Advertisement

Vulnerability Assessments for Ecosystem-based Adaptation: Lessons from the Nor Yauyos Cochas Landscape Reserve in Peru

  • Pablo DourojeanniEmail author
  • Edith Fernandez-Baca
  • Silvia Giada
  • James Leslie
  • Karen Podvin
  • Florencia Zapata
Chapter

Abstract

The development of Vulnerability Assessments (VA) to climate change is a rapidly evolving activity within the broader climate adaptation planning process. As such it is receiving significant attention from the communities of adaptation researchers and practitioners. It is uncommon to carry out more than one VA in the same place and at the same time thus this case study presents a unique opportunity to compare the application of three different Vulnerability Assessment approaches that were carried out simultaneously in the same location: the Nor Yauyos Cochas Landscape Reserve in Peru, during the period of 2012 through 2013. All three approaches shared the goal of identifying Ecosystem-based Adaptation (EbA) measures based on the ecological and social vulnerabilities the VAs helped to identify in the target area. Each approach, however, was different in terms of methodologies and conceptual foundation. The following case study describes the application of a participatory VA approach, a model-based VA approach and a deductive VA approach, using a set of descriptors in a custom designed matrix. We also present a narrative description of each approach to explain in more detail the process undertaken by each Vulnerability Assessment. Key lessons learned are that EbA measures require abundant information (pertaining to climate, ecosystems, biodiversity, land use practices, livelihoods, etc). As a result, interaction between scientific knowledge and traditional (local) knowledge is vital. Of importance, all three approaches rendered useful and pertinent results and surprisingly recommended very similar adaptation measures. Nevertheless, the participatory approach was the only one that did not require additional studies to implement measures following the Vulnerability Assessment. The three approaches also proved to be advantageous for application at different scales. While the participatory approach turned out to be most useful at the community level, the model-based approach and the deductive approach delivered information at a broader scope that served to better understand vulnerability for the entire ecosystem target area.

Keywords

Ecosystem-based Adaptation (EbA) Vulnerability Assessment Peru 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the valuable contributions of all the persons that contributed directly or indirectly to the culmination of this research. In this sense it is our duty to deeply thank the researcher of the three original vulnerability assessments (VA) described in the chapter. For the participatory VA we would like to thank the scientific coordinator of the research team, Jorge Recharte and his team, comprised both of local campesinos and academic researchers. For the Model based VA we want to thank the Fundación para el Desarrollo Agrario (FDA) of the Universidad Agraria la Molina and the subsidiary research units that undertook the research. For the Deductive VA we want to thank Cordula Epple of UNEP-WCMC and her colleagues for guiding that work. We also want to acknowledge the contribution of Aneli Gomez and Woodro Andia, field coordinators of the EbA Mountain project. Last but not least we want to express our heartfelt gratitude to Tine Rossing for the invaluable and detailed comments to the final draft of this chapter.

References

  1. CBD (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity). (2009). Connecting biodiversity and climate change mitigation and adaptation: Report of the second ad hoc technical expert group on biodiversity and climate change (Montreal, technical series No. 41, p. 126). Montréal: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity.Google Scholar
  2. CBD (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity). (2010). COP 10 Decision, X/33. http://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/?id=12299
  3. Dourojeanni, P. (2012a). Ejercicio de elaboración de criterios para la selección de medidas de adaptación basada en ecosistemas en la RPNYC, Perú. Documento de trabajo interno.Google Scholar
  4. Dourojeanni, P. (2012b). Lista preliminar de posibles medidas de adaptación basada en ecosistemas para la RPNYC. Documento de trabajo interno.Google Scholar
  5. Dourojeanni, P. (2013). Documentación de la lista corta de medidas de adaptación basada en ecosistemas para la RPNYC. Documento trabajo interno.Google Scholar
  6. Dourojeanni, P., Giada, S., & Leclerc, M. (2014). Evaluación de Vulnerabilidad e Impacto del Cambio Climático en la Reserva Paisajísitca Nor Yauyos-Cochas y su Zona de Amortiguamiento: Resumen Técnico.Google Scholar
  7. FDA (Fundación para el Desarrollo Agrario). (2013). Evaluación del Impacto y Vulnerabilidad del Cambio Climático de la Reserva Paisajística Nor Yauyos Cochas y áreas de amortiguamiento – 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.Google Scholar
  8. GIZ. (2014). The vulnerability sourcebook concept and guidelines for standardized vulnerability assessments. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH. https://gc21.giz.de/ibt/var/app/wp342deP/1443/wp-content/uploads/filebase/va/vulnerability-guides-manuals-reports/Vulnerability_Sourcebook_-_Guidelines_for_Assessments_-_GIZ_2014.pdf
  9. Hammill, A., Bizikova, L., Dekens, J. & McCandless, M. (2013). Comparative analysis of climate change vulnerability assessments: Lessons from Tunisia and Indonesia. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH. https://gc21.giz.de/ibt/var/app/wp342deP/1443/wp-content/uploads/filebase/va/vulnerability-guides-manuals-reports/Comperative-analysis-of-climate-change-vulnerability-assessments.pdf
  10. INRENA. (2006). Reserva Paisajística Nor Yauyos Cochas, Plan Maestro 2006–2011. Instituto Nacional de Recursos Naturales – INRENA Intendencia de Áreas Naturales Protegidas – IANPGoogle Scholar
  11. MINAM. (2010). Segunda Comunicación Nacional del Perú a la Convención Marco de las Naciones Unidas sobre Cambio Climático (SCNCC). Google Scholar
  12. Munroe, R., Dilys, R., Doswald, N., Spencer, T., Möller, I., Vira, B., Reid, H., Kontoleon, A., Giuliani, A., Castelli, I., & Stephens, J. (2012). Review of the evidence base for ecosystem-based approaches for adaptation to climate change. http://www.environmentalevidencejournal.org/content/pdf/2047-2382-1-13.pdf
  13. Munroe, R., Hicks, C., Doswald, N., Bubb, P., Epple, C., Woroniecki, S., Bodin, B., & Osti, M. (2015). Guidance on integrating ecosystem considerations into climate change vulnerability and impact assessments to inform ecosystem-based adaptation. Cambridge: UNEP-WCMC.Google Scholar
  14. Podvin, K., Cordero, D., & Gómez, A. (2014). Climate change adaptation in the peruvian andes: Implementing no-regrets measures in the Nor Yauyos-Cochas landscape reserve. In R. Murti & C. Buyck (Eds.), Safe havens: Protected areas for disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation. Gland: IUCN.Google Scholar
  15. PROVIA. (2013). PROVIA guidance on assessing vulnerability, impacts and adaptation to climate change. Consultation document, United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya. 198 p.Google Scholar
  16. Raza, A., Barrow, E., Zapata, F., Cordero, D., Podvin, K., Kutegeka, S., Gafabusa, R., Khanal, R., & Adhikari, A. (2014). Ecosystem based adaptation: Building on no regret adaptation measures. Technical paper. 20th session of the Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC and the 10th session of the Conference of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol, Lima, Peru, 1–12 December 2014.Google Scholar
  17. Reid, H. (2011). Improving the evidence for ecosystem-based adaptation. Sustainable development opinion paper. London: IIED.Google Scholar
  18. TMI (The Mountain Institute). (2013). Memoria de la reunión de trabajo para selección de sitios del Proyecto EbA Montaña. Internal report. 12 p.Google Scholar
  19. TMI (The Mountain Institute). (2014). The mountain institute report on action learning for mountain EbApProject, Perú/RPNYC. First cycle of Action Learning. Internal Report. 10 p.Google Scholar
  20. Travers, A., Elrick, C., Kay, R., & Vestergaard, O. (2012). Ecosystem-based adaptation guidance: Moving from principles to practice. UNEP Working document, April 2012.Google Scholar
  21. Vernooy, R. (2005). The quality of participation: Critical reflections on decision making, context and goals. In J. Gonsalves, et al (Eds.), Participatory research and development for sustainable agriculture and natural resource management: A sourcebook. Volume 1: Understanding participatory research and development. Laguna/Ottawa: International Potato Center-Users’ Perspectives With Agricultural Research and Development/International Development Research Centre.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pablo Dourojeanni
    • 1
    Email author
  • Edith Fernandez-Baca
    • 1
  • Silvia Giada
    • 2
  • James Leslie
    • 1
  • Karen Podvin
    • 3
  • Florencia Zapata
    • 4
  1. 1.UNDPLimaPeru
  2. 2.UNEP-ROLACPanama CityPanama
  3. 3.IUCNLimaPeru
  4. 4.TMI Andean ProgramLimaPeru

Personalised recommendations