“DEVELOPING A FRAMEWORK FOR ECOSYSTEM-BASED ADAPTATION(EBA) IN

LAO PDR AND VIETNAM”

Raji Dhital,EBA regional project manager, WWF-GMP

ECOSYSTEM BASED ADAPTATION

Ecosystem-based adaptation (EbA) is the use of biodiversity and ecosystem services as part of an overall adaptation strategy to help people to adapt to the adverse effects of climate change.

Exploitation/ protection of ecosystem

Ecosystem services (provisioning, regulating,

cultural services)

Exploitation/ protection of ecosystem

Ecosystem services (provisioning, regulating,

cultural services)

System under steady state

System subjected to increased/ decreased development risks

System subjected to increased/ decreased climate risks

Nexus

Development

Ecosystem

Development

Ecosystem

Nexus

ECOSYSTEM BASED ADAPTATION

Ecosystem-based adaptation (EbA) is the use of biodiversity and ecosystem services as part of an overall adaptation strategy to help people to adapt to the adverse effects of climate change.

RATIONALE FOR AN OPERATIONAL GUIDANCE

• Adaptation to Climate Change increasingly recognized in development agenda in the GMS countries

• Planned and likely investments on adaptation ( including investment on infrastructure-such as dykes, channels for water diversion ) could benefit from linkages with the ecosystems

• A need for operationalizing the concept of EbA in a locally accessible way

• A need for better understanding of the effectiveness of EBA, and include it in policy and planning processes

• WB supported study in partnerships with the governments of Laos and Vietnam

PROJECT’S GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Accelerate the adoption of EbA strategies in Laos and Vietnam, and throughout the rest of the GMS.

Specific Objectives1. Develop and customize operational ‘framework’

for undertaking EbA2. Promote EbA strategy through case studies and

policy recommendations and analyze its cost-effectiveness

3. Promote mainstreaming of EBA in policies and planning processes

goal!!

GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR THE FRAMEWORK

Linking to development- minimizing risk and adapting is NOT enough.

Adopt a system perspective: Coupled socio-ecological system

Adaptation is possible despite uncertainties and lack of information on different complexities

Include perception at the core of the assessment framework

Bottom up designs and top down/parallel transfer of knowledge and experiences ( e.g. spatial analysis, CEA)

Piloting at local level

KEY CONCEPTS

• Inclusive of communities ecosystem and their interaction

• Units of analysis where possible

Social ecological system

• A function of exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity

• Current and future Vulnerability

• Capacity to bounce back to the original state after damage

• A subset of adaptive capacityResilience

• Ways to assess the vulnerability of communities and ecosystems

Vulnerability Assessment

These concepts have been applied on the basis of:- Adaptation of communities vs. ecosystems- Simple and practical vs. ideal

FRAMEWORK: FOCUS ON SOCIO-ECOLOGICAL SYSTEM

Steps Ecosystem lens Tools

1. Objectives and context setting

System representation- communities and ecosystem

Secondary data collection; Stakeholder consultation

2. Vulnerability assessment – current and potential risks and impacts

Risks and Impact assessment of communities AND ecosystems-socio ecological systems

PRA tools: seasonal calendar ,timeline, Focus group discussionGIS mapping and modeling

3. Prioritization of Adaptation measures

Value of natural capital recognized ( Qualitative); Integrated approach

Stakeholder consultationMulticriteria analysisCost effectiveness analysis

4. Implementation & monitoring5. Mainstreaming

CUSTOMIZATION AND FIELD TESTING IN BEN TRE (MEKONG DELTA) AND CHAMPASAK

EBA Framework

Relevance?

Clarity?

Context barriers capacity

Lessons from field

Review/revise

EXPERIENCES FROM THE FIELD

• Step 1: Context setting:• Set a social ecological system-

• Agriculture, wetland, forest catchments and their dependent communities in and near BeunKiatNong wetland

• Coastal stretch in Ben Tre• Boundary determined by administrative boundary- wetland site

and

• Set a preliminary objective(?)• Adaptation objective vs. project objective

• Establish a multi-disciplinary tool• Skillsets needed

• Workplan

VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT

• Assess current and future risks from climate and non climate pressures

• Future scenarios to identify future threatsLaoLivelihood:Agriculture and livestocksNTFP collectionFishingHuntingLocal businesses• MAJOR THREATS:

• Floods and droughts/ dry spellls

• Less rain in dry season and intensive rain in wet season

VietnamLivelihood:• Agriculture ( Rice)• Fruits• Livestock• Fisheries and aquaculture (shrimp,

cockles, etc.)• MAJOR THREATS• Storms, droughts, unseasonal

rain, reduced precipitation

PARTICIPATORY SCORING THE EFFECTS OF NATURAL HAZARDS ON THE ECOSYSTEM (-2 - +2)

Hazards Mangrove Sand dune Intertidal area

Coastal sand

dunes

Estuarine water

Brackish water ponds

Fresh water, crop

Storm -2/-2/-1 -1/-2/0 -2/-1/0 -1/-2/0 -1/-1/0 -2/-1/-1 -/-2/-

Tornado -1/-1/-1 0/-1/-1 0/0/0 0/0/0 0/0/0 0/0/0 -/-1/-

High tide/ sea level rise

-1/+2/-1 -2/-2/-2 0/-1/0 0/-1/0 -1/-2/-1 -2/-2/-2 -/-2/-

Reduced precipitation

0/0/0 -1/-2/-1 0/0/0 0/-2/0 0/0/0 -1/-1/-1 -/-2/-

Unseasonal rain

0/0/0 -2/-1/-2 0/0/0 0/-1/0 0/0/0 -1/+1/-1 -/-1/-

Increase in temp.

0/-1/0 -1/-2/-1 -1/-1/-1 -1/-2/-1 0/-1/0 -1/-1/-1 -/-2/-

Drought (prolonged)

-1/-1/-1 -2/-2/-2 -2/2/-2 -2/-2/-2 -1/-1/-1 -2/-1/-2 -/-2/-

ANALYZING FUTURE VULNERABILITY

• Different ways-• Directly look at vulnerability such as coastal vulnerability

using models (Ben Tre)• Requires data, maps, expertise

• Create scenarios in a participatory way through stakeholder discussion-based on projected risks (climate and non climate)• Allows to better gauze at percieved threats

• Floods more intense and more frequent• Droughts more severe• Affected: Agriculture, NTFP’s etc.

VULNERABILITY RANKING-EXAMPLE

Future: Three Scenarios Developed in Ben Tre

Business as usual Intense industrial growth

Biodiversity conservation

Change in Salinity intrusion,Inundation,Settlement near the coastline

16

Coastal Vulnerability- risk index

WeightingVery low Low Moderate High Very high

1 2 3 4 5

GeomorphologyRocky; high cliffs; fiord;

fiard

Medium cliff;

indented coast

Low cliff; glacial drift; alluvial plain

Cobble beach;

estuary; lagoon; bluff

Barrier beach;

sand beach; mud flat;

delta

Topographical> 90th

Percentile > 75th

PercentileAverage value

< 25th Percentile

< 10th Percentile

Natural ecosystem

Coral reef; mangrove;

coastal forest

High dune; marsh

Low dune; oyster reef

Seagrass; kelp

No habitat

Changes level sea

Net decrease   ±1   Net rise

Wind Exposure < 10th

Percentile < 25th

PercentileAverage value

> 75th Percentile

> 90th Percentile

Wave Exposure< 10th

Percentile < 25th

PercentileAverage value

> 75th Percentile

> 90th Percentile

Surge Potential No exposure < 25th

PercentileAverage value

> 75th Percentile

> 90th Percentile

Coastal Vulnerability: Results

Model waves and coastal erosion

NATURAL HABITAT

(mangrove: species,

structure, properties)DEM

Structural materials

coast

Wave height

distance

Tide

Wind: direction,

speed

Example of management actions- land point 1

Current

Erosion 5.53 m3, Movement 175.0 m

BAU

Erosion 12.99 m3, Movement 583.0 m

Conservation

Erosion 0 m3, Movement 0 m

Development

Erosion 22.78 m3, Movement 766.0 m

Landpoint 1 Landpoint 2 Landpoint 3 Landpoint 4 Landpoint 5 Landpoint 6 Landpoint 784.00%

86.00%

88.00%

90.00%

92.00%

94.00%

96.00%

98.00% Baseline 2010 Business as Usual Scenario Development Scenario

Conservation Scenario

Percentage of wave height reduced under different scenario

In an average under conservation scenario 92-95%, the wave heights were reduced by and under development scenario by 80-95%. Landpoint 7: Sea dike behind mangrove near the Co Chien river mouth

EXPERIENCES FROM FIELD

Future assessments are not easy• Subjectivity and human error in analysis

• Involves subjective ranking - limited by who ranks• and/or GIS models- concerns with assumptions and

accuracy

• Lack of data and mapsBUT• Future assessments are just one way to guide

actions• Indicative of trend- what, who and where• Adaptation deficit ( why are current challenges not being

met) also plays a big role

1. Adjustments in land use to allow for better maintenance of ecosystem services

2. Management and sustainable use of freshwater resources

3. Conservation and restoration of natural habitats4. Conservation of biodiversity hotspots5. Rehabilitation and protection of fisheries

resources6. Climate smart farming practices7. Early Warning System

IDENTIFYING AND PRIORITIZING ADAPTATION OPTIONS (LAO)

MULTI-CRITERIA ANALYSIS

CRITERIA

• Effectiveness: Will it achieve each adaptation objective?

• Cost: How cost effective will it be?

• Feasibility: How realistic will it be to carry out?

• Attractiveness: How attractive is it for public and private funding?

• Capacity: How well does it fit with current capacity?

ADAPTATION OPTIONS

Improved Wetland Management (26.32)

Improved Forest Management (25.42)

Raising Awareness of CC impacts (24.86) Enhanced Agricultural Extension (24.74)

Improved Integrated Socio-economic Development Planning (24.46)

Improved NTFP Management (23.54)

………. etc.

COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS- EXAMPLE IN LAO

• Effectiveness: Number of years in 10 in which food supply is not disrupted for more than 5 days in any village due to Climate related events.

• Involved calculation of effectiveness measure; financial costs; financial cost effectiveness ratio; other economic costs/benefits; total costs, total cost effectiveness ratio

TOTAL COST EFFECTIVENESS RATIO:- Agricultural extension: 1 ( economic costs also included costs of

degradation of forests and wetlands)- Improved forest management: -592- Improved wetland management: -1526

CEA – EXAMPLE FROM VIETNAM

Hard or engineered solution: Construction and upgrade of sea dikes in Thanh Phu, Ba Tri, and Binh Đai district..

Ecosystem-based adaptation (EbA): Reforestation and conservation of coastal forests with a total forest area of 5.100 ha (existing forest: 3897 ha and planting of new forest: 1.203 ha).

Effectiveness: number of people saved from floods

Low Risk Scenario:

Average cost per person saved from flood: Sea dike systems :138.8 Mill VND/person.

Ecosystem based adaptation with coastal forest ecosystems : 1.7 mill VND/person.

High risk scenario

55%, 17%, and 5% cost saving by using EbA with sea dyke for Ba Tri, Binh Dai and Thanh Phu district- total saving about 11%

LESSONS TO FINALIZE THE FRAMEWORK

• Simple and practical vs. ideal• Layers of the the ”target-users”-

who are sub national policy makers as opposed who actually conduct VA and prepares project?

• Adaptation objectives should be determined in consultation with multiple stakeholders after VA.

• Difficulties in assessing impacts to ecosystem- actions must be taken despite some uncertainties

• Flexibility in scale, data availability

EVIDENCE AND LESSONS FOR PLANNERS

• EbA provides nature-based solutions to reduce vulnerability even under high climate risks.

• EbA can indeed be cost effective.• EbA provide multiple benefits to communities• EbA can NOT be excluded from overall strategy to

address the future risks, even though it may have to be supplemented by other measures.

• Mainstream and act at different scales- but ensure local levels are prioritized first.

POLICY AND PLANNING CONTEXT

Regional

National

Sub national

• DONRE, DARD,DPI

• PONRE, DONRE, PAFO