Climate Change Adaptation in Nepal: Exploring ways to overcome the barriers

Climate Change Adaptation in Nepal: Exploring

Ways to Overcome the Barriers

Bimal Raj Regmi* and Dinanath Bhandari**

*Flinders University, Australia

**Practical Action Nepal

Editors Hari Dhungana Hemant Ojha Krishna K. Shrestha Rahul Karki

Design and Layout Sanjeeb Bir Bajracharya

© ForestAction Nepal Email: [email protected]; Web site: www.forestaction.org

Journal of Forest and Livelihood 11(1) March, 2013

43

Climate Change Adaptation in Nepal: Exploring Ways

to Overcome the Barriers

Bimal Raj Regmi* and Dinanath Bhandari***Flinders University, Australia

**Practical Action NepalCorresponding author: [email protected]

Abstract: Abstract: Abstract: Abstract: Abstract: Adaptation to climate change is emerging as an important developmental challenge in Nepaland globally. To address climate change risks and vulnerabilities, a set of mutually integrated strategies arenecessary at different sectors and levels. This paper examines institutional, technological and informationalbarriers to designing and implementing adaptation. In particular, it combines literature review and casestudies to diagnose the limitation of adaptation and its institutional environment in Nepal. The findingsreveal that there are limits to adaptation, which are caused by barriers of available technology, knowledgeand institutional frameworks. These barriers undermine the effectiveness of the initiatives promotedboth at the national as well as local level. Effective climate change requires addressing these barriers byreworking of the ways in which institutions operate and by building on the existing knowledge, skills, andbest practices. This can be facilitated by changing the design of development planning and modes ofdelivery.

Key words: Key words: Key words: Key words: Key words: Climate change, vulnerabilities, risks, limits to adaptation, local institutions

INTRODUCTION

Adaptation to climate change has emerged as achallenge to achieving and sustaining thedevelopment outcomes as mitigation is nottaking place as needed (Eriksen 2011). However,adaptation is becoming complicated in practiceas climate change and its impacts are faster thanthe natural process can sustain and they areinterlinked with and embedded into a range ofsocial, economic and political processes (Ayers2011a). As the science of climate change hasyet to come, out of its own limitations inaddressing uncertainties and identifyingtechnological solutions to adaptation andmitigation, social and financial issues aredominating the negotiations and actions takenon the ground. On the other hand, governmentsand people need to make hard choices anddifficult decisions to avoid irreparable losseslikely to be made by climate change. Therefore,vulnerable communities need to respond toclimate change without delay to enable them

and their ecosystem to keep up with the on-going and potential changes in climate system.

Adaptation is necessary to deal with adverseclimatic stresses and hazards and to take theopportunities such as new innovations, whichcan be both to current, actual or projectedconditions (Smit et al. 1999: p. 203). So, thereare two broad components on adaptation:coping and adapting with adverse impactshappening at short and longer term andbenefiting from the favourable situations. Theultimate goal of adaptation is to build long termresilience of communities so that they arecapable of sustaining their livelihoods even inextreme shocks and stresses.

However, the concept of adaptation as such isnot new ; life has come through differentadjustments biologically and behaviourally andsuccessful struggle for existence, modificationsand survival of the fittest (Charles and Wallace

Regmi and Bhandari


44

1859). But now, we do not let the nature decidealone. We want action to our ends as well andthere is already knowledge to begin with:

Adaptation to climate change is not somethingthat must start from scratch. It is an incrementalprocess that can build upon a long history ofprevious adaption. What is new is the need toadapt much more rapidly because of the impactof human activities on climate (Burton 2000:

p159).

The discussions on adaptation, adaptive capacityor resilience capacity, as they areinterchangeably used, is often highlighted interms of effective response. TheIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC) defined adaptive capacity as the ‘abilityof a system to adjust to climate change (includingclimate variability and extremes) to moderatepotential damages to take advantage ofopportunities or to cope with the consequences’(IPCC WG II 2001: p. 72). For a humancommunity, adaptive capacity is influenced bymultiple socioeconomic factors apart fromphysical circumstances. The socioeconomicfactors include technology, resources, skills andgovernance. Adaptive capacity also includeenabling properties of both natural and societalassets, including financial, technological andinformation resources and the context withinwhich these assets are held, includinginfrastructure, environment, political influence,social networks, public policy and institutionalgovernance (Ensor and Berger 2009: p. 170).

Building adaptive capacity is now becoming thecentre of focus amongst adaptation anddevelopment communities. There is still noclarity on the direction to climate changeadaptation, particularly on how it should happenand what the appropriate measures are. At theinternational negotiations, debate over thetechnology transfer is overshadowed by thediscussion on emission target and climate

change financing. In Nepal, there is hardly anydiscussion on adaptation technology, skills andsystemic processes; acquiring technology andskills is yet far to be achieved.

Similarly, studies highlight the richness oftraditional knowledge and emphasise onpromoting it often without suggesting properways and adequate guidance on how to do inthe changing situations. Studies that focus onthe need of technology to solve climate changeproblem lack accessibility, affordability andmanagement capacity of the communities inneed. The role of policy and institutions iscrucial in enabling communities to accessappropriate technologies and to achieveadaptation and mitigation objectives. Similarly,policy and institutions play decisive roles inenhancing knowledge and skills for thesuccessful use of approaches, processes andtechnologies.

The aim of this paper is to explore ways ofbuilding effective adaptation measures at thelocal level. The specific objectives are: a) to findout opportunities and constraints of adaptationresponses at the local level; and b) to identifyinnovative ways of enhancing adaptive capacityat the local level. The diagnosis of opportunitiesand constraints of climate change adaptationsupports mainstreaming of climate changewithin development and ensures effectiveadaptation responses at the local level.

METHODOLOGY AND STUDY

FRAMEWORK

Methods

The research is mostly based on review ofliterature backed up by case studies in Nepal.We reviewed current literature on adaptivecapacity and limits to adaptation. We lookedinto the opportunities and constraints ofdifferent initiatives on adaptation at thenational and local level, as well as into the issues

Regmi and Bhandari


45

1 NVivo is a qualitative data analysis (QDA) computer software package produced by QSR International. It has beendesigned for qualitative researchers working with very rich text-based and/or multimedia information, where deeplevels of analysis on small or large volumes of data are required (www.qsrinternational.com).

2 Initiated by Jacques M. Chevalier and Daniel J. Buckles at Carleton University (Ottawa, Canada) and Michelle Bourassaat the University of Ottawa, the SAS2 Dialogue approach spans ten years of creative conceptual and methodologicalexperimentation.www.sas2.net

of adaptation knowledge, technolog y andinstitutions.

We conducted content analysis of two nationalprogrammes - National Adaptation Programmeof Action (NAPA) and Strategic Programmefor Climate Resilience (SPCR) in terms of theirfocus on climate change responses. Thecontent analysis was backed up by semi-structured interview with 17 policy makers and26 practitioners working on climate changeissues at the national and local level, which werepurposively selected.

The case study was carried out in Bangesaal andDhungedadi Village Development Committees(VDCs) of Pyuthan district in mid-westernregion of Nepal. These two VDCs are pilot sitesfor Local Adaptation Plan of Action (LAPA)and Community Adaptation Planning (CAP).We conducted interviews with 120 randomlysampled household members and held six focusgroup discussions with Community ForestryUser Group (CFUG) members, executivemembers of Village Forest CoordinationCommittee (VFCC), project staffs and localgovernment officials. The interviews used semistructured questionnaire to map out theperceptions of sampled household. A total of60 households were selected in each of theVDCs, using simple random sampling, basedon the list available in those VDCs. Theparticipants for focus group were selected incoordination with the executive members ofCFUG and local government office. Theselection considered gender, ethnicity, status ofhouseholds and distribution of users. A checklistwas used during the focus group discussion. Thedata were analysed using descriptive statistics

and NVivo1. It also used Social Analysis System(SAS)2 tools and technique like stakeholderanalysis, force field to map the vulnerabilitycontext and stakeholder dynamics.

Study Framework

This study used the framework proposed byPreston and Stafford-Smith (2009) to analysethe key barriers and limitations to adaptation.This framework has outlined the dimensions ofadaptation where it is represented as a processdriven by four sets of determinants, with eachset comprised of multiple determinants withmultiple dimensions. The framework states thatadaptation barriers and limits disrupt therelationship between determinants and theadaptation process (Preston and Stafford-Smith2009).

Adaptation to climate does not occur inisolation. It involves in a context and amid ofcomplex set of socio-economic, institutionalinteractions (Smithers and Smit 2009: `17).Climate system encompasses both variabilityand extreme events in the short run andaggregate impact of uncertain future andintensity and degree of climate change in future.At the grass root level, any meaningfulmeasurement of adaptation needs to acceptclimate change is contextualised with the otherrisks (social, economic and political as well asenvironmental) that shape and limit humanwell being and functioning of socio-ecologicalsystem (Pelling and Wisner 2009).

Adaptation history shows that both natural andhuman system are adapting to environmentaland ecologic stresses. According to Smit (1993)

Regmi and Bhandari


46

FigFigFigFigFigure 1: Different dimensions of adaptationure 1: Different dimensions of adaptationure 1: Different dimensions of adaptationure 1: Different dimensions of adaptationure 1: Different dimensions of adaptationSource: Preston and Stafford-Smith (2009: p1)

The ultimate aim of adaptation is to buildresilience of communities and natural system.Adaptive capacity is influenced by multiplefactors which includes economic, social,technological, human and governance. Adger etal. (2006: p. 728) explain about the exampleswhere social capital, social networks, value,perceptions, customs, traditions and level ofcognition affecting the capacity of communitiesto adapt to climate change risk. They explainthat adaptive capacity is locally specific andhighly heterogeneous within a society.

Lemos et al. (2007: p. 24) mention that theadaptive capacity can be created by investing ininformation and knowledge, encouragingappropriate institutions that permitevolutionary change, and increase level orresources such as income and education.

However, there are literatures which identifythe limits and barriers to adaptation (Figure 1).Some argue that any limit to adaptation dependson the ultimate goals, uncertainties associatedwith foresight of future climate change,

and Smithers and Smit (2009), adaptiveresponses is better explained by intent, role ofgovernment, scale, timing, duration, form andeffect. It can be of different form of action rangingfrom technological, behavioral, financial, andinstitutional or informational. Adaptationhappens at individual household, community,

regional, national and international level andoccurs in diverse system ranging from human tonatural. The response also differs from actors’i.e. public, private, community and government(see Smit et al. 1999; Smit and Wandel 2006;Burton et al. 2007; Pelling 2011).

Regmi and Bhandari


47

adaptation and social and individual factors(Hulme et al. 2007). Similarly, Adger et al. (2004)contends that limits to adaptation areendogenous to society and hence contingent onethics, knowledge, attitudes to risk and culture.This paper argues that barriers to technologyand governance limit the success of climatechange adaptation initiatives in Nepal. Thelimitation on governance, knowledge on climatechange and technology, impacts the effectivenessof adaptation interventions.

In order to effectively address the impact ofclimate change, there is a need to overcome thebarriers to adaptation. This can be done byovercoming information, knowledge,technological, institutional, structural andpolicy barriers. This paper argues that differentlevels of institutions and communities need tocollaborate and act in order to address the keychallenges to adaptation. The effective way ofmaking adaptation work is to devise right policyand local level practices which mobilises thenational and local level stakeholders.

CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION

AND ITS LIMITS

Adaptation defined: Flexibility iscrucial

Adaptive action has been defined by autonomous(automatic, spontaneous and passive) andplanned (active, structured and strategic).Adaptation actions are diverse and largelydepend on the context and resources requiredand available. Therefore, adaptation needs tobe innovative and flexible to improve andincorporate new technologies, approaches, skillsand resources warranted by the changingcontext brought about by the uncertain leveland timing of climate change. Adger et al. (2005)argue that adaptation to climate change involvesvarious decisions across a landscape made up onagents from individuals' firms and civil society,to public bodies and international agencies. The

authors also argue that unintentional adaptationhas implications to the effectiveness ofpurposeful adaptation, so integration ofadaptation into actions and policies is achallenge. Burton (1994) argues on purposefuladaptation which involves reducing thesensitivity, altering the exposure and increasingthe resilience. Mertz et al. (2009: p. 750)further argue that uncertainty in climate changeleads to the need of robust, innovative, flexible,institutional, policy, governance and inclusivestructure that can be of significance fordeveloping country populations to better adaptand reduce the adaptation deficit. However,these concepts have yet to go through practicaltests on the ground such as to test the degree offlexibility required for adaptation in particularcircumstance and in specific context.

Limits to adaptation

UUUUUncncncncnceeeeerrrrrtttttaaaaaiiiiinnnnnttttties aies aies aies aies and cnd cnd cnd cnd cooooommmmmppppplexitlexitlexitlexitlexitiesiesiesiesies

There are limits to coping strategies adapted bycommunities to deal with climate extremes. Thecoping range and thresholds are determined bythe extent of climate variability and capacity ofvulnerable communities to respond individuallyand collectively to the adverse impact of climatechange (Adger 2003a). For example, there islittle chance of success to adaptation once theatmospheric Green House Gas (GHG)concentration exceeds 450 ppm CO

2eq (IPCC

2007). Thresholds mark the tipping points thatvary from one systems state to another. Criticalthresholds will be those that set the broad scopefor what is possible through purposefuladaptation (Adger 2003b).

According to Pelling (2011), actions ofadaptation are stimulated by the crossing of risk,hazard or vulnerability thresholds. Eachthreshold is socially constructed. The level ofrisk that is accepted by society determines thefirst threshold and is shaped by whose valuesand vision for the future (Adger et al. 2009). The

Regmi and Bhandari


48

traditional adaptation is driven by perceptionsand local knowledge from the past experiencesof weather, climate and the associated disastertrends. Climate change adaptation is largelylocal and contextual in nature. However, thecommunities and their resources on which theirlivelihoods depend on are linked to largerintricate network of ecosystems and thechanging climate including its uncertaintymakes the adaptation at local level challengingand difficult (Adger et al. 2009; Dessai andHulme 2004).

Focusing on socioeconomic factors determiningadaptation, Adger et al. (2006) explain that limitsto adaptation are endogenous to society andhence are contingent on power structure,ethics, attitude, culture and knowledge. Theauthors argue that the limits depend on theultimate goal of adaptation underpinned bydiverse values, uncertainty around climateforesight, social and individual actions andsystematic undervaluation of loss of place andculture.

Ayers (2011a) explains that the uncertainty andclimate change risk depend on both science andinternational processes. The uncertainty inadaptation is underpinned by uncertaintyaround United Nations FrameworkConventionn on Climate Change (UNFCCC)meaning of ‘dangerous climate change’ and whatthresholds of dangerous climate change need tobe avoided. The second uncertainty is aroundthe science of climate change projection,particularly on identifying and quantifyingimpacts. The third uncertainty is around thecomplex interaction between climate changeand development. This argument explains thatinternational climate assessment andnegotiation discourse could be a barrier to theadaptation if they fail to proceed in a desired pace.

Policy and institutionsPolicy and institutionsPolicy and institutionsPolicy and institutionsPolicy and institutions

Institutions play vital roles in initiating ,promoting, improving and sustaining adaptationpractices (Osman-Elasha et al. 2006). However,existing institutions need to change theirtraditional practices to address the new andadditional issues of climate change and needcapacities to perform in innovative ways. Thereare barriers and constraints in promotingadaptation in developing countries due eitherto lack of modifiable institutions or lack ofinstitutions for various reasons aroundgovernance. These barriers are driven frominternational and national level policy making;translating policy into effective action,institutional structure to manage sustainableadaptation and financial resources and capacityneeded to promote adaptation at different scales.

The international and national policy onadaptation is in an infant stage. Globalcommunity has recently given attention toadaptation through providing space in theUNFCCC negotiations and devising strategiesand action plans to guide it. At the nationallevel, governments have developed climatechange policy, strategies, and action plans to dealwith the problem. National AdaptationProgramme (NAPAs) have been prepared byleast developed countries3. But national levelwork on policy harmonisation andmainstreaming is lagging behind and translationof these policies into practice is likely to becomea distant task. There are limiting factors andbarriers such as lack of political stability,understanding of the problem and its drivers,coordination between different ministries anddepartments, bureaucratic hurdles and so forth.

3 Such as UNFCCC has received NAPAs from 47 Least Developed Countries as of December 2011. http://unfccc.int/

cooperation_support/least_developed_countries_portal/submitted_napas/items/4585.php

Regmi and Bhandari


49

There are institutional issues around integratingclimate change adaptation. There aretraditional institutional structures that are toofragmented, sectoral and isolated. Thesestructures are also constrained by capacity andresources. As climate change is a multifacetedproblem, it demands coordinated actions andstrong institutional collaboration. These couldbe built on traditional sectoral approaches andpractices but the persisting lack of commitmentfor coordination stand as a barrier to adaptation.Adaptation actions have to be localised andbuilt up nationwide. So, the challenge is toensure governance structure that can address theinstitutional gaps and barriers (Ayers andDodman 2010).

Another issue is around financing which ismostly limited and curtailed by the poorgovernance in the countries as well as in theinternational processes. Financial resources arecritical to facilitate planned adaptation as itdemands massive financial resources indeveloping countries. The country governmentshave to rely on international support in orderto meet the cost of adaptation which has toovercome project based approach. Unless anduntil resources are available adequately andregularly, promoting meaningful and purposefuladaptation is remote. The governance issues inNepal, as highlighted by many report andpapers, are mostly related to financialmanagement, capacity to delivery, knowledgemanagement, institutional mechanisms and aidtransparency (Oxfam 2011; Regmi 2011; Regmiand Bhandari 2012).

FINDINGS44444

Local adaptation and its limitations(Case study at local level)

Adaptation dimensions in the study siteAdaptation dimensions in the study siteAdaptation dimensions in the study siteAdaptation dimensions in the study siteAdaptation dimensions in the study site

This case study was conducted in Dhungegadiand Bangesaal VDCs in Pyuthan district of midwestern region of Nepal. The population ofDhugegadi and Bangesaal is 3,938 and 5,407respectively5. Both the VDCs have sub-tropicaland temperate climate change with elevation of100 to 1000 msl. Dhungegadi VDC was one ofthe pioneers in terms of working on climatechange adaptation initiative as it was one of thepilot VDC of LAPA.

What farmers are adapting to?

Although the vulnerability mapping carried outunder NAPA shows that Pyuthan is relativelyless vulnerable district, the local vulnerabilityof climate change is high (Rupantaran 2012).Climate change issue was also evident in bothof the VDCs. Communities during interviewand discussion shared their perception on theincreased warming trend and rainfall variability.The interaction with communities in theresearch sites revealed that due to changes inthe climatic patterns, there are major shifts andchanges in the production system and resourceuse. The impact has been severe in agriculture,water resources and health sector. Althoughthere is slight variation in the scale of impact,the challenges in both the VDCs are enormous.The consequences of the impact has decreasedagriculture production, increased risk of humanexposure to disasters and disrupted access todrinking water.

4 The data used in this paper is partly from the PhD research of the principal author and serves as one of itsoutput.

5 Source: District Profile Pyuthan, DDC Report 2004.

Regmi and Bhandari


50

The group discussion, historical trend of croppriority and calendar revealed that farmers inthe study VDCs attempted to respond to thenegative impacts of climate change. Thecommunities changed crops and croppingcalendar over the last three decades. Majordriving factors to do so were the introduction ofnew crop species, varieties, traditional cropsfailing to do well and uncertainty in rainfall.Some natural resource management skills andpractices coupled with better access to markets,seeds and technical advices enhanced adaptivecapacity. However, these local practicesremained ineffective due to scale and magnitudeof impact.

Who adapts?

The findings reveal that mostly the poor, womenand marginalised communities face the impactof climate change. The population who rely onagriculture as their main source of livelihoodare impacted the most by climate change. Insome aspects, the climate change impacts acrossall segments of the society. For example, thedrying of spring and water sources has not onlyimpacted the poor but also the rich families andhouseholds. However, the discussion withcommunities reveals that poor households aremore vulnerable because they lack resources toeffectively respond to the adverse impact.

But the communities have also beentraditionally responding to the climate extremes.The type of responses is varied based on the riskand impact observed both at the household andcommunity level. The focus group discussionsshow that the level of response is also variedamong different socio-economic groups. Forexample, in Bangesaal VDC, the richerhouseholds, compared to the poor households,afforded to quickly switch from cereal crops toshort term cash crops during drought. Thisimplies that economically resourcefulhouseholds tend to adapt quickly than poorhouseholds.

How adaptation occurs?

Communities in the two VDCs havetraditionally responded to climate change basedon their existing capacity. The response in thepast was ad hoc and not well organised.Communities only responded when thedisasters happened. The early preparedness waslacking in the past. Majority of the consultedcommunities felt that due to lack ofpreparedness, they had more losses. Recently thecommunities and the VDC as part of localgovernment have been involved in adaptationactivities. Similarly, in both the VDCs, thecommunities and local stakeholders have formedthe Village Forest Coordination Committee(VFCC) to coordinate the VDC leveladaptation responses. These VFCCs are formedwith the representation of local government,political parties, Non GovernmentalOrganizations (NGOs) and CFUG. Theadaptation planning process has just started andis yet to show its result.

However, the findings in both the study sitesshow that real adaptation has not yet happened.The coping strategy in the past has not helpedthem to deal with extreme events. Even withthe preparation of adaptation plans,communities seem to be planning to respond tothe short term variability of climate change.There are other external factors that determinecommunities’ capacity to respond well andsystematically. The socio-economic status of thehousehold revealed that the social capital andexisting resources is not enough to respond wellto the impact of climate change. As majority ofthe population are below poverty line and facingproblem of acute shortage of food and access toservices, the capacity to adapt is very limited.The analysis also shows that the adaptivecapacity of communities to deal with extremeevents is very low due to lack of knowledge andtechnology.

Regmi and Bhandari


51

What we want to achieve?

The findings show that strategic visioning ofclimate change is well advanced in the studysites. The communities, with assistance fromthe donors and NGOs, have preparedcommunity and local level adaptation plans.The adaptation plans have prioritised andstrategised action plans to deal with climatechange. Analysis of the existing plan reveals thatcommunities are more interested in the shortterm nature of adaptation interventions. Forexample, the communities have identifiedactivities that can solve their immediateproblems like drinking water. The action plansaim at reducing the vulnerability thanaddressing risk. The VDC level LAPA ofDhugegadi shows that more than 80 percent ofthe priorities in adaptation are related to addresslivelihood concerns rather than risk reduction.

Similarly, the government, donors and NGOshave considered the aspects of adaptationresponses linked with integration in thedevelopment planning process. The heavyreliance on the planned adaptation process onlyundermines the potential of autonomousadaptation and flexibility needed to respond to

the climate extremes. Adaptation with little orno consideration of political economy of climatechange risks the danger of mal-adaptation. Thiscan result in negative effects that are as seriousas the climate-induced effects that are avoided(or managed). So the effects of climate changemust be considered in the context of multipleactors, multiple stressors and factors, which maybe as important to the design of adaptiveresponses as the sensitivity of the change.

Limits and barriers to adaptationLimits and barriers to adaptationLimits and barriers to adaptationLimits and barriers to adaptationLimits and barriers to adaptation

Technological barriers

The interview with communities inDhungegadi and Bangesaal showed that thereare some traditional practices to cope withclimate change impacts. As show in table 1, theperception on existence of traditional practicesis higher in Dhungegadi (62.5%) compared toBangesaal (54.7%). There was also highernumber of respondents who did not adapt anykind of traditional practices. According to thenon-adopters, they didn’t adapt because theywere not aware about the suitable technologythat works better in the extreme situations.Similar findings were reported in other reportsas well (SAGUN 2009).

The traditional practices are location specificand adapted by communities since generationsto gradually adjust their livelihood in light tothe adversities in weather and climate. At theresearch sites, the traditional practices adaptedat the household level were mostly related toefficient water management, plantation and

TTTTTababababable 1 : Hle 1 : Hle 1 : Hle 1 : Hle 1 : Hououououousehosehosehosehosehold pld pld pld pld peeeeerrrrrccccceeeeeptptptptptioioioioion on on on on on tn tn tn tn the exishe exishe exishe exishe existtttteeeeencncncncnce of te of te of te of te of trrrrradadadadaditititititioioioioionnnnnaaaaal pl pl pl pl prrrrractactactactacticiciciciceseseseses

local bioengineering practices. Around 23percent of the respondents used kitchenwaste for irrigating their vegetable crops.Communities also practiced plantation and bio-engineering to protect the land from landslideand flooding. Some adopted the local irrigationpractices to reduce the risk and impact of climate

Regmi and Bhandari

Existence ofTraditionalPractices

Yes

No

Village Development Committee (Location)

Dhungegadi VDC Bangesaal VDC Total

Count Column N % Count Column N % Count Column N %

40 62.5% 35 54.7% 70 58.6%

24 37.5% 29 45.3% 53 41.4%


52

Figure 2. Household perception of theFigure 2. Household perception of theFigure 2. Household perception of theFigure 2. Household perception of theFigure 2. Household perception of theadoption of local adaptation practicesadoption of local adaptation practicesadoption of local adaptation practicesadoption of local adaptation practicesadoption of local adaptation practices

change (see Figure 2). There were also othernational level studies which have documentedlocal knowledge in relation to climate change.These studies have provided examples of someof the practices adopted by communities(Chapagain et al. 2009; Regmi et al. 2009a;Devkota et al. 2011; Maharjan et al. 2011;Manandhar et al. 2011).

The relevance and significance of local practicesbecome important in areas where thegovernment and other agencies support do notreach. The significance of local technologies inadaptation has been documented in Nepal.Regmi et al. (2009) show that, innovativetechnologies currently practiced by some hillfarmers are helping to build resilience ofcommunities. Others also reveal that farmers

and their supporting institutions are evolvingand co-producing climate sensitive technologieson demand in Nepal (Chhetri et al. 2011).

But, there are limits to these coping strategiesadapted by communities to deal with climateextremes. The coping range and thresholds aredetermined by the extent of climate variabilityand capacity and resources of communities torespond individually to the adverse impact ofclimate change (Adger et al. 2009). Theuncertainties of climate change impact and thescale of devastation makes the local practicesineffective.

Most of the local practices respond to the currentclimate variability and are short term responses.The focus group discussion with thecommunities revealed that communities regardtheir responses as coping and temporaryadjustment. Respondents, during householdsurvey, reported that many of the adoptedtraditional practices were ineffective. Almost89.1 percent of the respondents in both theVDCs perceived that the existing adaptationoptions were ineffective and could not addressthe climate risk and impact (see table 2). Onlyaround 11 percent of the respondents felt thatthe traditional practices are effective to dealwith some of the disasters. The effectivenessdiffered in household responses because of thefactor governing the type of technology andexperiences of its impact.

TTTTTababababable 2 : Ple 2 : Ple 2 : Ple 2 : Ple 2 : Peeeeerrrrrccccceeeeeptptptptptioioioioion of cn of cn of cn of cn of cooooommmmmmmmmmuuuuunnnnnititititities oies oies oies oies on tn tn tn tn the effehe effehe effehe effehe effectctctctctiviviviviveeeeenesnesnesnesness of ads of ads of ads of ads of adaaaaaptptptptptaaaaatttttioioioioion on on on on optptptptptioioioioionnnnnsssss.....

Existenceoftraditionalpractices

not effectiveat all

less effective

effective

veryeffective

Village Development Committee (Location)Village Development Committee (Location)Village Development Committee (Location)Village Development Committee (Location)Village Development Committee (Location)

Dh Dh Dh Dh Dhuuuuunnnnngggggeeeeegggggadadadadadi Vi Vi Vi Vi VDDDDDC BC BC BC BC Baaaaannnnngggggesaaesaaesaaesaaesaal Vl Vl Vl Vl VDDDDDC TC TC TC TC Totototototaaaaalllll

Count Column N % Count Column N % Count Column N %

22 34.4% 31 48.4% 53 41.4%

32 50.0% 29 45.3% 61 47.7%

10 15.6% 4 6.3% 14 10.9%

0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Regmi and Bhandari


53

The focus group discussions in Dhungegadi andBangessal revealed that they had receivedadaptation support. The support was providedin implementing the LAPA prepared at theVDC level. There were some technologiesidentified and promoted at the local level6. Butmany of the technologies were based oncommunities’ knowledge without gettingtechnical input from other agencies. Whencommunities were asked about the effectivenessof these technologies, they admitted that it didnot actually address the risk. They expressed thatthey lack technological backstopping from thegovernment agencies due to which, theirproposed technologies failed. The informaldiscussion with the NGO staffs providingfacilitation support in the VDC also realisedthe limitation of technological information andknowledge.

The study carried out by Manandhar et al.(2011: pp. 346-347) found that the farmers inNepal are capable of quickly responding toclimate change, but their adaptation measuresare for short term and may be inadequate to copewith the long-term effects of climate change.

6These include plantation activities, construction of check dams, drinking water source protection, awarenesscampaign.

Similarly, Regmi et al. (2009b) argue thatalthough there are innovative local practicesto cope with climate change, there are limits toit and have to be accompanied with externalsupport.

The study carried out by Lebel (2012) in AsiaPacific also shows that there are few evidencesshowing the direct contribution of localknowledge on reducing vulnerability. Most ofthe contributions were based on responses toexisting climate variability or particular eventsas opposed to longer-term changes in climate.In another study carried out by Macchi et al.(2011), it was noted that despite the repertoireof response strategies to the changes in climate,these responses may not keep up with the fastpace of change that the communities are facing.

The technology transfer debate is very strongat international level but outcomes were notsatisfactory at the local level. The householdsurvey also emphasised on the need to enhancetechnological cooperation among countries tohelp the vulnerable household to better adapt.Blending traditional practices and moderntechnologies might prove effective in adaptationresponses. Some of the respondents also pointedout the need to revive the extension servicesand to make it efficient. The service deliveryand technology transfer need to be tied up inthe future to make development and adaptationmore sustainable.

Institutional barriers at local level

The LAPA and CAP were piloted by in all theCFUGs in Dhugegadi and Bangasaal VDCs.TheCFUGs were organised and formed VFCCfor coordinating the climate change adaptationwork at the VDC level. VFCC is a looseinformal organisation which is functional at

Regmi and Bhandari

About half of the respondents (64) perceivedthat the traditional practices were ineffectivebecause of the lack of information, knowledgeand technology. Many felt that they had limitedaccess to modern and advance technology thatcan deal with community responses. Somerespondents (13) felt that the traditionaltechnologies could only work in normalsituation and proved ineffective in massivedamages caused by climate change. There weresome respondents who felt that even theexported technologies were ineffective.Similarly, there were few individuals who blamedthe traditional extension and service system ofthe government as cause of the ineffectiveness.


54

The research also analysed the power, interestand legitimacy of some local and governmentinstitutions in Dhugegadi VDC of Pyuthandistrict. This was done by involvingrepresentatives from the communities, political

internal governance problems. The internalgovernance of CFUGs , particularly gender role,elite dominance and management of funds wasalso reported by other papers (Agarwal 2001;Buchy and Subba 2003; Pokharel 2008; Thoms2008).

Similarly, the analysis of the VFCC revealed thatthere are many issues with the currentinstitutional mechanism. Although activelyfunctional in Bangesaal and Dhungegadi, theseinstitutions were not legalised, had lessexperience and exposure, and their institutionalresources were limited. There were bothpositive and negative perception of communitiesand local stakeholders with regards to theexistence of VFCC (Table 3). Many felt that itis necessary and has to take the lead at VDClevel.

the VDC level since 2009. This study lookedinto the opportunities and constraints of CFUGand VFCC in relation to management ofadaptation responses at the local level.

The exposure, resources and leadership play animportant role in the institutional development.The analysis of existing community basedinstitutions revealed that CFUG appear to bemost potential and viable institution at the locallevel compared to agriculture group, cooperative,mothers group and local clubs. CFUF wasperceived to be strong because of its legal status,coverage, leadership, resources available andlinkages with other agencies. Other groups werenot much functional. Many of the communitiesand local agencies however realised thelimitation of CFUGs. They mentioned thatCFUG is too forestry focused, only limited toareas where forest is present and often faced with

TTTTTababababable 3 : Ple 3 : Ple 3 : Ple 3 : Ple 3 : Peeeeerrrrrccccceeeeeptptptptptioioioioion of sn of sn of sn of sn of stttttaaaaakkkkkehoehoehoehoeholdeldeldeldelders ors ors ors ors on tn tn tn tn the she she she she stttttrrrrreeeeennnnngggggttttth ah ah ah ah and wnd wnd wnd wnd weaeaeaeaeakkkkknesnesnesnesnesses of Vses of Vses of Vses of Vses of VFFFFFCCCCCCCCCC

Regmi and Bhandari

MechanismMechanismMechanismMechanismMechanism

Village ForestDevelopmentCommittee(VFCC)

StrengthStrengthStrengthStrengthStrength

• Includes all the CFUG of the VDC

• The composition of VFCC is inclusive (includesgovernment, political parties and user groups)

• Strong leadership and management will

• Linked with government local agencies

• Strong local level ownership

• Strong technical background and institutionalsupport

• Functional and effective in terms of coordinatingand delivery

WWWWWeaeaeaeaeakkkkknesnesnesnesnessessessessesses

• Not legally recognized

• Only represents forest usergroup

• Excludes others group atcommunity level

• Lack political buy in

parties, government stakeholders and the civilsociety. They were asked to rate the power,interest and legitimacy7 of some of theorganizations. The institutions analysed were:VFCC, VDC, Local Agriculture Cooperative,

7 For interest and Legitimacy, rating was done using high, medium and low. In case of interest, it was ratedaccording to High gain, gain, medium, loss and high loss (www.sas2.net).


55

FFFFFig 3: Pig 3: Pig 3: Pig 3: Pig 3: Pooooowwwwweeeeerrrrr, i, i, i, i, innnnnttttteeeeerrrrresesesesest at at at at and lend lend lend lend legggggitititititiiiiimmmmmacacacacacy ay ay ay ay annnnnaaaaalysislysislysislysislysisin Dhugegadi VDC.in Dhugegadi VDC.in Dhugegadi VDC.in Dhugegadi VDC.in Dhugegadi VDC.

The analysis revealed that although VDCs hadthe potential to coordinate climate changeadaptation responses at the local level, they werenot much interested and their legitimacy wasquestioned due to lack of experience, expertiseand resources. The VFCC proved to be thepotential institution in Dhugegadi VDC forclimate change coordination. VFCC was ratedwith low power/influence but with higherinterest. This institution had high legitimacyin terms of their coordination capacity andmobilisation. They were considered legitimateby the local stakeholders.

Local institutions have role in facilitatingadaptation. Institutions can motivate actors to

start adapting, even though actors might not beintrinsically motivated (Biesbroek et al. 2009).Agrawal (2008) also found out that ‘institutionsare critical leverage points which determine thedirection and magnitude of flows of resourcesto different social groups’. In our case, the newlyformed institution has both potential as well aschallenges. Although it might be the bestcoordinating mechanism, but question remainson whether it can respond to the uncertaintiesand the scale of climate change impact.

There is also an issue of power and control overdecision making on adaptation responses. Thefigure above clearly shows that the power of localcommunities is weak in terms of influencing thedecision making process. The institutionaldynamics within the group also harboursexclusionary environment that may underminethe benefit to the most vulnerable population.The current institutional structure andmechanism like VFCC treats household in ageneral way and does not consider the specificinclusionary policies and approaches to targetthe most vulnerable household andcommunities. It is therefore necessary to deviseand institutional mechanism that favoursinclusionary structure and decision makingsystem.

NATIONAL LEVEL POLICY ANDSTRATEGIC DILEMMA: NAPA ANDSPCR

This section looks into the policy and strategicdilemma at the national level with regard topromoting climate change adaptation. Itspecifically analyses the case of NAPA andSPCR. The information presented here camefrom literature review and interview andconsultation with policy makers andpractitioners.

Regmi and Bhandari

Agriculture Group, Livestock Group, MothersGroup, and Local Clubs. The result showed thatthe VDC had high power, medium interest andmedium legitimacy. The VFCC had low power,high interest and low legitimacy. While rest ofthe groups (such as mothers group, agriculturegroup) had low power, high interest and lowlegitimacy (Figure 3).

Legitimacy

Power

Interest

Govt. Line

Agencies

Village

Development

Committee

VFCCCFUG, Mothers

Group Agricultire &

Livestock groups,

Cooperative


56

There are conceptual and strategic issues aroundadaptation responses. The scientific communityadvocates for risk reduction perspective ofadaptation where the technological solution isthe only means to achieve adaptation objectives(Klein and Maciver 1999; Klein et al. 2007). Thetechnolog y driven adaptation is orientedtowards identifying technologies to reduce theclimate risk. The central level government inmany developing countries also argue for sectoraland technolog y based solution to addressclimate risk. The national and sectoral planson climate change adaptation reflect technologydominated planned adaptation responses totackle the problem. Similarly, there are otherswho argue for vulnerability-first approach toadaptation. They argue that communitiesshould be at the centre of climate changeresponses (Cannon and Muller-Mahn 2010;Ayers 2011b). The following paragraphs willhighlight the national perspective of adaptationresponses in Nepal.

Climate change adaptation was understood asrisk reduction responses during early years ofclimate change discussion in Nepal. Thegovernment of Nepal along with donors investedto drain out water from Tsho Rolpa Glacier Lakein order to prevent the potential danger ofglacier outburst floods. But there are more than20 dangerous glacier lakes and many otherforming and advancing in Nepal and there is an

urgency to drain them all. It requires billions ofdollars to address the problems to which thegovernment are not able to invest in. Even thetechnological solutions need communityparticipation and stakeholder cooperation forhandling the technologies. Thus, technologicalsolutions alone do not solve the problemsgenerated or aggravated by climate change.

In countries like Nepal, adaptation planning hasbeen a marginal activity and often thought froma sectoral risk reduction perspective. The NAPAis a technical document which outlinesadaptation priorities. According to the policymakers interviewed in this research, the urgentand immediate adaptation actions proposed inthematic sectors under NAPA mostly focus ontechnological solutions to address climatechange risk. For example, the combined profilenumber two in NAPA document outlinesimproving agriculture system and services.Although NAPA was praised for participatoryand inclusive process (Helvitas 2011), ithowever ignores the local knowledge, practices,and innovations by communities.

The SPCR support granted to Nepal underClimate Investment Fund (CIF) for climateresilience piloting in Nepal took the riskreduction approach from the beginning. Box 1below shows some of the technological focus ofthe Government of Nepal and the project onclimate change adaptation.

Regmi and Bhandari


57

Box 1. Focus on technological solution to adaptation

National Adaptation Programme of Action (NAPA). NAPA has identified 7 urgent

and immediate adaptation thematic priorities for Nepal. The activities outlined are

mostly technology driven aimed at reducing the climatic risk. Government of Nepal

is also approaching Least Developed Countries Fund and bilateral funding to get

support in implementing adaptation priorities related to agriculture, natural resource

management and disaster risk reduction. One of the projects it is aiming is to address

the issue of glacier lake outburst Flood in Nepal and strengthening the forecasting

system.

Strategic Programme for Climate Resilience (SPCR): the project memorandum of

SPCR has mostly focused on risk reduction strategies and actions to support adaptation

in Nepal. Most of the interventions are focused on risk reduction strategies through

technological interventions.

The national approach to respond to climatechange is also oriented towards risk reduction.The Climate Change Policy (2011) has givenmore emphasis to low carbon development andless on adaptation. Although government ofNepal has developed the LAPA framework,there is still a challenge of institutionalisingadaptation. Government action is moreinfluenced by donor interests. Recently thegovernment is developing low emissiondevelopment strategy. One of the practitionersinterviewed in this research argued thatgovernment do not have clear vision on climatechange so it is dragged and deviated by theagenda and interests of development agencies.

The issue of strategic vision and orientationdepend on who is involved in the policy makingand how decisions are made. The process ofclimate change policy formulation in Nepal islargely dominated by few consultants andorganisations. The civil society and

communities are ignored in the policy makingprocess.

Another issue is the lack of knowledge andinformation on climate change. Most of thepolicy makers and practitioners interviewed inthis research raised the issue of knowledge gapin their sectors. The knowledge gap hasimplications to the decision making process.Many of the respondents argued that responseon climate change is absent because the officialsin the ministry and department are not muchaware on the issues and remedies. The NAPAand SPCR have recognised the need tostrengthen information and knowledge onclimate change. The NAPA project has,established a Knowledge Management Centreand a web portal. Similarly, SPCR also proposedthe research and knowledge generation work.However, the government has to take initiativeand lead this. Without the governmentinitiation, the project based approach will notbe successful.

Regmi and Bhandari

Source: GoN (2010), GoN (2011)


58

DISCUSSION: REDEFINING

INSTITUTIONS’ ROLES AND

RESPONSIBILITIES

As it is evident that climate change isdemanding urgent response at the local level,there is pressure on the institutions to workmore efficiently and effectively at all levels ofgovernance. Our case studies indicate that,although there are potentials at local level,existing institutions need to be reformed toaddress the new and complicated situationbrought and aggravated by the climate change.Current traditional mind-set of the planners,policy makers and practitioners need to changedrastically to incorporate multi-stakeholderefforts in practices. The transformation ischallenging and difficult but it might be oneamong the many options for long-term, drivingclimate change adaptation agenda.

The case study also suggested that national levelfocus on technological solution to risk reductionmismatches with community’s aspirations ofvulnerability-first approach to adaptation. Theradical shift in knowledge and technolog ygeneration is needed. Armitage and Plummer(2010: p. 287)also argue that in system wherethe ecological, social, and economic conditionsare untenable, there will be limits to adaptationand a need for more fundamental shift in strategythat requires new ideas and practices. Inaddition, adaptation to climate change presentsa complex methodological challenge due to traitsof adaptation challenge (Claycomb 2009) suchas uncertainty, complexity, irreversibility andurgency. This makes adaptation a wickedproblem and requires innovative approach andperspective of analysis (Brown 2011: p. 19). Itwill be far more beneficial if we opt for evensmall changes in the current system of delivery(Dixit 2003).

We now need to push for more discussionaround the need for society to radically transform

its institution, technology, system and practicesto adjust to climate change. Thetransformational change is not just required atthe community level but applied to institutionaland policy making process and its governanceand implementation. Adger (2003b: p. 388)reveal that adaptation process involve the diversenature of stakeholders and their relationshipswith the institutions they reside and resourcebase they depend. This understanding ofrelationship is central to the approaches neededto foster collective actions in adaptation.

In Nepalese context, the policy and practiceshave to be corrected in order to promotecollective and inclusive action on climate changeadaptation. There have been some efforts inputting the agenda into national and sectoraldiscussion, but it inadequate. It is very likely thatefforts end up into mess as the resources are notadequately allocated and available resources arenot reaching the communities and ecosystemsin need. There is limited access of communitiesand other stakeholders in the policy, strategyand planning process as only few dominantagencies are involved. Another important issueis related to power and control over planningand decision making. Clearly, the excessivefocus on knowledge alone is not sufficient toaddress diverse problems of development. Issuesof power are more often central than the issueof knowledge.

Our findings show that there are limits to localadaptation and institutional capacity to respondeffectively. But this should not undermine thevalue of communities and their institutions. Thenational framework on LAPA is an attempt torecognise the role of local agencies inadaptation. Agrawal (2008: p. 16) emphasisedthe significance of local institutional role bystating :

Without greater attention to local institutions andtheir role in adaptation efforts of different kinds,and the ways in which local and external

Regmi and Bhandari


59

institutions can be articulated in the context ofadaptation, it is unlikely that adaptationinterventions and investments will achieve much

success.

Communities do have knowledge, skills, wealthand leverage to draw upon. Building on theseexperiences will help in lessening thedependency of financing and technology. It willfurther facilitate in implementation ofadaptation priorities identified both at local aswell as national level.

It may be a right time for stakeholders toadvocate for inclusive governance structure andnew roles and responsibilities for institutions.Agrawal and Perrin (2008) also agree that, foreffective adaptation, there is a need to strengthenand take advantage of already existing strategiesthat many households and social groups use. Wemight also think of radical transformation withthe existing institutions at both central andlocal level to become more accountable,inclusive and responsive.

CONCLUSION AND WAY

FORWARD

This paper has analysed the limits and barriersto adaptation based on the two case studiescarried out at national and local level. The casestudies show that although Nepal has beenprogressive in climate change agenda, there arechallenges of promoting climate changeadaptation at the local level. The local casestudies have provided good insights into thediagnosis of existing institutional andtechnological structures around climate changeadaptation in Nepal.

The findings show that climate changeadaptation advancement in Nepal at bothnational and local level is constrained due tolack of strategic clarity and policy visioning.There is a huge gap in information andknowledge base on climate change whichimpacts decision making at the local level. A

major constraint for promoting adaptation istechnolog y. The technologies are based onexisting knowledge and limited information.They are short term in nature and rely onclimatic variability, but ignore the uncertaintiesand scale of climate change impact. It is foundout that these barriers undermine theeffectiveness of the initiatives promoted bothat the national as well as local level.

The complexity of climate change adaptationhas to be understood in terms of its politicaleconomy of how agenda is shaped, debated andinfluenced at national level and howinstitutions play a role in facilitating adaptationat the local level. As there is lack of sufficientinformation on impacts and the issues,adaptation has to build on the experiences todeal with climatic variability and extremeclimatic events. The options and strategies mayvary but each should be benefiting both theenvironment and community livelihoods. Thetransformation is challenging and difficult butnot impossible. So, the strategies should beflexible, innovative and context specific with theprovision of contingency. There aredifferentiated roles for stakeholders that needto be piloted and then up scaled. But, it demandstransformational changes in the mindset andworking approaches.

Adaptation in practice needs building on theexisting knowledge, skills, and best practices. Forthis, change in mindset and conventional wayof development planning and delivery isnecessary. Facilitation for the gradual changewith support from state and internationalcommunity can be an important entry point.

REFERENCES

AAAAAdddddgggggeeeeerrrrr, W, W, W, W, W. N., N. W. N., N. W. N., N. W. N., N. W. N., N. W. A. A. A. A. Arrrrrnelnelnelnelnellllll , a, a, a, a, and End End End End E. L. L. L. L. L. T. T. T. T. Tooooommmmmpppppkkkkkiiiiinnnnnsssss. 2005.Successful Adaptation to Climate Change Across Scales.Global Environmental Change-Human and PolicyDimensions, 1515151515:77-86.

AAAAAdddddgggggeeeeerrrrr, W, W, W, W, W. N. N. N. N. N. 2003a. Social Aspects of Adaptive Capacity. ClimateChange, Adaptive Capacity and Development, 29-49.

Regmi and Bhandari


60

AAAAAdddddgggggeeeeerrrrr, W, W, W, W, W. N. N. N. N. N. 2003b. Social Capital, Collective Action, andAdaptation to Climate Change. Economic Geography, 7979797979(4):387-404.

AAAAAddddd ggggg eeeeerrrrr, W, W, W, W, W., N. D. , N. D. , N. D. , N. D. , N. De se se se se ss as as as as a i , S . , Gi , S . , Gi , S . , Gi , S . , Gi , S . , Go uo uo uo uo uldeldeldeldelden, M. , Hn, M. , Hn, M. , Hn, M. , Hn, M. , Huuuuu lme, M. ,lme, M. ,lme, M. ,lme, M. ,lme, M. ,LLLLLooooorrrrreeeeenzonzonzonzonzonnnnni, I., Ni, I., Ni, I., Ni, I., Ni, I., Nelsoelsoelsoelsoelson, Dn, Dn, Dn, Dn, D.R.R.R.R.R., N., N., N., N., Naesaesaesaesaess, Ls, Ls, Ls, Ls, L.....OOOOO., W., W., W., W., Wooooolllllfffff, J, J, J, J, J. a. a. a. a. andndndndndWWWWWrrrrrefoefoefoefoeforrrrrddddd, A, A, A, A, A. . . . . 2009. Are there Social Limits to Adaptation toClimate Change? Climatic Change, 93 93 93 93 93(3): 335-354.

AAAAAdddddgggggeeeeerrrrr, W, W, W, W, W.N., P.N., P.N., P.N., P.N., Paaaaaaaaaavvvvvooooolllllaaaaa , J, J, J, J, J., H., H., H., H., Huququququq, S. a, S. a, S. a, S. a, S. and Mnd Mnd Mnd Mnd Macacacacace, M.Je, M.Je, M.Je, M.Je, M.J. (Eds. (Eds. (Eds. (Eds. (Eds.)..)..)..)..).2006. Fairness in Adaptation to Climate Change. Cambridge,Massachusetts: MIT Press.

Agarwal , B. Agarwal , B. Agarwal , B. Agarwal , B. Agarwal , B. 2001. Participatory Exclusions, CommunityForestry, and Gender: An Analysis for South Asia and aConceptual Framework. World development, 2929292929(10): 1623-1648.

Agrawal, A.Agrawal, A.Agrawal, A.Agrawal, A.Agrawal, A. 2008. The Role of Local Institutions in Adaptationto Climate Change. International Forestry Research andInstitutions Program IFRI Working Paper W08I-3.

Agrawal, A. and Perrin, N. Agrawal, A. and Perrin, N. Agrawal, A. and Perrin, N. Agrawal, A. and Perrin, N. Agrawal, A. and Perrin, N. 2008. Climate Adaptation, LocalInstitutions and Rural Livelihoods. International ForestryResearch and Institutions Program IFRI Working PaperW08I-6.

AAAAArrrrrmmmmm i ti ti ti ti taaaaa ggggg e , De, De, De, De, D. a. a. a. a. and Pnd Pnd Pnd Pnd Plllll uuuuummmmmm em em em em errrrr, R, R, R, R, R ..... 2010. Adapting andTransforming : Governance for Navigating Change.Adaptive Capacity and Environmental Governance, 287-302.

AAAAAyeyeyeyeyers, Jrs, Jrs, Jrs, Jrs, J. 2011a. Resolving the Adaptation Paradox: Exploringthe Potential for Deliberative Adaptation Policy-Makingin Bangladesh. Global Environmental Politics, 1111111111(1): 62-88.

AAAAAyeyeyeyeyers, Jrs, Jrs, Jrs, Jrs, J. 2011b. Understanding the Adaptation Paradox: CanGlobal Climate Change Adaptation Policy be LocallyInclusive? PhD Thesis. London School of Economics andPolitical Science

AAAAAyeyeyeyeyers, Jrs, Jrs, Jrs, Jrs, J. a. a. a. a. and Dnd Dnd Dnd Dnd Dooooodmdmdmdmdmaaaaan, Dn, Dn, Dn, Dn, D. . . . . 2010. Climate Change Adaptationand Development I. Progress in Development Studies, 1010101010(2).

BBBBBiesiesiesiesiesbbbbbrrrrroooooekekekekek, G., T, G., T, G., T, G., T, G., Teeeeerrrrrmememememeeeeeerrrrr, C., T, C., T, C., T, C., T, C., Teeeeerrrrrmememememeeeeeerrrrr, K, K, K, K, K., Kab., Kab., Kab., Kab., Kabaaaaat, Pt, Pt, Pt, Pt, P. a. a. a. a. andndndndndKlostermann, J.Klostermann, J.Klostermann, J.Klostermann, J.Klostermann, J. 2009. Institutional Governance Barriersfor the Development and Implementation of ClimateAdaptation Strategies. Earth System Governance: People,Places, and the Planet, 2-4.

Brown, K.Brown, K.Brown, K.Brown, K.Brown, K. 2011. Sustainable Adaptation: An Oxymoron?Climate and Development, 33333: 21-31.

BBBBBuchuchuchuchuchyyyyy, M. a, M. a, M. a, M. a, M. and Snd Snd Snd Snd Subububububbbbbbaaaaa, S. , S. , S. , S. , S. 2003. Why is Community Forestrya Social and Gender Blind Technology? The case of Nepal.Gender, Technology and Development, 7373737373: 313-332.

Burton, IBurton, IBurton, IBurton, IBurton, I. 1994. Deconstructing Adaptation... andReconstructing. Delta, 555551: 14-15.

BBBBBuuuuurrrrrtttttooooon, I.n, I.n, I.n, I.n, I. 2000. Adaptation to Climate Change and Variabilityin the Context of Sustainable Development. New Havenand New York: Climate Change and Development, YaleSchool of Forestry and Environmental Studies and UNDP.

BBBBBuuuuurrrrrtttttooooon, I.n, I.n, I.n, I.n, I. 2007. Integrating Adaptation into Policy: UpscalingEvidence from Local to Global. Climate Policy, 77777(4): 371.

CCCCCaaaaannnnnnononononon, Tn, Tn, Tn, Tn, T. , a. , a. , a. , a. , and Mnd Mnd Mnd Mnd Muuuuu lllll l el el el el errrrr-----MMMMMaaaaa hhhhhn, Dn, Dn, Dn, Dn, D. . . . . 2010. Vulnerability,Resilience and Development Discourses in Context ofClimate Change. Natural Hazards, 553553553553553: 621.

CCCCChhhhhaaaaapppppaaaaagggggaaaaaiiiiinnnnn,B.KB.KB.KB.KB.K....., SSSSSubububububeeeeedddddiiiii,RRRRR. , a, a, a, a, and Pnd Pnd Pnd Pnd Paaaaaudeludeludeludeludel, N.S., N.S., N.S., N.S., N.S. 2009. ExploringLocal Knowledge of Climate Change: Some Reflections.Journal of Forest and Livelihood, 88888(1): 106-110.

CCCCChhhhhaaaaarrrrrles, Dles, Dles, Dles, Dles, D. a. a. a. a. and Wnd Wnd Wnd Wnd Waaaaallllllllllacacacacace, Je, Je, Je, Je, J. . . . . 1859. The Origin of Species. HarvardUniversity Press.

CCCCChhhhhhethethethethetrrrrri, N., Ci, N., Ci, N., Ci, N., Ci, N., Chhhhhaaaaaudududududhhhhhaaaaarrrrryyyyy, P, P, P, P, P. T. T. T. T. Tiwiwiwiwiwaaaaarrrrri, Pi, Pi, Pi, Pi, P.R.R.R.R.R. a. a. a. a. and Ynd Ynd Ynd Ynd Yadadadadadaaaaawwwww, R, R, R, R, R .B..B..B..B..B.2011. Institutional and Technological Innovation:Understanding Agricultural Adaptation to Climate Changein Nepal. Applied Geography.

CCCCClllllaaaaaycycycycycooooomb, Pmb, Pmb, Pmb, Pmb, P. . . . . 2009. SAS 2: A Guide to Collaborative Inquiryand Social Engagement. Development in Practice, 1919191919(8):1091-1093.

DDDDDesesesesessasasasasai, S. ai, S. ai, S. ai, S. ai, S. and Hnd Hnd Hnd Hnd Huuuuulme, M.lme, M.lme, M.lme, M.lme, M. 2004. Does Climate AdaptationPolicy Need Probabilities. Climate policy, 44444(2): 107-128.

DDDDDeeeeevvvvvkkkkkotototototaaaaa , R, R, R, R, R ., P., P., P., P., P., B., B., B., B., Bajajajajajrrrrrachachachachachaaaaarrrrryyyyyaaaaa , B., M, B., M, B., M, B., M, B., Maaaaarrrrraaaaasesesesesennnnni, Ti, Ti, Ti, Ti, T., Co., Co., Co., Co., Cockckckckckfieldfieldfieldfieldfield,,,,,G. aG. aG. aG. aG. and Und Und Und Und Upppppadadadadadhhhhhaaaaayyyyyaaaaayyyyy, B. P, B. P, B. P, B. P, B. P..... 2011. The Perception of Nepal’sTharu Community in regard to Climate Change and itsImpacts on their Livelihoods. International Journal ofEnvironmental Studies, 686686686686686: 937-946.

Dixit, ADixit, ADixit, ADixit, ADixit, A. 2003. Floods and Vulnerability: Need to Rethink FloodManagement. Natural Hazards, 2828282828(1): 155-179.

EEEEEnnnnnsososososorrrrr, J, J, J, J, J. a. a. a. a. and Bnd Bnd Bnd Bnd Beeeeergrgrgrgrgeeeeerrrrr, R, R, R, R, R. . . . . 2009. Understanding Climate ChangeAdaptation : Lessons from Community-based Approaches.Warwickshire, UK: Practical Action Pub.

Eriksen, S. B. KEriksen, S. B. KEriksen, S. B. KEriksen, S. B. KEriksen, S. B. K. 2011. Sustainable Adaptation to ClimateChange. Climate and Development, 33333: 3-6.

GGGGGoooooNNNNN. 2010. National Adaptation programme of Action (NAPA)to Climate Change. Kathmandu: Government of Nepal

GoNGoNGoNGoNGoN. 2011.Strategic Programme on Climate Resilience.Kathmandu: Government of Nepal

HHHHHelelelelelvvvvvitititititaaaaasssss. 2011. Nepal’s Climate Change Policies and Plans: LocalCommunities’ Perspective Kathmandu: Helvitas- SwissIntercorporation Nepal.

HHHHHuuuuu lme, M. , Alme, M. , Alme, M. , Alme, M. , Alme, M. , Addddd ggggg eeeeerrrrr,,,,,WWWWW. N. , D. N. , D. N. , D. N. , D. N. , De se se se se ss as as as as a i , S . , Gi , S . , Gi , S . , Gi , S . , Gi , S . , Go uo uo uo uo ul d el d el d el d el d en, M. ,n , M. ,n , M. ,n , M. ,n , M. ,LLLLLooooorrrrreeeeenzonzonzonzonzonnnnni, I. , Ni, I. , Ni, I. , Ni, I. , Ni, I. , Nelsoelsoelsoelsoelson, Dn, Dn, Dn, Dn, D., N., N., N., N., Naesaesaesaesaess, Ls, Ls, Ls, Ls, L.....OOOOO., W., W., W., W., Wooooolllllfffff , J, J, J, J, J. a. a. a. a. andndndndndWWWWWrrrrrefoefoefoefoeforrrrrddddd, A, A, A, A, A. 2007. Limits and Barriers to Adaptation: FourPropositions. Tyndall Center for Climate Change Research.

IPCC WG II.IPCC WG II.IPCC WG II.IPCC WG II.IPCC WG II. 2001. Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptationsand Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of theWorking Group II to the Third Assessment Report of theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

IPCC.IPCC.IPCC.IPCC.IPCC. 2007. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation andVulnerability. Contribution of the Working Group II to theFourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panelon Climate Change.

KleiKleiKleiKleiKlein, Rn, Rn, Rn, Rn, R .J.J.J.J.J.....TTTTT., E., E., E., E., Errrrrikikikikiksesesesesen, S.En, S.En, S.En, S.En, S.E.H., N.H., N.H., N.H., N.H., Næsæsæsæsæss, Ls, Ls, Ls, Ls, L.....OOOOO., H., H., H., H., Haaaaammmmmmmmmmili li li li llllll , A, A, A, A, A. ,. ,. ,. ,. ,TTTTTaaaaannnnnnenenenenerrrrr, T, T, T, T, T.M., R.M., R.M., R.M., R.M., Rooooobbbbbleleleleledo, C. ado, C. ado, C. ado, C. ado, C. and Ond Ond Ond Ond O’’’’’BBBBBrrrrrieieieieien, Kn, Kn, Kn, Kn, K.L.L.L.L.L. 2007.Portfolio Screening to Support the Mainstreaming ofAdaptation to Climate Change into DevelopmentAssistance. Climatic Change, 8484848484(1): 23-44.

KleiKleiKleiKleiKlein, Rn, Rn, Rn, Rn, R.J.J.J.J.J.....TTTTT. a. a. a. a. and Mnd Mnd Mnd Mnd Macivacivacivacivaciveeeeerrrrr, D, D, D, D, D.....C. C. C. C. C. 1999. Adaptation to ClimateVariability and Change: Methodological Issues. Mitigationand Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 44444(3): 189-198.

Regmi and Bhandari


61

Lebel, L. 2012Lebel, L. 2012Lebel, L. 2012Lebel, L. 2012Lebel, L. 2012. Local Knowledge and Adaptation to ClimateChange in Natural Resource-based Societies of the Asia-Pacific. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for GlobalChange, 1-20.

LLLLLeeeeemos, M.mos, M.mos, M.mos, M.mos, M.C., BC., BC., BC., BC., Boooooydydydydyd, E, E, E, E, E., T., T., T., T., Tooooommmmmpppppkkkkkiiiiinnnnns, Es, Es, Es, Es, E.L.L.L.L.L., O., O., O., O., Osssssbbbbbaaaaahhhhhrrrrr, H. a, H. a, H. a, H. a, H. andndndndndLiverman, D.Liverman, D.Liverman, D.Liverman, D.Liverman, D. 2007. Developing Adaptation and AdaptingDevelopment. Ecology and Society, 1212121212(2): 26

MMMMMacacacacacchchchchchi, M., Gi, M., Gi, M., Gi, M., Gi, M., Guuuuurrrrruuuuunnnnnggggg , A, A, A, A, A.M., H.M., H.M., H.M., H.M., Hoooooeeeeerrrrrmmmmmaaaaannnnnn, B. an, B. an, B. an, B. an, B. and Cnd Cnd Cnd Cnd Choudhoudhoudhoudhoudhhhhhaaaaarrrrryyyyy,,,,,DDDDD..... 2011. Climate Variability and Change in the Himalayas:Community Perceptions and Responses. Kathmandu:International Centre for Integrated MountainDevelopment (ICIMOD).

MMMMMaaaaahhhhhaaaaarrrrrjajajajajan, S., Sign, S., Sign, S., Sign, S., Sign, S., Sigdeldeldeldeldel, E, E, E, E, E., S., S., S., S., Sttttthhhhhaaaaapppppititititit B. RB. RB. RB. RB. R. a. a. a. a. and Rnd Rnd Rnd Rnd Reeeeegggggmmmmmi, B. Ri, B. Ri, B. Ri, B. Ri, B. R..... 2011.Tharu Community’s Perception on Climate Changes andtheir Adaptive Initiations to Withstand its Impacts inWestern Terai of Nepal. International NGO Journal, 666662: 035-042.

MMMMMaaaaannnnnaaaaandndndndndhhhhhaaaaarrrrr, S. , V, S., V, S., V, S., V, S., Voooooggggg t, Dt, Dt, Dt, Dt, D.S., P.S., P.S., P.S., P.S., Peeeeerrrrrrrrrret, S.Ret, S.Ret, S.Ret, S.Ret, S.R . a. a. a. a. and Kand Kand Kand Kand Kazazazazazammmmmaaaaa , F, F, F, F, F.....2011. Adapting Cropping Systems to Climate Change inNepal: a Cross-regional Study of Farmers’ Perception andPractices. Regional Environmental Change, 11(11(11(11(11(2): 335-348.

Mertz, O., Halsnaes K., Olesen J.E. and Rasmussen, K.Mertz, O., Halsnaes K., Olesen J.E. and Rasmussen, K.Mertz, O., Halsnaes K., Olesen J.E. and Rasmussen, K.Mertz, O., Halsnaes K., Olesen J.E. and Rasmussen, K.Mertz, O., Halsnaes K., Olesen J.E. and Rasmussen, K. 2009.Adaptation to Climate Change in Developing Countries.Environmental Management, 4343434343(5): 743-52.

Osman-Elasha, B. , Goutbi , N. , Spanger-Siegfried, E. ,Osman-Elasha, B. , Goutbi , N. , Spanger-Siegfried, E. ,Osman-Elasha, B. , Goutbi , N. , Spanger-Siegfried, E. ,Osman-Elasha, B. , Goutbi , N. , Spanger-Siegfried, E. ,Osman-Elasha, B. , Goutbi , N. , Spanger-Siegfried, E. ,DDDDDououououougggggheheheheherrrrrtttttyyyyy, B., H, B., H, B., H, B., H, B., Haaaaannnnnafi, Aafi, Aafi, Aafi, Aafi, A., Z., Z., Z., Z., Zaaaaakkkkkieldeieldeieldeieldeieldeeeeeen, S., Sn, S., Sn, S., Sn, S., Sn, S., Saaaaannnnnjajajajajakkkkk, A, A, A, A, A.,. ,. ,. ,. ,Atti , H.A. and Elhassan, H.MAtti , H.A. and Elhassan, H.MAtti , H.A. and Elhassan, H.MAtti , H.A. and Elhassan, H.MAtti , H.A. and Elhassan, H.M. 2006. AdaptationStrategies to Increase Human Resilience Against ClimateVariability and Change: Lessons from the Arid Regions ofSudan. Assessments of Impacts and Adaptations to ClimateChange AIACC Working Paper 42.

OOOOOxxxxxfffffaaaaammmmm. . . . . 2011. Minding the Money: Governance of ClimateChange Adaptation Finance in Nepal. Oxfam, Nepal.

PPPPPelelelelelllllliiiiinnnnnggggg , M., M., M., M., M. 2011. Adaptation to Climate Change : from Resilienceto Transformation. Abingdon, Oxon, England and New York:Routledge.

PPPPPelelelelelllllliiiiinnnnnggggg , M. a, M. a, M. a, M. a, M. and Wisnd Wisnd Wisnd Wisnd Wisnenenenenerrrrr, B., B., B., B., B. 2009. Disaster Risk Reduction: Casesfrom Urban Africa. Earthscan/James and James.

PPPPPoooookkkkkhhhhhaaaaarrrrrelelelelel, R, R, R, R, R.K.K.K.K.K. . . . . 2008. . . . . Nepal’s Community Forestry Funds: Dothey Benefit the Poor? South Asian Network forDevelopment and Environmental Economics (SANDEE)Working Paper 31-08, Kathmandu, Nepal.

PPPPPrrrrre se se se se sttttt ooooon, B. Ln, B. Ln, B. Ln, B. Ln, B. L. a. a. a. a. and Snd Snd Snd Snd Stttttaf foaf foaffoaffoafforrrrr ddddd----- SSSSSmmmmm i ti ti ti ti th , M. h , M. h , M. h , M. h , M. 2009. FramingVulnerability and Adaptive Capacity Assessment. Discussion

Paper. CSIRO Climate Adaptation National ResearchFlagship.

RRRRReeeeegggggmmmmmi B. Ri B. Ri B. Ri B. Ri B. R., S., S., S., S., Suuuuuwwwwwaaaaal Rl Rl Rl Rl R., Sh., Sh., Sh., Sh., Shrrrrresesesesesttttthhhhha G., Sha G., Sha G., Sha G., Sha G., Shaaaaarrrrrmmmmma G.B., Ta G.B., Ta G.B., Ta G.B., Ta G.B., ThhhhhaaaaapppppaaaaaL., and Manandhar, S. L., and Manandhar, S. L., and Manandhar, S. L., and Manandhar, S. L., and Manandhar, S. 2009a. Community Resilience inNepal. Tiempo – Climate and Development, 73: 7-10

Regmi, B. Regmi, B. Regmi, B. Regmi, B. Regmi, B. 2011. Shocked and Stressed. The Kathmandu Post.Kathmandu, Nepal, The Kantipur Media: : : : : 2-3.

RRRRReeeeegggggmmmmmi, B. ai, B. ai, B. ai, B. ai, B. and Bnd Bnd Bnd Bnd Bhhhhhaaaaandndndndndaaaaarrrrri, Di, Di, Di, Di, D. . . . . 2012. Unripe Fruits or Non-Raining Clouds? Climate Governance and FundingDilemma in Nepal. Strengthening Governance forMitigation and Adaptation to Climate change Kathmandu,Nepal, NAPSIPAG.

RRRRReeeeegggggmmmmmi, B. Ri, B. Ri, B. Ri, B. Ri, B. R., T., T., T., T., Thhhhhaaaaapppppaaaaa, L, L, L, L, L., S., S., S., S., Suuuuuwwwwwaaaaalllll, R, R, R, R, R....., KhKhKhKhKhadadadadadkakakakaka, S., S., S., S., S., ShShShShShaaaaarrrrrmmmmmaaaaa, G., G., G., G., G.B. aB. aB. aB. aB. and Tnd Tnd Tnd Tnd Taaaaammmmmaaaaannnnnggggg , B. B., B . B., B . B., B . B., B . B. 2009. Agro- biodiversityManagement: An Opportunity for MainstreamingCommunity-based Adaptation to Climate Change. Journalof Forest and Livelihood, 88888(1): 113-121.

RuRuRuRuRupppppaaaaannnnntttttaaaaarrrrraaaaannnnn..... 2012. Climate Change Vulnerability Mapping forPyuthan District. Kathmandu: Rupantaran Nepal.

SAGUN.SAGUN.SAGUN.SAGUN.SAGUN. 2009. Climate Change Impacts on Livelihoods of Poorand Vulnerable Communities and BiodiversityConservation: A Case Study in Banke, Bardia, DhadingandRasuwa Districts of Nepal. Kathmandu: USAID, CARENepal, WWF, RIMS Nepal, FECOFUN and LI-BIRD.

SSSSSmmmmmit, B.it, B.it, B.it, B.it, B. 1993. Adaptation to Climatic Variability and Change:Report of the Task Force on Climate Adaptation, TheCanadian Climate Program. Dept. of Geography, Universityof Guelph.

SSSSSmmmmmit, B. ait, B. ait, B. ait, B. ait, B. and Wnd Wnd Wnd Wnd Waaaaandelndelndelndelndel, J, J, J, J, J..... 2006. Adaptation, Adaptive Capacityand Vulnerability. Global Environmental Change, 1616161616(3):282-92.

SSSSSmmmmmit, B., Bit, B., Bit, B., Bit, B., Bit, B., Buuuuurrrrrtttttooooon, I., Klein, I., Klein, I., Klein, I., Klein, I., Klein, Rn, Rn, Rn, Rn, R.J.J.J.J.J.....TTTTT. a. a. a. a. and Snd Snd Snd Snd Stttttrrrrreeeeeet, Ret, Ret, Ret, Ret, R. . . . . 1999. TheScience of Adaptation: A Framework for Assessment.Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 44444(3):199-213.

SSSSSmmmmmititititithehehehehers, Jrs, Jrs, Jrs, Jrs, J. a. a. a. a. and Snd Snd Snd Snd Smmmmmit, B. (Edit, B. (Edit, B. (Edit, B. (Edit, B. (Ed.)..)..)..)..). 2009. Human Adaptation toClimatic Variability and Change. In: Schipper, E.L.F andBurton, I. (Eds.), The Earthscan Reader on Adaptation toClimate Change. Earthscan Reader Series, London:Routledge. ‘

Thoms, C. A.Thoms, C. A.Thoms, C. A.Thoms, C. A.Thoms, C. A. 2008. Community Control of Resources and theChallenge of Improving Local Livelihoods: A CriticalExamination of Community Forestry in Nepal. Geoforum,3939393939(3): 1452-1465.

Regmi and Bhandari

.....

Climate Change Adaptation in Nepal: Exploring ways to overcome the barriers

Documents

Transcript of Climate Change Adaptation in Nepal: Exploring ways to overcome the barriers