Ph

oto

: Dav

id B

razi

er/I

WM

IP

ho

to :T

om

van

Cak

enb

ergh

e/IW

MI

Ph

oto

: D

avid

Bra

zier

/IW

MI

Ph

oto

: Dav

id B

razi

er/I

WM

I

Building Resilience to Climate Change by

Sustaining Ecosystem Services through Improved

Watershed ManagementJennie Barron

Theme Leader – Sustainable Agricultural Water ManagementRoundtable on Building Resilience to Climate Change through Community Dialogues

September 20, 2016, Addis Ababa

Photos: IWMI

Ph

oto

: Dav

id B

razi

er/I

WM

IP

ho

to :T

om

van

Cak

enb

ergh

e/IW

MI

Ph

oto

: D

avid

Bra

zier

/IW

MI

Ph

oto

: Dav

id B

razi

er/I

WM

I

Presentation Summary

i. Purpose and fit of initiative: The relevance of “resilience”

ii. Results 1: A review of tools for assessing resilience in smallholder context

iii. Ways forward

Ph

oto

: Dav

id B

razi

er/I

WM

IP

ho

to :T

om

van

Cak

enb

ergh

e/IW

MI

Ph

oto

: D

avid

Bra

zier

/IW

MI

Ph

oto

: Dav

id B

razi

er/I

WM

I

i. Purpose and fit of initiative: The relevance of “resilience”

Photos: IWMI

Ph

oto

: Dav

id B

razi

er/I

WM

IP

ho

to :T

om

van

Cak

enb

ergh

e/IW

MI

Ph

oto

: D

avid

Bra

zier

/IW

MI

Ph

oto

: Dav

id B

razi

er/I

WM

I

Building resilience: recognizing the need to strengthen multiple aspects of livelihoods and landscape to transform

• Taking a systems perspective

• Recognizing changes, some which can be managed, some which are outside of control

• Not lose sight of development and sustainability aspirations

transformation system

systempressure

responses systemmitigationadaptation

Ph

oto

: Dav

id B

razi

er/I

WM

IP

ho

to :T

om

van

Cak

enb

ergh

e/IW

MI

Ph

oto

: D

avid

Bra

zier

/IW

MI

Ph

oto

: Dav

id B

razi

er/I

WM

I

Landscape/watershed (social-ecological system)

Adaptability Transformability

LivelihoodsEcosystem

services

Climate

Landusechange

Policies

Resilience

Pressures and changes

Building resilience: facilitating for taking ownership of development

Photos: IWMI

Ph

oto

: Dav

id B

razi

er/I

WM

IP

ho

to :T

om

van

Cak

enb

ergh

e/IW

MI

Ph

oto

: D

avid

Bra

zier

/IW

MI

Ph

oto

: Dav

id B

razi

er/I

WM

I

Policy and investors want resilient (food) systems

• Building resilience and adaptive capacity of the poor to climate change and other economic, social and environmental shocks (SDG 1 and 13)

• Strengthening the resilience of interconnected hydrologic, social and ecological systems (SDG 6, 11 and 14)

• Enhanced resilience of people, communities and ecosystems is key to sustainable agriculture (FAO-SFA)

Ph

oto

: Dav

id B

razi

er/I

WM

IP

ho

to :T

om

van

Cak

enb

ergh

e/IW

MI

Ph

oto

: D

avid

Bra

zier

/IW

MI

Ph

oto

: Dav

id B

razi

er/I

WM

I

Clear response from from national, regional actors

6. Commitment to Enhancing Resilience in livelihoods and production systems to climate variability and other shocks

• Ensure that by 2025, at least 30% of farm/pastoral households are resilient to shocks

• Enhance investments for resilience building initiatives, including social security for rural workers and other vulnerable social groups, as well as for vulnerable ecosystems;

• Mainstream resilience and risk management in policies, strategies and investment plans.

2014 Malabo Declaration, and CAADP, 2015

Ph

oto

: Dav

id B

razi

er/I

WM

IP

ho

to :T

om

van

Cak

enb

ergh

e/IW

MI

Ph

oto

: D

avid

Bra

zier

/IW

MI

Ph

oto

: Dav

id B

razi

er/I

WM

I

Building Resilience to Climate Change by Sustaining Ecosystem Services through Improved Watershed Management

OBJECTIVE:develop a practical, participatory tool that will facilitate community dialogue to create a locally-owned and shared watershed action plan that serves as a ‘road map’ to build climate resilience through sustainable water, land and ecosystems management.

Added value : • Resilience building in social ecological systems• Explicitly consider ecosystem services • Practical and pragmatic• Strengthen participation and local ownership

The project objective

Ph

oto

: Dav

id B

razi

er/I

WM

IP

ho

to :T

om

van

Cak

enb

ergh

e/IW

MI

Ph

oto

: D

avid

Bra

zier

/IW

MI

Ph

oto

: Dav

id B

razi

er/I

WM

I

The project components

Zenebe Adimassu : climatic variations

over time; landscape/landuse

transformations

GebreGebrgzhiaber:

context of relevant policy and actors In

Ethiopia

Liza Debevec+team : draft

protocol / pilot tool developed

and tested testing in 2 communities

Roundtableand

consultation

Review on existing tools

and components

Reference database on

resilience concepts

Ph

oto

: Dav

id B

razi

er/I

WM

IP

ho

to :T

om

van

Cak

enb

ergh

e/IW

MI

Ph

oto

: D

avid

Bra

zier

/IW

MI

Ph

oto

: Dav

id B

razi

er/I

WM

I

ii. Results: A review of tools for assessing

resilience in smallholder context

Photos: IWMI

Ph

oto

: Dav

id B

razi

er/I

WM

IP

ho

to :T

om

van

Cak

enb

ergh

e/IW

MI

Ph

oto

: D

avid

Bra

zier

/IW

MI

Ph

oto

: Dav

id B

razi

er/I

WM

I

What we know from the literature

• Resilience has emerged as a key concept for policy and program development.

• Yet it is not necessarily an agreed, well-defined concept

• Different communities of practice have different workable definitions (Debevec et al. forthcoming).

Google trends: popularity of Google searches between 2004 and 2015 for the term (a) “resilience” and (b) “climate resilience”.

0

20

4

0

60

8

0

100

0

20

4

0

60

8

0

100

2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015Tota

l se

arch

es

rela

tive

to

hig

hes

t n

um

ber

of s

ear

ches

Douxchamps et al (submitted)

Ph

oto

: Dav

id B

razi

er/I

WM

IP

ho

to :T

om

van

Cak

enb

ergh

e/IW

MI

Ph

oto

: D

avid

Bra

zier

/IW

MI

Ph

oto

: Dav

id B

razi

er/I

WM

I

What we know from the literature

• Numerous frameworks have been developed in the last few years that attempt to address resilience from a systems perspective, i.e., as the sum of a range of characteristics (e.g., UNU-IAS, CRISTAL, Tearfund, …)

• Yet, many of these do not explicitly examine AWM or smallholder farming development or require complex measures or methods for which data is often not readily available (Douxchamps et al. forthcoming)

• In review <50 tools/approaches, and ultimately 13 that could be included

Ph

oto

: Dav

id B

razi

er/I

WM

IP

ho

to :T

om

van

Cak

enb

ergh

e/IW

MI

Ph

oto

: D

avid

Bra

zier

/IW

MI

Ph

oto

: Dav

id B

razi

er/I

WM

I

Tools vary in cover, approach and data intensity

PracticeTheory

Tim

e n

ee

de

d(a

ssu

me

do

ne

by

spe

cial

ists

)

FAO/RIMA

GIZ/clim. res. assess. tools

1 day

1 week

1 month

1 year

ObjectiveQuantitativeSurvey data

SubjectiveQualitativeParticipatory

IUCN/CRiSTAL

Care/CVCA

IISD/CRiSTAL 2

IIED/TAMD

ACCRA/LAC

Oxfam/resilience index

CSIRO/RATALF

UNDP/CoBRA

field studydesk study

Florence/resilience index

Tearfund/CEDRA

Tufts/LCOT

UNU-IAS/Indicators of resilience

FAO/SHARP

vulnerability

risk

well-being

adaptation

transformation

Focus

Ph

oto

: Dav

id B

razi

er/I

WM

IP

ho

to :T

om

van

Cak

enb

ergh

e/IW

MI

Ph

oto

: D

avid

Bra

zier

/IW

MI

Ph

oto

: Dav

id B

razi

er/I

WM

I

Vulnerability Risk Well-being

Adaptation TransformationAssets

Use of assets

Capacities

Stability/shocks

Social

Ecological

Systemic

system state

context

disturbance

Douxchamps et al forthcoming

Choice of indicators and linkages to theoretical

frameworks

Ph

oto

: Dav

id B

razi

er/I

WM

IP

ho

to :T

om

van

Cak

enb

ergh

e/IW

MI

Ph

oto

: D

avid

Bra

zier

/IW

MI

Ph

oto

: Dav

id B

razi

er/I

WM

I

• Resilience measurement seems to remain embedded in classical approaches, often missing systemic dimensions

• More work is needed on indicators of community and higher system level

• Need to better make use of systemic indicators as well as indicators of stability and shocks

• There are no direct indicators for transformation

• There is a lack of reported outcomes from tools application

What we know from the literature:

Ph

oto

: Dav

id B

razi

er/I

WM

IP

ho

to :T

om

van

Cak

enb

ergh

e/IW

MI

Ph

oto

: D

avid

Bra

zier

/IW

MI

Ph

oto

: Dav

id B

razi

er/I

WM

I

• Both quantitative and qualitative data is needed

• A clear pathway to well-being, or any development outcome, should be discussed through system-oriented approaches, to discard potential undesired resilient states

• Transformation to alternative livelihood optionsshould be considered

What we know from the literature:

Ph

oto

: Dav

id B

razi

er/I

WM

IP

ho

to :T

om

van

Cak

enb

ergh

e/IW

MI

Ph

oto

: D

avid

Bra

zier

/IW

MI

Ph

oto

: Dav

id B

razi

er/I

WM

I

Thank you for your attention.

For more information, please contact:

Jennie BARRON

j.barron@cgiar.org

This work was supported by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) CGIAR-natural resource management (NRM) Public

International Organization (PIO) grant no. EEM-G—00-04-00010 with additional support from the CGIAR Research Program on Water, Land and

Ecosystems (WLE).

Ethiopia policy context

• Ethiopia’s Climate-Resilient Green Economy

– Agriculture: Improving crop and livestock production practices for higher food security and farmer income while reducing emissions

• Ethiopian Agricultural Growth Program (AGP)

– Agricultural Production and commercialization; small-scale infrastructure (incl irrigation)

• Ethiopian Government Agricultural Transformation Pillars (GTP II)

– Agricultural productivity and production; environmental sustainability market access and institutions

FAO (25Jan16)” …a common interest in developing activities on resilience knowledge management and linking research with practice but also a concern on the need to frame the concept of resilience for our purposes”.

Ethiopia watershed for ‘proof of concept’

EmbahastiBoroda

Photos: Zenebe Adimassu / IWMI

Today we would appreciate comments and guidance include:

1. Are there additional or alternative indicators (or proxies) that should be considered, in particular in light of the desire to keep the framework practical?

2. How can community aspirations be better incorporated into and/or inform resilience assessments to support desired development trajectories (and/or avoid undesired consequences)?

3. How can evaluations of agro-ecosystem resilience include not only assessment of capacities to adapt but also capacities to transform to new development trajectories.

Project Objective

• Translate theory and current measures of resilienceinto practical approaches…

• To identify where, when and how improved water management strategies can strengthen the resilience of agro-ecological landscapes subject to transforming livelihood, climate and ecosystem services.