The Fourth Adaptation Knowledge Day convened at the Gustav-Stresemann-Institut (GSI) in Bonn, Germany, on 6 June 2013. Three panels addressed issues including: ecosystem-based adaptation (EBA) and climate resilience; what do decision-makers and practitioners need to know about EBA; and lessons learned from climate change adaptation case studies.

In his opening remarks, Keith Alverson, UNEP, identified the importance of ongoing local changes in climate, drawing the attention to “dramatic” climate changes in Bonn during last week.

Pradeep Kurukulasuriya, UN Development Programme (UNDP), said that there is very little evidence to learn from with regards to EBA and underscored the importance of applying experimental design frameworks, so that change can be tracked and better understood.

Discussing who is bearing the costs of climate change, Edmund Barrow, IUCN, stressed that rural people should be seen as owners of such change, not as recipients, and that they should be empowered to learn. Introducing the IUCN EBA Learning Framework, he said it: promotes learning and empowerment; provides ownership at both local and higher levels; creates lessons and stories that can be scaled up; is a basis for case studies, research and comparison; and moves from extracting knowledge to empowering learning and ownership.

Saleemul Huq, International Centre for Climate Change Adaptation and Development / International Institute for Environment and Development (ICCCAD/IIED), stated that EBA and Community-Based Adaptation (CBA) are simply different names for the same concept. Noting that communities are already getting organized, he stressed the need to share knowledge and indicated a recent international conference on CBA.

Presenting experiences of Zambia’s Pilot Programme for Climate Resilience (PPCR), David Kaluba, Zambia, outlined challenges monitoring and evaluating (M&E) climate change resilience, including: developing a composite indicator to measure different aspects of community resilience; difficulties of inter-sectoral participatory projects in centralized government systems; and ways to distinguish progress achieved through adaptation or sectoral policies and activities.

During subsequent discussions, participants addressed barriers to climate change adaptation, such as time dimension mismatches, for instance climate change happens over decades, while funding cycles are shorter. They also mentioned the need to include knowledge from indigenous peoples and farmers, who have been adapting for centuries.

The second session addressed EBA knowledge and activity gaps for policy-makers and practitioners, identified during the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) technical workshop on ecosystem-based approaches for adaptation under the Nairobi Work Programme (NWP). Robert Munroe, UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC), and Musonda Mumba, UNEP, moderated this session.

Munroe listed a series of EBA knowledge and activity gaps, including: vulnerability assessments that incorporate ecosystem considerations; short, medium and long-term benefits and costs; conditions and limits for ecosystems to provide adaptation benefits; cost-benefit analysis methodologies; and comparative studies between EBA and alternatives.

Agnes Otzelberger, CARE International, presented social and gender dimensions of climate vulnerability, underlining lessons on differential vulnerability. She noted that disaggregating vulnerability is not just about same-sex focus groups, nor about female-headed households versus everyone else, and that multiple social factors interact shaping vulnerability.

Addressing the link between infrastructure and climate change adaptation, Vera Coelho, Wetlands International, presented examples of hybrid engineering programmes, such as the Building with Nature programme in the Netherlands. She listed advantages of this approach, including: multiple benefits, like carbon storage, fisheries, recreation; low construction costs; and multi-purpose land use.

Caroline Petersen, UNDP, discussed supporting public and private investment in adaptation, applying UNDP’s experience to the mountain EBA project, which has pilot projects in Peru, Nepal and Uganda. She stressed the important role of the private sector, noting drivers for investment include the need to preserve existing infrastructure and livelihoods, develop new businesses, and adopt no-regret investments where adaptation is an ancillary benefit.

Bapu Uprety, Nepal, emphasized adaptation is a high priority for Nepal, highlighting that 75% of Nepal’s National Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPA) priorities could be implemented using EBA. He identified knowledge gaps, including a non-appreciation of ecosystem and biodiversity conservation priorities, noting the challenge of influencing non-biologists to use the EBA approach.

During discussions, participants addressed understanding risk management strategies of local communities given the limited time allocated for vulnerability assessments, and maximizing benefits from projects for livelihoods, disaster risk reduction (DRR) and climate adaptation.

The third session was moderated by Edmund Barrow, IUCN. Jorge Ernesto Quezada Diaz, El Salvador, discussed the National Program for the Restoration of Ecosystems and Landscapes (PREP), addressing problems of deforestation and unsustainable agricultural practices in coastal areas of El Salvador. He identified lessons learned including: adopting a comprehensive approach; emphasizing on local adaptation, in synergy with mitigation; improving local benefits; addressing all stakeholders in a full and informed participatory processes; and promoting local governance.

Bonizella Biagini, the GEF, showcased lessons learned on EBA from adaptation projects funded through the Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF) and the Special Climate Change Fund (SCCF) in Cambodia, and São Tomé and Príncipe. Stressing the importance of South-South cooperation in sharing adaptation knowledge, capacity and technology, she highlighted a case study of such sharing between China and different ecosystems in the Seychelles, Mauritania and Nepal.

Eduardo Durand, Peru, referred to Vulnerability and Impact Assessments (VIA) and underlined the need to preselect the most adequate spatial scale for mapping. He said it is not easy to undertake VIA for EBA, as there is no recipe and no specialized institutions devoted to it.

Ugan Manandhar, WWF Nepal, presented climate change adaptation in Nepal, such as: policy formulation; adaptation planning integrating EBA and CBA; actions on the ground, including capacity building and implementation; monitoring for sustainability and enhancing resilience; and setting up knowledge platforms for learning and sharing.

Lessons learned from mountain ecosystems in Colombia were presented by Ángela Andrade, Conservation International (CI), Colombia. She stressed that adaptation requires: internalization at different territorial and sectoral levels; best available science and local knowledge; cross-sectoral cooperation between institutions; and a learning-by-doing, long-term process.

Ali Raza Rizvi, IUCN, stressed the need for: joint work planning between nature-based and technical solutions; linkages between local actions and national development planning; coordination among donors; and coordination amongst different ministries for sustainable impacts.

This session, moderated by Rama Chandra Reddy, World Bank, highlighted the need for an integrated approach to land use under the UNFCCC, and focused on cross-cutting issues that could provide positive incentives.

Chandra Reddy presented initiatives concerning land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF), namely the BioCarbon Fund and the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF). He stressed the limited representation of land use in climate change mitigation and discussed the issues of non-permanence and additional land use activities.

Nur Masripatin, Indonesia, presented the Indonesian experience on managing forests in a broader landscape. She provided an overview of activities undertaken, including: reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, and conservation and sustainable management of forests and the enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries (REDD+); Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs); and the National Action Plan on Greenhouse Gas Action Plan (RAN-GPK). She underscored that future challenges would include ways to link forest management policies to mitigation and adaptation options.

Sara Scherr, Ecoagriculturepartners, highlighted sectoral GHG emissions reduction potential until 2020 and the rationale for climate mitigation strategies at landscape level. Presenting two case studies, she noted that policy recommendations to promote landscape-scale climate mitigation would include: incorporation of mitigation benefits into all sectorial investments; policy alignment across sectors; and support to stakeholders’ forums to coordinate sectoral and spatial activities and investments.

Jose Antonio Prado, Chile, provided an overview of the Chilean national strategy on forests and climate change. He underlined activities undertaken, including: REDD+; NAMAs; sustainable land management (SLM); and measurement, reporting and verification (MRV) in order to promote recovery of degraded forest land and the sustainable management of natural forests, as well as to generate carbon credits based on forest plantations.

Keith Anderson, Switzerland, explained why his country supported the forest NAMA in Chile. He focused on expected key results during the coming two years and underscored the significance of the forest NAMA, noting that its innovativeness constitutes a shift from conventional practice.

The ensuing discussions focused, among others, on: non-permanence and utilization of land-use credits; the REDD+ process; and the transition from voluntary to regulatory markets.

This session addressed climate-related health impacts and presented an economic tool developed by WHO, with the aim of supporting health adaptation and planning efforts in Member States. Alexander Nies, Germany, moderated the side event.

Nies discussed the German national strategy for adapting to climate change, including the prominent role of health issues and the strategy’s focus on the precautionary principle. He noted that preventing is better and less costly than curing.

Bettina Menne, WHO, underlined the need for health adaptation. She noted the direct and indirect health impacts of climate change and the guidance provided by the international community under, inter alia, the World Health Assembly Resolution WHA/61.R19.

Gerardo Sanchez Martinez, WHO, presented the toolkit. He identified its three-fold aim: estimating the health damage costs of climate change; estimating the health-relevant adaptation costs of climate change; and comparing the damage costs averted with the costs of implementing adaptation measures.

Vladimir Kendrovski, WHO, provided an example of the tool’s use to address the economic costs of heat waves in FYR Macedonia. Examining damage and adaptation costs, he concluded that adaptation represents less than 10% of the total damage costs to the economy.

A panel discussion addressed the health and adaptation costs of climate change and the importance of the newly designed toolkit to address them.

Paul Desanker, UNFCCC, noted that the toolkit is a positive step in assisting countries to calculate, summarize and synthesize related costs. He also underlined data limitations.

Kari Hauge Riisoen, Norway, emphasized that investing in health without taking climate change into consideration is not sustainable.

Elke Hellstern, KfW Development Bank, stressed that a well-functioning health system is the best way to make populations resilient to climate change and highlighted that data quality and collection problems may present both a challenge and an additional opportunity.

Serena Pontoglio, European Commission (EC), Directorate General for Research and Innovation (DG-Research), referred to projects and case studies related to the toolkit, and noted the existence of a platform where all similar tools are collected in order to facilitate policy making.

Pradeep Kurukulasuriya, UNDP, emphasized the need to highlight the economics of adaptation and stressed that, when resources are scarce, choices must be optimized. He called for WHO to ensure that LDCs can use this tool in their adaptation plans.