Flagship 4 Brussels Workshop: Working Group 2

Group 4 (the coolest)

Group 4

Gaps/what needs to be done

• What does adaptive capacity look like at local, national, with international links? – How to take into account/categorize different climate

changes, vulnerabilities, and agroecosystems into consideration

– What is common across?(see Dupuis & Biesbroek, 2013)

• How to measure it? What surrogates are acceptable?

• Who has it and who doesn’t?

• Hypothesis is the factors X, Y and Z influence/cause outcomes. (A set of interventions can lead to somewhat predictable outcomes.) – E.g. the longer the time to develop a policy, the more intensive the debate, more likely it is to be implemented.

• Need to draw on country case studies that will tease out variables related to our hypothesis.

• Want large number of country studies to avoid

perceptions of ‘local only’ relevance.

Comparative methods

• Qualitative Comparative Analysis: row of cases; scored 1 or 0 for success or failure; scores for other variables like GDP, etc.

• Network analysis of connections between actors involved (and who is not involved, but should be involved) can shed light onto network factors (e.g., social capital) of potential relevance.

• Discourse analysis - same. Need guides tools methods for cost effective network and discourse analysis.

Partners

• Political scientist • National partners in countries where we

conduct analysis, and have been working on climate change adaptation for years now– To do research, provide project guidance, help

prepare the ground for reception of research outputs, provide links

– to policy processes• ICIMOD for work in Asia

Preconditions to work on macro scale

• Exhaustively documented work/outputs/results from CSVs in Theme 1 about what adaptive capacity looks like (what works where and why)

• Clarity about linkages from village level to ‘subnational’. What is subnational?

• Necessary to work at multi-scale levels. Locally active actors are empowered, bolstered by national authority.

“Towers” of carom game pieces visualize how much influence different actors have

on specified outcome

Arrows show links between actors• Advice• Funding

Actors involved are identified and marked on sheet of paper

Fotos: E. Schiffer

How does Net-Map work?

Addendum on network analysis

Bangladesh: Network Structure• Network highly

centralized• Several different core

actors: the most important of which are UNDP, Min. of Food and Disaster Management (MoFDM), and Min. of Envir. and Forests (MOEF)

• Two distinct clusters: one dominated by research orgs, the other by donors, multilaterals, and govt actors

Government Local Government Donor/Multi-lateral NGO Research Target Group Advice Funding

Ethiopia: Network Structure• Largely has a hub-and-

spoke structure• Hub made up of several

govt actors: Environmental Protection Authority (EPA), Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MoARD), & Prime Minister’s office (PM)

Mali: Network Structure• Network is largely

decentralized, clustered

• Three main clusters: national-level government organizations; research and policy organizations; and civil society organizations