World Resources Institute Side event in MontrealMoving 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

Partners: Higher Council for Environment and Natural Resources (HCENR) in Sudan and Stockholm Environment Institute Boston Center (SEI-Boston)

One of the 24 regional studies of AIACC: Global Assessment of Impacts and Adaptation to Climate Change in multiple regions and sectors

http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/aiacc

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, macro-economic 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

woody areasAgricultureRangeland Bare areas

0 100 Miles

N

EW

S

Community-Based Rangeland Rehabilitation (CBRR) Project

Villages in the drought-prone Bara Province (Gireigikh ), North Kordofan, Western Sudan

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:

Rangeland Rehabilitation:• Replanting, Stabilization of sand dunes, • Creation of windbreaks, • Livestock restocking and management

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

Methods for assessing adaptive capacity, adaptation options and

uncertainties

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

Climate variability and extremes as climate change proxy

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

0

20

40

60

80

100

rehabilitated land

carrying capacityforage production

Before After

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

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-win-win option for achieving synergy between MEAs

Conclusions

Thank You