversity of rangeland, and hence its
forage production (carrying capacity)
• Livestock improved in number and productivity
particularly the sheep which was reintroduced to the
project area
• Land use system become more adapted, more land
allocated as grazing allotments at the expense of
marginal land cultivation
• Access by marginalized groups improved particularly
to grazing allotments
Before
After
rehabilitated land
100
80
60
40
20
0
forage production
carrying capacity
Assessment of productivity of natural capital before and after intervention of range land
rehabilitation project
Results: Financial Resources (financial capital)
• Access to credits (revolving funds and local banking
•
•
•
•
system) improved
More diversity of income sources (livestock, women
gardens, poultry, small industries etc)
Access to market very much improved, local market
linked to national and regional markets (favored by
supportive policy)
Average income improved in level and stability
More information become available and people
learned how to use information for marketing and
planning purposes
Results: Infrastructure (Physical capital)
• Water infrastructure improved, water harvesting
•
•
•
•
systems and water pumps more water made
available for household and irrigation purposes
Food storage improved in capacity and quality
(grains stores, grains mills)
Mud building instead of using natural vegetation
Improved stoves introduced and adopted
Women gardens, Grazing allotments, veterinary
pharmacy etc
Results: Human Resources (human and social capitals)
• Number of trained skilled people increased in areas of
•
•
•
•
•
planning, NRM, veterinary, human health service, pumps
and mills maintenance etc (high level of awareness).
Education, human health and veterinary services
improved
Food production and quality improved (women gardens)
Efficient Local institutions well recognized and able to
mobilize community and to carry on interventions
(natural resources, drought, revolving funds,
coordination and other committees)
Marginal groups are well represented in committees and
participating in decision making
Traditional leaders support the committees
Results: Sustainability and Risks concerns
• Number of migrating tribes attracted by the resources in
•
•
•
•
the project area, they come along with their animals
lack of clear land use and land tenure policies, lack of
rangeland legislation and lack of proper coordination
between the people and the rangeland administration .
Committees lack adequate financial and logistical
resources which affect their performance
Need for political recognition and support
Migration of trained people to work in towns and
irrigated schemes
Conclusions
 Adaptations to current climate risks are generally
consistent with adapting to future climate change
 Immediate actions on AC building and enhancement of
current coping capacity are necessary to reduce
vulnerability to current climate-related risks and climate
change.
 Adaptive capacity can improve where people have better
access to resources, market, technology, information, social
service, high level of awareness, skills, security , strong
institutions and effective organizations
 National policy processes and SD planning need to
integrate AC building and adaptation strategies at the
community level
Conclusions
Effective mechanisms for information exchange and sharing of
experiences are highly needed to advance knowledge and
actions on adaptation
Need to understand the processes , priorities and dynamics of
natural systems and local communities before formulating practical
adaptation strategies
The sustainable livelihood framework as a bottom up approach
to assess adaptation was proved to be appropriate to address
integration of biodiversity in adaptation planning
Projects such as the one under study proved to be a win-winwin option for achieving synergy between MEAs
Thank You