Stakeholders’ climate perceptionand adaptation in coastal Uruguay

Gustavo J. Nagy, Leonardo Seijo, Jose E. Verocai andMario Bidegain

(Information about the authors can be found at the end of this article.)

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this article is to discuss the assessment and inclusion of stakeholders’perception, and citizen participation instances to implementing management options to deal withclimate threats within the existing institutional framework in Uruguay.

Design/methodology/approach – The approach being followed has different directionalapproaches and integrates them within a single assessment. First, a prescriptive climate changetop-down path. Second, stakeholders’ perception is assessed within a bottom-up risk-managementmodel. Third, institutional agreements, arrangements, and consensus are reached. Considering theneed for agreed and effective options, the approach is customized and turned flexible enough to acceptinputs from scientists, managers, and stakeholders.

Findings – The co-production of knowledge and the achievement of agreed and feasible options isachieved by means of a consultation process which results in adaptive co-management agreementsand collective decisions. This process is seen as both an empowerment of local actors and amulti-stakeholder learning-by-doing experiment. This allows for both an increase in coping capacity toclimate threats and facilitates long standing conflict resolution.

Originality/value – Much literature discusses the importance of the role of social power in inclusiveprocesses towards adaptation, and how difficult is ceding a genuine voice to stakeholders. Theco-production of knowledge is a way to achieve the rapprochement of scientists with institutional andcommunity actors. Thus, the participatory process gives stakeholders responsibility for identifyingtheir specific needs and priorities and helps to establish community ownership.

Keywords Participation, Climate change, Empowerment, Implementation, Climate threats,Coastal lagoon

Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction1.1 The relationship between stakeholders’ perception and public participationThe process of inclusion of stakeholders’ perception towards a participatoryadaptation to climate change and variability threats in coastal areas is discussed inrecent literature (Eisenack et al., 2007; Tompkins et al., 2008; Scally and Wescott, 2011),and advocated by national and international agencies (UNDP, 2004; IPCC, 2007).

Here, we use the term participation in the sense of securing active involvement of abroad range of stakeholders in decision-making and action (Few et al., 2007). Publicparticipation encompasses a range of procedures and methods designed to consult,involve, and inform the public to allow those that would be potentially affected by adecision or policy to have input into the process. The latter are also known asstakeholders (IFC, 2007):

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1756-8692.htm

The research was carried out within the project “Implementing Pilot Adaptation Measures toClimate Change in Coastal Areas of Uruguay” (www.cambioclimatico.gub.uy), UNDPURU 07-G32. Funding under the Global Environment Facility (GEF) is gratefully acknowledged.

International Journal of ClimateChange Strategies and Management

Vol. 6 No. 1, 2014pp. 63-84

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited1756-8692

DOI 10.1108/IJCCSM-03-2013-0035

Stakeholders’climate

perception

63

Community empowerment is more than the participation of communities. Itimplies community ownership and action that explicitly aims at social and politicalchange. Community empowerment is a process of re-negotiating power in order to gain morecontrol. It recognizes that if some people are going to be empowered, then others will besharing their existing power and giving some of it up (Baum, 2008).

Stakeholder inclusion is deemed to be important in exploring adaptation responsesbecause ultimately community “buy-in” and support from those affected will berequired (Tompkins et al., 2008). Citizen participation during the design andformulation of a public policy provides value and legitimacy (CLAD, 2009). Some keyelements are the experiences that communities have regarding their culture,understanding of the threats, local capacity, and external support from agencies tothe process of implementation, that is to say understanding climate change from below(Sajid Raihan et al., 2010).

Here, we present a case study of stakeholders’ perception of current and expectedclimate threats, and citizen participation instances within the existing institutional andlegal framework towards adaptation and management in an inhabited coastal protectedlandscape in Uruguay. We discuss the strategy being followed to implementing feasible,politically and socially agreed measures to deal with the evolving climate. These measuresare both, adaptation goals and learning-by doing actions. We prioritise stakeholders’participation through communication and the assessment of their perception so thattop-down (prescriptive) and bottom-up (diagnostic) approaches merge. We aim to achieveeffective institutional agreements and feasible measures by means of informed citizenparticipation instances in decision-making, local public management, and monitoring.

1.2 On-going adaptation initiativeThe adaptation process presented in this article is undertaken by GEF project“Implementing Pilot Adaptation Measures to Climate Change in Coastal Areas ofUruguay” (PRODOC, 2008; UCC, 2011; Nagy et al., 2013; Seijo et al., inpress), from nowon the project. Its main objective is to increase the resilience of coastal ecosystems asdefined by Chapin et al. (2009):

[. . .] the capacity of a social-ecological system to absorb a spectrum of shocks and to sustainand maintain its identity and feedbacks as a result of recovery in a new context.

The means chosen for achieving this purpose is to implement measures of adaptationin two pilot sites. One of them is Laguna de Rocha (the lagoon), a coastal protected areain Eastern Uruguay because of its biodiversity of global relevance (PRODOC, 2008;SNAP, 2010; UCC, 2012a; Nagy et al., 2013; Seijo et al., inpress). To this aim, we havefocused on the incorporation of climate issues into the lagoon’s management plan.

1.3 The socio-ecological system of Laguna de RochaThe Laguna de Rocha (the lagoon) is one of the four estuarine coastal lagoons along theUruguayan Atlantic East coast (Figure 1).

The lagoon and surrounding wetlands has an area of 260 km2. It comprises19 environments that are the habitat for 109 species, including migratory birds from theNorthern hemisphere, as well as a variety of marine invertebrates andfishes which sustain subsistence small fisheries of shrimps and fishes

IJCCSM6,1

64

(Conde and Rodrıguez-Gallego, 2002; SNAP, 2010; Rodrıguez-Gallego et al., 2012).The lagoon has a sandy bar which remains closed most of the year (Figure 2).

The connection of the lagoon with the sea, its salinity and flooded area are naturallycontrolled by both the lagoon water level, related to precipitations, and storminess fromthe east and southeast. The natural opening of the bar allows for shrimp migration,usually during austral spring-summer months. Over the last few years, the bar onlyopened by storminess or human intervention. This coastal area including the bar hasbeen subdivided for property development since a few decades ago. Land-use plans(IDR, 2010) intend to prevent the occupation of this socio-ecological system (SES), whichimplies a typical coastal zone conflict of interests, such as relocation. Conflicts andthreats could be aggravated by the authorization given by national authorities to build abridge over neighbouring Laguna Garzon, which would increase the accessibility to thisarea.

Thus, the natural vulnerability of the lagoon is expected to increase due to bothnatural forces and human intervention (Nagy et al., 2013). Its biodiversity is highlyvulnerable to changes in temperature and precipitations (Soutullo, 2013), and/or thealteration of the bar morphodynamics. The gradual rise of sea-level and storminessincreases the probability of sea flooding.

Figure 1.Uruguay coastal zone

Notes: (Left) South America and the Uruguayan coastal area; (right above) the Rio de la Platariver estuary (220 wide km large mouth at Punta del Este) and the Atlantic coast; (rightbelow) coastal estuarine lagoons; from west (Punta del Este) to east: Jose Ignacio, Garzon,Rocha (see arrow) and CastillosSource: Adapted from Bidegain et al. (2009) and Nagy et al. (2013)

Stakeholders’climate

perception

65

The lagoon is depicted in various ways in the local culture. For most people it is a rich inbiodiversity coastal landscape surrounded by attractive beaches. For local fishermen themanagement of the bar and the entrance of marine waters is the key factor for thedevelopment of shrimp fisheries. Whereas for local breeders freshwater is veryimportant for pastures and cattle watering (Seijo, 2011a). For the local government andmanagers the lagoon is a site which poses increasing management problems.

The socioeconomic make-up is synthesised in Table I. Most local data are notavailable because of very low population, about 5,000 at La Paloma municipality and afew hundreds (mostly adults) in the Eastern lagoons area.

1.4 Local observed and projected climateThe observed climate in Laguna de Rocha during the last five decades wascharacterised by:

. a gradual increase in mean temperature and sea-level (Figure 3), and annualprecipitation (Figure 4); and

. an increased overall variability over the last few decades, with year-to-yearfluctuations partly associated with El Nino-Southern Oscilation (ENSO), such aschanges in wind patterns and runoff.

The annual mean temperature and rainfall have raised 18C and 210 mm (ca. 20 percent)since 1961, respectively. The latter showed strong fluctuations associated withdrought/wet periods influenced by ENSO (Nagy et al., 2008; Bidegain et al., 2009, 2011;UCC, 2012b).

Figure 2.Laguna de Rochaprotected landscape.

0 30 Km

54 10' W

34 37' S°

°

Notes: The lagoon (72 km2) and surrounding wetlands (260 km2), andits basin (1,200 km2), the sandy bar and beaches, the Western andEastern inter-lagoon corridors, and the marine zone (105 km2) areshown Source: Modified from SNAP (2010)

IJCCSM6,1

66

The observed sea-level rise (SLR) follows global trends as well as the local patterns ofvariability of runoff and winds (Bidegain and Nagy, 2008; Nagy et al., 2008). Theinfluence of ENSO-related variability on SLR (UCC, 2012b) is explained by the localeffect of a close mouth of a great river (Nicholls et al., 2011) such as the Rio de la Platariver estuary. An increase in east and southeast winds was observed during El Ninoevents (Gutierrez, 2011) favouring the accumulation of seawater and the breaking ofthe bar. Sea-level rose 14 cm since 1961 and yearly fluctuations exceeded 25 cmsince 1996.

The future climate of the lagoon region is expected to be hotter and wetter than atpresent. Increases in temperature of $1 to #38C, in rainfall of #3 and #8 percent, andin SLR of $5 and $15 cm are expected by 2030 and 2050, respectively, (Bidegain et al.,2009, 2011; UCC, 2012b).

1.5 Institutional and legal frameworkThe institutional and legal framework for the management and participatory processin Laguna de Rocha is based on two environmental laws of 2,000. The former states“the protection of the environment involves the society” and “stakeholders have theright and duty to participate in the process”. The latter created the National Systemof Protected Areas (SNAP), which declared the Laguna de Rocha site as

Government scalesIndicador Local Regional Country

Population (persons 2011) 5,074 68,088 3,286,314Homes (units) 7,480 46,071 1,389,740Employement/unemployment (% of total population)a N/A 57.0/4.2 60.7/6.0Number of school years for persons aged 25 and plus (%)b

0-6/7-12/.12 years N/A 44/45/11 38/43/19Literacy (%)b N/A 96.6 98.3Household average income (US$)b N/A 1,000 1,450Main economic activities: agriculture and tourism(% of GDP)c

N/A 12 and 23/ 8 and/5.5

Human development index (HDI)d N/A 0.78 0.792Life expectancy (years): average, men and womenb N/A 76/72/79 76/73/80Household and person poverty (%) (2012)e N/A 5.7 and 7.9 8.4 and 12.4Gini inequality index (2012)f N/A.

Estimated tobe .0.40

0.38

Access to safe drinking water and electricity (%) N/A 97 and 98 98 and 99Economic losses due to sea flooding and erosion asaccumulated percent of GDPs for þ0.3/0.5/1.0 mg

N/A 5/9/27 2/4/12

Notes: a2011, INE-ECH, available at: www.ine.gub.uy/biblioteca/ech/ech2011/Principales_resultados_2011.pdf; bINE, Uruguay en Cifras 2011; cDiagnostico Rocha, Programa de DesarrolloLocal ART Uruguay, 2008; dHuman Development Index Report 2013, UNDP, available at: http://hdr.undp.org; eelaborated for this article from the INE household surveys 2012; fInforme de pobreza 2012INE – ECH, available at: www.ine.gub.uy/biblioteca/pobreza/Pobreza%202012/Estimacion%20de%20la%20pobreza%20por%20el%20Metodo%20del%20Ingreso%202012.pdf; gfor SLR and stormsurges since 1990 baseline; losses are expressed as accumulated value over gradual increase;elaborated for this article from Sencion (2009) and Nagy et al. (2013)

Table I.Socioeconomic make-up:

Municipality of LaPaloma; Department(Province) of Rocha;

Uruguay

Stakeholders’climate

perception

67

a “protected landscape” by 2010. The National Directorate of the Environment(DINAMA) and the local Government of Rocha (IDR) are responsible for makingdecisions to protect its biodiversity. The participation of other interested parties is onlyadvisory and the institutional level for their participation is the advisory committee(CAE), a co-management institutional arrangement.

Thus, according to the elements of a SES (Glaser et al., 2008), the lagoon is thebio-geo-physical unit; the fishermen and breeders are the residents, and the IDR, theSNAP, and the CAE are its associated institutions. How to manage local sustainabledevelopment within the bio-geo-physical unit is their problem context.

Figure 3.Time-series (1961-2010)and trends of mean annualtemperature at Rocha andmean sea-level at LaPaloma (Rocha)

60

67

74

81

88

95

102

109

116

1961 1965 1969 1973 1977 1981 1985 1989 1993 1997 2001 2005 2009

Years

Mean Annual Sea Level (cm.)Rocha 1961-2010

y = 0.0205x + 15.758R2 = 0.4166

y = 0.0278x + 82.1R2 = 0.3063

14

14

15

15

16

16

17

17

18

18

1961 1965 1969 1973 1977 1981 1985 1989 1993 1997 2001 2005 2009

Mean Annual Temperature (°C)Rocha 1961-2010

Source: Modified from Bidegain et al. (2011)

IJCCSM6,1

68

1.6 Working assumptionsThe following assumptions to achieve an effective adaptation have guided research:

. given the institutional and legal framework, the high quality ofdemocracy, political participation, and people’s trust on the political system inUruguay (EIU, 2011; Legatum Institute, 2012; BTI, 2012), participatory processesshould empower stakeholders without a perceived loss of power from theinstitutions;

. a minimal agreement between stakeholders is central. Management optionsshould aid to solve existing problems besides increasing the coping capacity toclimate and non-climate threats; and

. if stakeholder engagement influences decision-making it might be regarded as away of empowerment.

2. Approach and methodologyLessons emerged from coastal zone management and climate adaptation initiatives inUruguay (Gomez Erache and Martino, 2008; Gomez Erache et al., 2010; Nagy et al.,2008, 2013) suggest the advantage of:

. a customized mix of international best practices where top-down (prescriptive)and bottom-up (diagnostic) approaches merge;

. a non-linear step-by-step process which favours multi-stakeholders agreements,feedbacks, and institutional arrangements; and

. only widely accepted options are effective.

A diagnostic approach articulates future outcomes and then investigates theconditions that lead to those outcomes being realised. Future outcomes may benegative, in the case of critical thresholds, or positive in the case of a desired futurestate ( Jones, 2010; Jones and Preston, 2010). In our case study the desired future state isa more resilient lagoon SES.

Figure 4.Time-series (1961-2010)

and trend of annualprecipitation at Rocha

Stakeholders’climate

perception

69

2.1 Addressing climate change issues and identifying adaptation optionsAt the beginning (2009), we focused on a top-down (prescriptive) approach whichincluded current climate and non-climate scenarios, future IPCC SRES-type scenarios(Nakicenovic and Swart, 2000), observed impacts, and qualitative assessments ofvulnerability. Vulnerability was used according to the IPCC (2007) “the degreeto which a system copes with/is unable to the adverse effects of climate change,variability and extremes”.

However, we have learned from experience that even if most stakeholders arewilling to accept observed climatic impacts and envision increasing future harms in afew years, they understand future scenarios with difficulty. That is why we developeda diagnostic risk-management conceptual model, where vulnerability was assessedwith stakeholders following an impact-oriented perspective (Nagy et al., 2013;Seijo et al., n.d.; Nagy et al., n.d.).

In order to assess the potential risks of climate change on the pilot sites,four “cascading” supporting streams of activity were undertaken, namely:

(1) vulnerability mapping to consider key system drivers;

(2) baseline vulnerability reduction assessment (VRA);

(3) development of a customized risk management conceptual model; and

(4) multi-criteria approaches for selecting adaptation options.

This approach, later acknowledged as a success factor by project stakeholders, was theembedding of climate change into key institutions involved through the application ofparticipatory approaches (Nagy et al., 2013).

2.2 Participatory approach and the integration of scientific and local knowledgeThe study approach is intended to give stakeholders ownership of the adaptationresponses rather than being devised by experts at a larger scale who are potentiallyremoved from the local socio-ecological dynamics (Treby and Clark, 2004). As suchBiesbroek et al. (2009) suggest a transdisciplinary approach which focuses on“the co-production of knowledge including natural and social scientists, policymakers,and the society in general”. Effective climate change adaptation will require informedpolicy making, which in turn will require research paradigms to evolve toward anintegration of natural and social science approaches. There is extensive literature on theprocesses and practices of participatory research, or research that requires interactionbetween natural scientists and various types of stakeholders. Such approaches areparticularly prevalent in studies that seek to have natural science understanding makean impact upon practical decision making (Lynch et al., 2008).

Our study drew on the combined knowledge, experience, and interest of threestakeholder groups of the lagoon:

(1) scientists: those who have conducted research on the lagoon, and project’s staff;

(2) managers and elected officials: those who have a role in governance and/orplanning of the exposure unit; and

(3) community: includes residents (fishermen and breeders) and sixNGOs, devoted to the protection of the environment, fisheries, and localdevelopment.

IJCCSM6,1

70

Our participatory approach is based on four pillars:

(1) the application of scientific knowledge on vulnerability, climatic trends andprojections, and future climate scenarios;

(2) the assessment of stakeholders’ perception of main observed impacts andpossible threats which in turn is used to redefine a working understanding ofvulnerability;

(3) the assessment of the existing capacity and its strengthening allows prioritisingmeasures and identifies windows of opportunity for carrying out the process; and

(4) the elaboration of institutional agreements at several levels.

Thus, the process of implementation of adaptation measures requires:. a broad involvement of stakeholders to sustain the agreement;. to build capacity to address a specific situation; and. if the agreement is not shared, the process must incorporate additional

communication, negotiation or to reject the measures.

There are 35 involved stakeholders: nine from local and regional level institutions; five fromnational level institutions; six from ONGs, and 15 residents (breeders, fishermen, andothers).

2.3 Risk-management conceptual modelA risk-management conceptual model (called MESA) was developed on the basis ofsome Australian and New Zealand experiences (AGO, 2006; Jones, 2010; Jones andPreston, 2010; Preston and Kay, 2010). The process is divided into top-down andbottom-up phases. The former includes the identification of climate scenarios,stakeholders, the local champions (individuals or organisations able to promote the needfor climate adaptation activities and to form effective bridges between localcommunities, academia and national agencies), and risk analysis. The latter includesthe definition of success criteria, future time-horizons management criteria, riskthresholds, and agreed responses to the identified threats (Nagy et al., 2013).

2.4 The VRAThe assessment and incorporation of stakeholders’ preferences to implementingadaptation followed four steps. First, several meetings and semi-structured and indepth interviews with identified stakeholders, scientists, practitioners (15 managers ofthe protected area and the directorate for the environment, NGO members, andconsultants with expertise on the lagoon SES), and advisors (Kay, 2009) were held. Theinterviews were recorded and transcribed.

Second, a multiple question matrix based on the UNDP guidelines for the VRA(Droesch et al., 2008) was developed. Third, separate workshops and focus groupdiscussions were conducted with different groups of stakeholders during 2010 and 2011,which included a brief communication of concepts on climate issues, and filling thematrix. The matrix included the numerical assessment (scale 1-5) of climatic stressors,threats, harms, obstacles, and supportive factors to implementing adaptation, andwritten comments.

Stakeholders’climate

perception

71

Fourth, a dialogue between natural and social scientists and attendants was heldwhich allowed having a collective agreed value for each question and oral comments.Focus group discussions and dialogues were transcribed from blackboard notes.This approach shares some criteria with the scenario-based stakeholder engagement ofTompkins et al. (2008), which brings together stakeholder analysis, climate changemanagement scenarios, deliberative techniques, and the necessary trade-offs in orderto take into account the complexities and challenges of climate change.

2.5 Multi-criteria approaches for selecting adaptation optionsThe process followed an international best practice approach of adaptation (NOAA,2007, 2010; Brizikova et al., 2008; UNEP, 2009) being both an informed top-down and aparticipatory bottom-up process. For a detailed explanation of criteria and measures,see Nagy et al. (2013).

3. The strategy followed to implementing adaptationThe strategy followed to implementing adaptation measures was based on thecooperation between public institutions and the interested parties (Seijo et al., n.d.;Nagy et al., 2013). The project communicated scientific information to its partners(SNAP, IDR, CAE), and jointly promoted a broad participation of stakeholders in orderto integrate scientific and local knowledge into decisions and actions. Emphasis wasgiven to achieve agreements about the applicability and acceptance of best practices;especially those that help solve longstanding local management problems.A step-by-step process was followed as detailed in the following section.

3.1 Step-by-step sequenceThe sequence being followed to implementing adaptation consists of eight steps withfeed-backs:

(1) informal and formal contacts with national and local authorities;

(2) semi-structured and in depth interviews with scientists, managers, andpractitioners;

(3) communication to the stakeholders of the available scientific information onclimatic trends, vulnerability, scenarios, and best management practices;

(4) selective consultation with stakeholders and elected officials according to theirresponsibilities;

(5) separate meetings with groups of stakeholders (from local fishermen tomunicipal legislators) to address their priorities, and assess their perception ofthreats, vulnerability, harms, constraints, and opportunities to carry out specificactions by VRA and group discussion;

(6) analysis of stakeholders’ perception and views pondering their involvement,conflicts of interest, and decision-making power;

(7) participative analysis of best practices, stakeholders’ priorities, socialacceptance, economic and technical feasibility, need for external support,urgency, thresholds (acceptance/no acceptance of risk), no-regret options, andpolitical acceptance and will; and

(8) negotiation of institutional agreements and consensus.

IJCCSM6,1

72

3.2 Expert judgementThe project carried out several expert judgment surveys with project staff andpartners’ scientists (n ¼ 9) about climatic stressors on the subsystems of Laguna deRocha site shown in Figure 2. Each expert had to put a value where 1 is the minimumand 5 is the maximum. In order to force priorities only one 1, 2, . . . , 5 values were askedfor each variable (Table II).

The lagoon and the bar received the highest scores due to the temperature inrelation to the biodiversity, and the wind in relation to the bar opening, respectively.

These results were not communicated to the stakeholders before the VRA in orderto avoid bias.

3.3 Stakeholder perception and VRAThe search for a balanced sustainable development is a sensitive issue in the lagoon.Whereas conservation of biodiversity of global relevance and habitats is the overarchinggoal of both the project and SNAP, it is very important for local government (Nagy et al.,2013). For residents (fishermen and breeders) their exploited resources and relatedenvironment are the relevant issue, whereas for economic sectors (tourism and realestate) the use of landscape is their opportunity. Hence, there is a conflict of interests, anda need for a minimum agreement before planning for a sustainable management.

The consultation process conducted before applying the VRA allowed to define aworking understanding of vulnerability which was assessed according to the harmsthat climatic stimuli have produced or they might produce in the exposure unit. Thiswas done to effects of improving the communication with the stakeholders. In order togive comparable responses we here present the results obtained with the stakeholdermatrix and dialogues. Seeking simplification only climatic variables were included.The responses are summarised in Tables III and IV.

All the stakeholders (n ¼ 34) expressed concern about climatic threats and harms(Table III). First impressions about climatic threats were mostly (90 percent) associatedwith the occurrence of extreme events such as droughts and wind storms with harmsto the local assets. They expressed that climatic issues are increasingly present in themedia but 80 percent responded that their perception was not mainly due to them. Most(90 percent) were confident that some adaptation actions will be taken but 40 percenthad a weak trust on their effectiveness. Many (60 percent) did not envisage any specific

SubsystemsRelative importance of drivers and climate variables (1-5) LW SBa MZ SBe CC X

Temperature 5 3 4.5 2 4 3.7Precipitations 4.5 4.5 2 2 4 3.4Land-use 4.0 4.5 3 5 4 4.1Wind 4.5 5 4 4 2 3.9Sea-level rise 4.5 4.5 3 4 2 3.6River flow (from the Rio de la Plata) 4 4.5 5 2 1 3.3Average (x) 4.4 4.3 3.6 3.2 2.8 3.6

Notes: Subsystems: L-W – lagoon-wetlands; SBa – sand barrier; MZ – marine zone; SBe – sandybeach, CC – inter-lagoons connectivity corridorsSource: Modified and updated from Nagy et al. (2013)

Table II.Drivers and climate

variables in Laguna deRocha site based on an

expert judgment survey(1-5 scale)

Stakeholders’climate

perception

73

measure, whereas 40 percent could not differentiate global and local actions, and30 percent mixed adaptation, mitigation, and other environmental issues. All breedersperceived frequent and increasing problems related to freshwater and sea floods. Oneof them said: “now I guess that something must be done in relation to the sandy bar”.Fishermen and local managers expressed that human intervention to open the bar wasneeded more frequently than in the past. One fisherman said: “it is happening at least

Climaticstimuli

Overallperception(%) Perceived harms Selected responses

Temperature Unclear: 70Increase: 20Unchanged:10

Impacts on tourism, animaland human health, not somuch on biodiversity

“It is happening in the NorthernHemisphere”“The media says different things”“It is not happening yet”

Precipitation Unclear: 15Increase: 25Decrease:60

Water availability forlivestock; inundation;change in water-level andsalinity

A breeder said: “I do not know if it israining more or less than before; it israining worse”

Winds Unclear: 15Increase: 85

Loss of landSea flooding

“I am not able to differentiate wind effects,SLR, and beach erosion”

Sea-level rise Unclear: 55Unchanged:10Increase: 35

Loss of land “I have lived on the beach over forty yearsand have observed that water is nowcovering some rocks that were exposedbefore. I guess that it is neither erosion norwind effect”

Table III.Climate threats andharms collected from theresponses and dialogue atthe VRA

Selected responses

Supports The recently approved laws and regulations on land planning and protected areasThe participatory process followed in Laguna de Rocha to implement adaptationThe inclusion of climate issues in the media and public agenda since 2007-2009

There is aneed to

Increase public authorities’ awareness and concernIncrease communication of climate treats is central to reduce the obstaclesIncrease research and monitoringHave experiences which to learn from

Constraints There are other current priorities for the elected officials, managers, and people (voters)in generalThere is confusion among stakeholders between climate change, variability, andextremesThere is a lack of sustained policies beyond government periodsThere is lack of financial stimuli to implement adaptation actions by the private sector

Obstacles There is a political lack of foresight and planning with regard to climatic threatsThere is an economic lack of resources to implement adaptation actions, especially inadequate infrastructureThere is a social lack or poor concern with regard to climatic issues, related to a lack ofenvironmental educationThere is lack of adequate information, knowledge, and awareness to anticipate eventsand reduce harms

Table IV.Supports, needs,constraints, and obstaclesto implementingadaptation collected fromthe responses anddialogue at the VRA

IJCCSM6,1

74

for 15 years” (by 2010). Another said: “It does not open naturally anymore, we need toforce it”. Most (90 percent) believed there was a need for climate adaptation. This beliefincreased over the last three-five years. Most (95 percent) expressed some interest tocooperate with the adaptation process. However, in most cases (75 percent) it was notpossible to determine their level of commitment and responsibilities. Most (85 percent)identified winds as the most important coastal climatic stimuli and threat, and80 percent perceived recent changes (five to 15 years) in storminess.

All the stakeholders identified threats or harms to coastal assets such as erosionrelated to winds and expressed concern about the information on plausible futurechanges in wind regime. SLR was not clearly perceived and most (55 percent) could notrealise the difference between windstorms, erosion, and SLR, or believed it will happenin the future.

The responses of Laguna de Rocha stakeholders were not statistically different fromthe ones in other coastal sites in Uruguay (Seijo, 2011b), except for the threats, because ofthe strong local perception of wind effects. Also, locals showed to be more distrustful inregard to obstacles and political will or effectiveness. The collective negative perceptionof harms increased after the individual responses. This is attributable to the lowpercentage of respondents with previous information on climate issues (25 percent),below the whole coast average, and the change of perception by interacting with others,including the scientists. The overall increase in awareness and concern was 11 percentafter receiving scientific information and 37 percent on the baseline year (2007).

During the communication of climate concepts and the dialogues, most attendantsexpressed that the observed variability of rainfall, wind, and sea-level quite matchedtheir perception. On the other hand, many did not agree with the concept of adjustmentto this variability, and few thought it was possible to cope with the potential increasingthreats if the observed trends were to continue for a few decades.

A selection of the identified supports, needs, constraints, and obstacles to implementadaptation is shown in Table IV. The participatory process was mentioned as the mostimportant support (60 percent). The need to increase monitoring and research wasprioritised (50 percent). The existence of other priorities rather than climate threats wasranked as the main constraint (70 percent). A political lack of foresight and planningwith regard to climate threats was identified as the main obstacle (45 percent).

Most stakeholders expressed concerns about the recent observed trends andprojections for five to 15 years. However, they preferred to focus on observed threatsand harms on local assets and the need for anticipation. It was not possible to definecritical harm thresholds. For instance, fishermen expected inputs from scientists,whereas managers were reluctant to define them. Almost all agreed that monitoring isa key element to increase resilience (the desired state).

3.4 The influence of the interested partiesIn regards to the influence of the interested parties the institutional and legalframework states that the inputs made during the consultation process do not forcedecision-makers. Bens (2005) defined a continuum of influences based on which of theinterested parties – the agency or the stakeholders – controls the process (Table V).

Thus, according to this criterion the participatory process in Laguna de Rocha wasplaced by stakeholders in the second type: “the agency gathers the information fromthe interested parties before making-decision”.

Stakeholders’climate

perception

75

3.5 Process outcomes: implemented measuresA list of about 15 adaptation measures was selected by the end of 2011 (Nagy et al.,2013). Five “soft” measures are already implemented or will be by mid 2013. The firstimplemented one was the monitoring of beach profiles and erosion along theUruguayan coast. The other four were prioritised by means of the inclusion ofstakeholders’ perception in the multi-criteria participatory process. Scientists from theacademia and NGOs were involved in their planning. These measures are as follows:

. the incorporation of climate issues in the Laguna de Rocha Management Plan,presented by December 2012 (Rodrıguez-Gallego et al., 2012);

. the design of an agreed participatory multi-criteria model to manage the lagoonsand bar (the protocol);

. lists of migratory birds of global relevance and endangered species under achanging climate (Soutullo, 2013); and

. soft coastal bio-physical protection measures such as beach and dune vegetation,and wind fencing protection.

The lagoon Advisory Committee (CAE) delayed the acceptance of the lagoonManagement Plan until the inclusion of the agreed bar management protocol whichincludes climatic and hydrological stressors.

4. DiscussionThis paper started highlighting the importance of understanding climate change frombelow, securing active involvement of stakeholders in decision-making, and thatcommunity empowerment is a process of re-negotiating power in order to gain morecontrol. These issues are central to achieve effective institutional agreements and feasiblemeasures by means of informed citizen participation instances in decision-making,management, and monitoring.

The joint work of scientists and stakeholders contribute to explain scientificconcepts in ordinary language. Eisenack et al. (2007) say:

[. . .] it might be of higher priority that stakeholders are enabled to apprehend coherences andthe scope of the problem instead of science fulfilling demands for more concrete quantitativedata or climate change scenarios.

In this regard, Jones (2010) says:

The major considerations are whether a more complex method of representing climate offersgreater benefits if correct, or whether the penalty of being wrong using a simple approach iscommensurate with the penalty of being wrong using a more complex approach.

Controlled by an agency ! controlled by the interested parties

1. The agency has theauthority to makingdecision and theninforms the interestparties

2. The agency gathersthe information fromthe interest partiesbefore making-decision

3. The interested partiesmake decision andrecommend actions tobe implemented bythe agency

4. The interested partiesmake decision andimplement

Source: Modified from Bens (2005)

Table V.Level of influence of theagencies and interestedparties

IJCCSM6,1

76

The changes of perception allow generating new experiences, interpretations, andconsequently the responses of the interested parties (Giddens, 1994), associated with aspecific option. On the other hand, the strong variability observed and perceived overthe last few years is still too recent and short to suggest that some effective adjustmentwas achieved by the community.

A first illustrative example of stakeholders’ perception is related to the“impact-oriented vulnerability”. Wolf et al. (2013) say “despite several decades ofresearch on the vulnerability of SES, scholars have not been able to agree on the meaningand measurement of it”. Thus, the abstract and some confuse concept of vulnerabilityused by scientists becomes in ordinary language “Possible harms or losses due tospecific threats” (Seijo et al., inpress). This working understanding of “vulnerability”proved to be useful for stakeholders. It is possible to address subjects such as exposure,capacity, resilience, and susceptibility, not so much risk and thresholds. A secondexample is the fact that most stakeholders now understand the possible existence oflinks between the recent past and the near future. Their awareness and concernsincreased after receiving scientific information. This working understanding is beyonda defined time-horizon management or the uncertainty of climate change.

The approved environmental laws, the institutional arrangements, the ongoingprojects, and the political decisions since 2000, such as the categorization of the lagoonarea as a protected landscape and land-use restrictions, are increasing its protection.We here argue that though participation is encouraged by law, the legitimateinstitutional framework might be reluctant to cede decision-making power. There is asubstantial difference between consulting and losing control on the decisions. Thequestion therefore arises as how could stakeholders’ perception and willingness beeffectively included in a participatory process within the existing managementframework in Laguna de Rocha.

That is why we focused on public participation in decision-making processescoordinated by the local government and national agencies, rather than on processesemerging directly from the grassroots. However, we also argue that the assessment ofstakeholders’ perception and their participation to implementing adaptation measuresempowers them: “The interested parties recommend actions to be implemented by theagency”. Nagy et al. (2013) call this process the pre-implementation phase, which is inclose agreement with Eisenack et al. (2007) which referred to “pre-learning” as aprecondition to the creation of adequate adaptation strategies. Thus, pre-learningrepresents a preliminary stage of knowledge generation. Evidence from recent researchsuggests that assessments of the role of local knowledge for adaptation needs to givemore consideration to local power relations and the interaction with governmentstrategies, while also addressing structural constraints to the use of local knowledgeacross scales (Naess, 2012).

The co-participation of the local government, the national environment agency, andthe national system of protected areas (SNAP) to manage the site through the LagoonAdvisory Committee (CAE), where a broad participation exists, implies some sharingof power. This allows integrating the academia with the stakeholders in order to reachan adaptive ecosystem co-management approach in the near future.

Adaptive co-management can be thought as a making-decision and learningby-doing process in which stakeholders operate under uncertainty (Tompkins, 2005)and where policies are treated as hypotheses, and management as experiments from

Stakeholders’climate

perception

77

which managers can learn (Folke et al., 2007). Butler and Coughlan (2011) say that suchan adaptive co-management requires continued reevaluation of locally and temporallyrelevant management strategies so that they evolve along with the climate. Theysuggest to adapting the concept of variability as a proxy of change. This concept issimilar to the “type I” adaptation “to current climate variability and observed change” ofBurton (2004), suggested by Nagy et al. (2008) for the adaptation framework of artisanalfisheries of the Rio de la Plata river estuary. This approach is such a kind of experimentwhere pro-active action might reduce the perception of uncertainty. Thus, the questionbecomes (for most stakeholders): “Why should we expect these trends will reverse overthe near-future?” instead of “How uncertain are the climate scenarios for 2030? So theperceived continuity of “changing” overcomes the uncertainty or the lack of trust onwhat scholars says about future climate change.”

A good example of a scientific soundness and participatory institutional agreement isthe multi-criteria model to manage the lagoon bar opening. This protocol should makeeasier to solve a longstanding problem for the local government on the basis of sharingpower on agreed rational criteria. Ultimately, this reduces the local governmentconflicts. The protocol is an outcome of the consulting process, the assessment ofstakeholders’ perception, the agreed priorities, the specific institutional agreements, theProject’s funds, and the engagement of an interdisciplinary team of consultants,university scientists, and NGO practitioners. The CAE will only approve the lagoonmanagement plan once the bar protocol is finished. This protocol is a “boundary object”,a concept introduced by Star and Griesemer (1989). A boundary object needs to be bothplastic enough to adapt to local needs and constraints of the several parties employing ityet robust enough to maintain a common identity across sites. “A boundary objectprovides a common point of reference for all participants” to achieve goals in climateadaptation (Lynch et al., 2008).

The success of integrating scientists and stakeholders into the management policyexceeds the objective of protecting the environment and the biodiversity from climatethreats in a sustainable way, which remains to be demonstrated. It is a learning-by-doinglesson. The step-by-step process being followed to assess scientific and local knowledgewithin an institutional framework is the true success. It allows for the inclusion ofstakeholders’ perception of climate threats into the management framework, increasingthe legitimacy of the decisions. This is in agreement with Tompkins and Adger (2004)“the learning that occurs in groups can more easily be incorporated into managementprocesses in flexible informal institutions”. The lagoon advisory committee (CAE) is aco-management institutional arrangement which increases the level of decision-makingof community and NGO stakeholders while balancing local and national responsibilities.

One of the objectives of the Project is to replicate the adaptation process. Successfulimplementation of the process outlined above, also sets the stage for extending the pilotanalysis to a national adaptation response (Nagy et al., 2013).

Having said that, we are not sure this experience could be replicated withoutexternal facilitation and support. We also believe that achieving agreed criticalthresholds remains a challenge.

5. ConclusionsThe study suggests that inclusion of stakeholders’ perception in the process ofmaking-decision allowed to:

IJCCSM6,1

78

. survey local knowledge and compare it to scientific views;

. increase public awareness and understanding of the climatic threats on theexposure unit;

. increase public support to the institutions in charge;

. facilitate conflict resolution;

. promote the development of specific actions on the exposure unit;

. increase local coping capacity; and

. implement positive actions towards the desired state of increased resilience.

The share of the existing power by the local government and national agencies placesthe management process in Laguna de Rocha closer to the third type of influencesof Bens.

The basis for an adaptive co-management, such integrating scientific knowledgeand monitoring with stakeholders’ engagement, agreement, and understanding arealready achieved.

The project’s scientists have apprehended the importance of the interaction withstakeholders beyond what the international funding agencies and the literature say.

In order to moving forward with adaptation planning in Uruguay this experienceshould allow obtaining more support for new initiatives, stakeholders’ commitmentneed to increase, and agreed critical thresholds should be explicit.

References

AGO (2006), Climate Change Impacts and Risk Management – A Guide for Business andGovernment, Australian Greenhouse Office, Canberra, p. 76.

Baum, F. (2008), Foreword to Health Promotion in Action: From Local to Global Empowerment,edited by LabonteR., Laverack, G., Palgrave Macmillan, London, p. 215.

Bens, I. (2005), Facilitating with Ease! Core Skills for Facilitators, Team Leaders and Members,Managers, Consultants, and Trainers, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

Bidegain, M. and Nagy, G.J. (2008), “Building capacity in coastal climate change and variability:PRECIS-based climate models downscaling in Uruguay”, working paper, Facultadde Ciencias-Unidad de Cambio Climatico-British Embassy, Montevideo, p. 34.

Bidegain, M., de los Santos, M., Rodrıguez, C. and Verocai, J.E. (2011), “Escenarios Climaticos,eventos extremos y dinamica de la zona frontal del Rio de la Plata”, working paper,GEF-Project “Implementing Pilot Adaptation Measures in Coastal Areas of Uruguay”,UCC-DINAMA-UNDP, Facultad de Ciencias, Montevideo, p. 91.

Bidegain, M., de los Santos, M., de los Santos, B., de los Santos, T., Goso, C. and Verocai, J.E.(2009), “Escenarios Climaticos, del Nivel del Mar y Vulnerabilidad Geologica en AreasCosteras del Uruguay”, working paper, GEF-Project “Implementing Pilot AdaptationMeasures in Coastal Areas of Uruguay”, UCC-DINAMA-UNDP, Facultad de Ciencias,Montevideo, p. 106.

Biesbroek, G.R., Swart, R.J. and Van der Knaap, W.G.M. (2009), “The mitigation adaptationdichotomy and the role of spatial planning”, Habitat International, Vol. 33, pp. 230-237.

Brizikova, L., Neale, T. and Burton, I. (2008), Canadian Communities’ Guidebook for Adaptationto Climate Change: Including an Approach to Generate Mitigation Co-benefits in theContext of Sustainable Development, 1st ed., Environment Canada and British ColumbiaUniversity, Vancouver, p. 100.

Stakeholders’climate

perception

79

BTI (2012), “The status of democracy”, Bertelsmann Transformation Index, available at: www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de/cps/rde/xchg/SID. . ./bst. . ./307.htm (accessed 15 March 2013).

Burton, I. (2004), “Climate change and the adaptation deficit”, Occasional Paper 1, Adaptationand Impacts Research Groupo, Environment Canada, Ottawa.

Butler, K. and Coughlan, E. (2011), “Adapting to variability before change: an analysis ofpreexisting adaptation strategies for climate variability through a socioecologicalresilience framework: the Case of the Republic of the Marshall Islands”, paper presented atICARUS II Conference, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA, May, available at:www.icarus.info/wp. . ./2011/. . ./ButlerCoughlan (accessed March 2013).

Chapin, F.S., Carpenter, S.R., Kofinas, G.P., Folke, C., Abel, N., Clark, W.C., Olsson, P., StaffordSmith, D.M., Walker, B., Young, O.R., Berkes, F., Biggs, R., Grove, J.M., Naylor, R.L.,Pinkerton, E., Steffen, W. and Swanson, F.J. (2009), “Ecosystem stewardship:sustainability strategies for a rapidly changing planet”, Trends in Ecology andEvolution, Vol. 25, pp. 241-249.

CLAD (2009), “Carta Iberoamericana de Participacion Ciudadana en la Gestion Publica”,Aprobada por la XI Conferencia Iberoamericana de Ministros de Administracion Publica yReforma del Estado, Lisboa, Portugal, 25 y 26 de junio de 2009, Adoptada por la XIXCumbre Iberoamericana de Jefes de Estado y de Gobierno. Portugal, 30 de noviembre y 18 dediciembre de 2009 (Resolucion No. 38 del “Plan de Accion de Lisboa”), p. 15.

Conde, D. and Rodrıguez-Gallego, L. (2002), “Problematica ambiental y gestion de las lagunascosteras atlanticas de Uruguay”, in Domınguez, A. and Prieto, R. (Eds), Perfil ambiental delUruguay/2002, Nordan-Comunidad, Montevideo, pp. 149-166.

Droesch, A.C., Nickey//Gaseb, Kurukulasuriya, P., Mershon, A., Moussa, K.M., Rankine, D. andSantos, A. (2008), “A guide to the vulnerability reduction assessment”, UNDPWorking Paper, UNDP Community-based Adaptation Programme, available at:www.undp-adaptation.org/ (accessed 13 October 2010).

Eisenack, K., Tekken, V. and Kropp, J. (2007), Stakeholders’ Perceptions of Climate Change in theBaltic Sea Region, Coastline Report No. 8, edited by Schernewski, G., Sekscinska, A.,Glaeser, B., Scheibe, R. and Thamm, R., PIK Publications, Geneva, pp. 245-251.

EIU (2011), “The democracy index 2011: democracy under stress”, The Economist, EconomistIntelligence Unit, available at: www.eiu.com/. . ./topical_report.aspx?. . .Democra. . .(accessed 31 January 2013).

Few, R., Brown, K. and Tompkins, E.L. (2007), “Public participation and climate changeadaptation: avoiding the illusion of inclusion”, Climate Policy, Vol. 7, pp. 46-59.

Folke, C., Pritchard, L., Berkes, F., Colding, J. and Svedin, U. (2007), “The problem of fit betweenecosystems and institutions: ten years later”, Ecology and Society, Vol. 12 No. 1, Article 30.

Giddens, A. (1994), “Living in a post-traditional society”, in Beck, U., Giddens, A. andLash, S. (Eds), Reflexive Modernization, Polity Press, London, pp. 56-109.

Glaser, M., Krause, G., Ratter, B. and Welp, M. (2008), “Human-nature interaction in theanthropocene: potential of social-ecological systems analysis”, GAIA, Vol. 17 No. 1,pp. 77-80.

Gomez Erache, M. and Martino, D. (2008), Zona Costera, GEO Uruguay 2008, UNEP DINAMA,CLAES, EcoPlata, Montevideo, available at: www.ecoplata.org/documentos/ (accessed31 January 2013).

Gomez Erache, M., Conde, D. and Villarmarzo, R. (2010), “The sustainability of integratedmanagement in the coastal zone of Uruguay: connecting knowledge to action”,Montevideo, EcoPlata, available at: www.ecoplata.org/documentos/ (accessed31 January 2013).

IJCCSM6,1

80

Gutierrez, O. (2011), “Dinamica Sedimentaria en la Costa Uruguaya: Evolucion y Tendencias deplayas urbanas en el marco del cambio global”, MSc thesis, Facultad de Ciencias, UdelaR,p. 98.

IFC (2007), Stakeholder Engagement: A Good Practice Handbook for Companies Doing Businessin Emerging Markets, International Finance Corporation, World Bank Group, Washington,DC, p. 72.

IPCC (2007), “Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability”, in Parry, M.L.,Canziani, O.F., Palutikof, J.P., van der Linden, P.J. and Hanson, C.E. (Eds), Contribution ofWorking Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel ofClimate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p. 976.

Jones, R.N. (2010), “A risk management approach to climate change adaptation”,in Nottage, R.A.C., Wratt, D.S., Bornman, J.F. and Jones, K. (Eds), Climate ChangeAdaptation in New Zealand: Future Scenarios and Some Sectoral Perspectives,New Zealand Climate Change Centre, Wellington, pp. 10-25.

Jones, R.N. and Preston, B.L. (2010), “Adaptation and risk management”, Climate ChangeWorking Paper No. 15, Centre for Strategic Economic Studies, Victoria University,Melbourne, p. 18.

Kay, R.C. (2009), “Implementing pilot climate change adaptation measures in coastal areas ofuruguay reviewing project progress to date and advice on priorities for the annualoperational work plan 2010”, Working Paper of PROJECT URU/07/G32, Coastal ZoneManagement Pty, Perth, p. 25.

Legatum Institute (2012), The Legatum Prosperity Index 2012, available at: www.prosperity.com/ (accessed January 2013).

Lynch, A.H., Lee, H., Tryhorn, L. and Abramson, R. (2008), “Working at the boundary:facilitating interdisciplinarity in climate change adaptation research”, Bull. Amer. Meteor.Soc., Vol. 89, pp. 169-179.

Naess, L.O. (2012), “The role of local knowledge in adaptation to climate change”, Focus Article,WIREs Clim Change 2013, No. 4, pp. 99-106, 20 December, available at: wires.wiley.com(accessed 6 July 2013).

Nagy, G.J., Gomez-Erache, M. and Kay, R. (2013), “A risk-based and participatory approach toassessing climate vulnerability and improving governance in coastal Uruguay”,in Glavovic, B., Kay, R., Kelly, M. and Travers, A. (Eds), Climate Change and theCoastal Zone, Chapter 16, Taylor & Francis, London.

Nagy, G.J., Seijo, L., Verocai, J.E., Brugnoli, E. and Bidegain, M. (n.d.), Enfoque, conocimiento ymedidas para enfrentar los Riesgos Ambientales al Clima Presente en la Zona Frontal delRıo de la Plata, Uruguay Costas, UNESCO, Paris (in press).

Nagy, G.J., Bidegain, M., Caffera, R.M., Norbis, W., Ponce, A., Pshennikov, V. and Severov, D.N.(2008), “Fishing strategies for managing climate variability and change in the estuarinefront of the Rio de la Plata”, in Leary, N., Adejuwon, J., Barros, V., Burton, I., Kulkarni, J.and Lasco, R. (Eds), Climate Change and Adaptation, Chapter 20, Earthscan, London,pp. 353-370.

Nakicenovic, N. and Swart, R. (Eds) (2000), Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change SpecialReport: Emissions Scenarios, Cambridge Universtiy Press, Cambrige.

Nicholls, R.J., Hanson, S.E., Lowe, J.A., Warrick, R.A., Lu, X., Long, A.J. and Carter, T.R. (2011),Constructing Sea-Level Scenarios for Impact and Adaptation Assessment of Coastal Area:A Guidance Document, Supporting Material, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate ChangeTask Group on Data and Scenario Support for Impact and Climate Analysis (TGICA), p. 47.

Stakeholders’climate

perception

81

NOAA (2007), Social Science Tools for Coastal Programs: Introduction toStakeholder Participation, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, availableat: www.csc.noaa.gov/. . ./stakeholder_participation.p. . . (accessed 15 October 2010).

NOAA (2010), Adapting to Climate Change: A Planning Guide for State Coastal Managers,NOAA Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration, Washington, DC, available at: http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/climate/adaptation.html (accessed 15 October 2011).

Preston, B. and Kay, R. (2010), “Managing climate risk in human settlements”, in Jubb, I., Holper,P.N. and Cai, W. (Eds), Proceedings of the Greenhouse Conference, Perth, Australia,pp. 185-196.

PRODOC (2008), “GEF-project document ‘implementing pilot sites of adaptation measures toclimate change in the Uruguayan coastal areas’”, project document prepared forUNDP/GEF Trust Fund available at: www.adaptationlearning.net/ (accessed 15 October2012).

Rodrıguez-Gallego, L., Nin, M., Suarez, C. and Conde, D. (2012), “Consultorıa tecnica para apoyarel proceso de elaboracion del Plan de Manejo del Paisaje Protegido Laguna de Rocha.Propuesta de Plan de Manejo”, working paper prepared for the SNAP, Futuro SustentableS.A., Diciembre, p. 111.

Sajid Raihan, M., Jahedul Huq, M., Gesrstrøm Alsted, N. and Hoppe Andreasen, M. (2010),“Understanding climate change from below, addressing barriers from above: practicalexperience learning from a community-based adaptation in Bangladesh”, ActionAidBangladesh, Dhaka, Banglasdesh, available at: www.preventionweb.net/. . ./17233_17233underest. . . (accessed 15 October 2012).

Scally, J. and Wescott, G. (2011), “Perceptions of climate change and adaptation respones in alocal community: the Barwon Estuary complex, Victoria”, Australian Geographer, Vol. 42No. 4, pp. 387-401.

Seijo, L. (2011a), “Diseno de un sistema de toma de decision de la apertura artificial de la barra dela Laguna de Rocha”, working paper, GEF-Project URU/07/G32 Implementing PilotAdaptation Measures in Coastal Areas of Uruguay, UCC-DINAMA-UNDP, Montevideo.

Seijo, L. (2011b), “Evaluacion de la Reduccion de la Vulnerabilidad (VRA)”, working paper,GEF-Project URU/07/G32 “Implementing Pilot Adaptation Measures in Coastal Areas ofUruguay”, UCC-DINAMA-UNDP, Montevideo.

Seijo, L., Nagy, G.J., Verocai, J.E. and Bidegain, M. (n.d.), El papel de los grupos de interes en losprocesos de adaptacion a los riesgos climaticos en areas costeras del Uruguay: El caso de laLaguna de Rocha, UNESCO, Costas (in press).

Sencion, G. (2009), “Economic assessment of the impacts of climate change in coastal resources inUruguay”, Uruguay’s Report to ECLAC-RECC 2009.

SNAP (2010), “Proyecto de ingreso del area Laguna de Rocha al Sistema Nacional de AreasProtegidas (SNAP)”, Sistema Nacional de Areas Protegidas, DINAMA, Montevideo.

Soutullo, A. (2013), “Lista de especies amenazadas bajo escenarios de cambio climatico en elPaisaje protegido Laguna de Rocha”, working paper, GEF-Project “Implementing PilotAdaptation Measures in Coastal Areas of Uruguay”, UCC-DINAMA-UNDP, Montevideo.

Star, S. and Griesemer, J. (1989), “Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects:amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s museum of vertebrate zoology, 1907-39”, SocialStudies of Science, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 387-420.

Tompkins, E.L. (2005), “Planning for climate change in small islands: insights from national hurricanepreparedness in the Cayman Islands”, Global Environmental Change, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 139-149.

IJCCSM6,1

82

Tompkins, E.L. and Adger, W.N. (2004), “Does adaptive management of natural resourcesenhance resilience to climate change?”, Ecology and Society, Vol. 9 No. 2, Article 10.

Tompkins, E.L., Few, R. and Brown, K. (2008), “Scenario-based stakeholder engagement:incorporating stakeholders’ preferences into coastal planning for climate change”,Environmental Management, Vol. 88, pp. 1580-1592.

Treby, E.J. and Clark, M.J. (2004), “Refining a practical approach to participatorydecision-making: an example from coastal zone management”, Coastal Management,Vol. 32, pp. 353-372.

UCC (2011), “Implementing pilot adaptation measures in coastal areas of Uruguay”,UCC Working Paper, GEF-Project URU/07/G32 “Implementing Pilot AdaptationMeasures in Coastal Areas of Uruguay”, UCC-DINAMA-UNDP, Unidad de CambioClimatico, Montevideo, available at: www.adaptationlearning.net/

UCC (2012a), “Seleccion y Priorizacion de Medidas de Adaptacion en Sitios Piloto Laguna deRocha y Frente Salino”, UCC Working Paper, GEF-Project URU/07/G32 “ImplementingPilot Adaptation Measures in Coastal Areas of Uruguay”, UCC-DINAMA-UNDP, Unidadde Cambio Climatico, available at: www.adaptationlearning.net/

UCC (2012b), “Variabilidad y Cambio Climatico en el Area Piloto Laguna de Rocha”,UCC Working Paper, GEF-Project URU/07/G32 “Implementing Pilot Adaptation Measuresin Coastal Areas of Uruguay”, UCC-DINAMA-UNDP, Montevideo, Unidad de CambioClimatico, available at: www.adaptationlearning.net/

UNDP (2004), Adaptation Policy Frameworks for Climate Change: Developing Strategies, Policiesand Measures, authored by Bo Lim B., Spanger-Siegfried, E., co-authored by Burton, I.,Malone, E., Huq, S., United Nations Development Program, Cambridge University Press,Cambridge.

UNEP (2009), Integrated Environmental Asessment (IEA) Training Manual, Volume Two,Vulnerability and Impact Assessments for Adaptation to Climate Change (VIA Module),United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi.

Wolf, S., Hinkel, J., Hallier, M., Bisaro, A., Lincke, D., Ionescu, C. and Klein, R.J. (2013), “Clarifyingvulnerability definitions and assessments using formalization”, International Journal ofClimate Strategies and Management, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 54-70.

Authors’ affiliationsGustavo J. Nagy: Grupo de Cambio Ambiental y Gestion Costero-Marina, Oceanografıa yEcologıa Marina, IECA; Facultad de Ciencias, UdelaR, Montevideo, Uruguay andProject: “Implementing Adaptation to Climate Change in Coastal Uruguay”, UCC-DINAMA,Montevideo, Uruguay.

Leonardo Seijo: Grupo de Cambio Ambiental y Gestion Costero-Marina, Oceanografıa yEcologıa Marina, IECA; Facultad de Ciencias, UdelaR, Montevideo, Uruguay and Project:“Implementing Adaptation to Climate Change in Coastal Uruguay”, UCC-DINAMA.

Jose E. Verocai is based at Grupo de Cambio Ambiental y Gestion Costero-Marina,Oceanografıa y Ecologıa Marina, IECA; Facultad de Ciencias, UdelaR, Montevideo, Uruguay andServicio de Oceanografıa, Hidrografıa y Meteorologıa de la Armada, Montevideo, Uruguay.

Mario Bidegain is based at Direccion Nacional de Meteorologıa, Climatologıa, Monteyideo,Uruguay and Grupo de Cambio Ambiental y Gestion Costero-Marina, Oceanografıa y EcologıaMarina, IECA; Facultad de Ciencias, UdelaR, Montevideo, Uruguay.

About the authorsDr Gustavo J. Nagy is an estuarine oceanographer and graduated from the University ofBordeaux I in France. He is an Associate Professor and Researcher on earth system science,global change, and estuarine environments at the Faculty of Sciences of the UdelaR,

Stakeholders’climate

perception

83

Uruguay since 1993. He has participated in several projects on estuarine processes, coastalmanagement, climate change and variability, and climate adaptation. He also worked for theBritish Government (Stern Report), the United Nations (RECCS Latin America, Santiago deChile), and was a Lead Author of IPCC AR-4, Group II, 13. He is currently a Consultant onadaptation of a GEF-Project on coastal climate and ecosystems in Uruguay, and an invitedProfessor of vulnerability, impacts and adaptation assessment at the University of Asuncion,Paraguay. Gustavo J. Nagy is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: gustavo.nagy56@gmail.com

Leonardo Seijo is a Sociologist and graduated from the UdelaR, Uruguay. He is currentlywriting his Master thesis in Regional Development at FLACSO, Argentina. He has worked inNGOs on environment, society, and public participation, and at the Directorate of theEnvironment in EIA. He is currently a Consultant on facilitation in participatory adaptation andvulnerability reduction assessment for the GEF-Project on Climate Adaptation.

Jose E. Verocai is an oceanographer and graduated as an MSc in ecology from the UdelaR,Uruguay. He is an Assistant Professor and Researcher on oceanography, estuaries, and extremeevents at the Facultad de Ciencias, UdelaR. He is currently in charge of the Division of PhysicalOceanography of the Uruguayan Navy Hydrographic Bureau. He was in charge of sea-level rise,river flow, and extreme events for two university consultancies on climate subjects for theGEF-Project on Climate Adaptation.

Mario Bidegain is a Meteorologist and MSc graduated from the USP, Brazil. He joined theFacultad de Ciencias, UdelaR in the 1980s as an Assistant Professor and Researcher onclimatology. He is currently in charge of the Division of Climatology at the UruguayanMeteorological Bureau. He has worked on several projects on climate change and variabilityin coastal areas, agriculture and water resources as a climate analyst and modeller. He was incharge of two university consultancies on climate subjects for the GEF-Project on ClimateAdaptation.

IJCCSM6,1

84

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints