You are here: Home / Pathfinder / Context for this guidance / Existing guidance and methodologies

Existing guidance and methodologies

IPCC Technical guidelines

The IPCC (1994) put forth a general framework for assessing impacts and adaptation. It consists of seven steps of:

1. Definition of the problem
2. Selection of the method
3. Testing of the method
4. Selecting the scenario
5. Projection of biophysical and socio-economic impacts
6. Assessment of autonomous adjustments
7. Evaluation of adaptation strategies

This framework has been criticised as being to firmly rooted in a “top-down” impacts framing, thus leading to a prominence of technical (or technological) adaptation options, which may not consider the conditions affecting especially vulnerable groups.

UNDP Adaptation policy framework

The Adaptation Policy Framework of the UNDP (Lim et al., 2005) provides guidance on designing and implementing projects that reduce vulnerability to climate change. The AFP aims to integrate national policy making with a “bottom-up” approaches.

The following five steps are prescribed by the AFP, but they may be used at any point in developing and implementing adaptation, depending on the resources available in a particular intervention:

1. Defining project scope and design;
2. Assessing vulnerability under current climate;
3. Characterizing future climate related risks;
4. Developing an adaptation strategy;
5. Continuing the adaptation process.

The AFP emphasises the need to include stakeholders at all points in the process.

The AFP is based on five principles: adaptation measures are assessed in a development context; adaptation to short-term climate variability and extreme events are explicitly included as a step toward reducing vulnerability to long-term change; adaptation occurs at different levels in society, including the local level; the adaptation strategy and the process by which it is implemented are equally important; and building adaptive capacity to cope with current climate is one way of preparing society to better cope with future climate (UNFCCC, 2006).

UKCIP

There are eight steps in the UKCIP (2003) Risk, Uncertainty and Decision making
Framework (Figure 1).


There are several important characteristics of the framework. It is circular, which suggests the assessment should be repeated as new information becomes available. Feedback and iteration are encouraged, thus the problem, objective and decision-making criteria can be refined. Stages 3, 4, and 5 allowing the decision-maker to differentiate between climate and nonclimate factors and decide whether a more detailed analysis is necessary.

The Adaptation Support Tool of the European Climate Adaptation Platform (Climate-ADAPT)

The European Commission and the European Environment Agency have partner to produce a European Climate Adaptation Platform (Climate-ADAPT). The platform contains an Adaptation Support Tool which aims to “assist users in developing climate change adaptation policies by providing guidance, links to relevant sources and dedicated tools.” (EEA, 2013)

The support tool is based on the stages model of the policy cycle, and emphasises that adaptation is an iterative process meaning that users are encouraged to re-consider different steps as necessary. This is done “ in order to ensure that adaptation decisions are based on up-to-date data, knowledge and policies...and will also allow monitoring and timely assessment of successes and failures and encourage adaptive learning. ” (EEA, 2013). The tool builds on and borrows from the UKCIP Adaptation Wizard and various risk assessment frameworks.

The steps in the Adaptation Support Tool are as follows:

1. Getting started
2. Assessing risks and vulnerability to climate change
3. Identifying adaptation options
4. Assessing adaptation options
5. Implementation
6. Monitoring & Evaluation

Risk management

Risk management is defined as the culture, processes and structures directed towards realising potential opportunities whilst managing adverse effects (AS/NZS, 2004). Risk is generally measured as a combination of the probability of an event and its consequences (ISO/IEC, 2002; see also Figure 2), with several ways of combining these two factors being possible.

Carter et al. (2007) refer to a risk management framework for providing guidance to methods for CCVIA assessments. Carter and Mäkinen (2011) argue that questions addressed by CCVIA assessments, which have evolved over time, correspond to a particular stage of the risk management process. Further, Jones and Preston (2011) argue that a risk management framework is broad enough to accommodate the diversity of approaches that have been applied in CCVIA. Impact assessment, for example, undertakes risk scoping and identification. The relationship of the risk management framework to other prominent approaches is illustrated in Table 1 below.

Policy Question	Stage of risk management	Methodological approach
Is climate change a problem?	Risk identification and the identification of scenario development needs (climate, environmental, social, and economic).	Sensitivity analysis
What are the potential impacts of unmanaged climate change?	Risk analysis, where the consequences and their likelihood are analysed. This is a highly developed area with a wide range of available methods to undertake impact analysis.	Scenario-driven impact assessment
How do we effectively adapt to climate change?	Risk evaluation, where adaptation and perhaps mitigation methods are prioritised.	Risk assessment Vulnerability assessment
Which adaptation options are the most effective?	Risk management or treatment, where selected adaptation and perhaps mitigation measures are applied.	Risk management Mainstreaming adaptation
Are we seeing the benefits?	Monitoring and review, where measures are assessed and the decision made to reinforce, re-evaluate or repeat	Implementation, monitoring and review

Risk governance

Risk governance extends beyond the classical framing of risk assessment, risk management and risk communication in that it also includes the wider societal, institutional and cultural context in which the risk occurs. It applies the principles of good governance (such as transparency, effectiveness, efficiency, and acceptability) to the domain of risk research and risk management (Jaeger et al., 2001) and emphasises how diverse people think about and respond to risks (Slovic, 1987). Hence, a prerequisite for “good” risk governance means understanding “the complex web of actors, rules, conventions, processes and mechanisms concerned with how relevant risk information is collected, analysed and communicated, and how management decisions are taken.” (Renn, 2008 p.9).

Concerns about the lack of capacity to cope with these major disasters has led to foundation of the International Risk Governance Council (IRGC) and the development of the IRGC risk governance framework (IRGC, 2005). This framework draws upon the literature and experiences of decades of risk research and risk management practise and is as response to the increasingly interconnected and complex challenges associated with major risks societies are facing.




The IRGC conceptualises risk governance in the following four iterative phases (Figure 2):

1. The pre-assessment phase aims to capture the variety of issues associated with a particular risk and to establish a common understanding of these amongst all relevant actors, with a particular emphasis placed on diverse framing of the issues. This step also includes an analysis of the risk governance institutions and arrangement currently in place such as monitoring networks, early warning systems, emergency response teams, contingency plans, compensation and insurance schemes, etc.
2. The risk appraisal phase aims at providing the knowledge base for the societal decision on how to deal with the risk. This comprises both a scientific assessment of the physical attributes of risk (hazard, vulnerability and risk quantification) as well as an assessment of the social concern and questions associated with the risk.
3. The risk characterisation and evaluation phase aims at judging whether the risk is acceptable or tolerable. Risk characterisation refers to the relevant scientific evidence and risk evaluation to the value-judgement of relevant stakeholders.
4.  Finally, the risk management phase aims at deciding and implementing appropriate risk management options. Risk management options are  assessed against a wide variety of criteria such as effectiveness, efficiency, external side effects, sustainability, fairness, ethical acceptability and public acceptance.

Risk communication is relevant throughout all of the four phases aiming at fostering mutual understanding amongst all actors involved as well as tolerance for conflicting views. It is important to note that the IRGC framework is not a one-size fits all prescription but a collection of strategies, methods and tools whose applicability depends on the context. The risk governance process must be flexible and open to adaptation for the specific context of each risk (Renn, 2008).

Community-based guidelines

Community Risk Assessment (CRA) refers to participatory methods to assess hazards, vulnerabilities and capacities in support of community-based disaster risk reduction. Methods have been updated so that climate change can also be explicitly incorporated in CRAs by making better use of CRA tools to assess trends, and by addressing the notion of changing risks (van Aaslt et al., 2008).

However, a key challenge described is to keep CRAs simple enough for wide application. This demands special attention in the modification of CRA tools; in the background materials and training for CRA facilitators; and in the guidance for interpretation of CRA outcomes.

A second challenge is in applying results of CRA to guide risk reduction in other communities and to inform national and international adaptation policy. Van Aaslt et al. (2008) argue that specific attention for sampling and scaling up qualitative findings is necessary. Finally, they argue that stronger linkages are required between organisations facilitating CRAs and suppliers of climate information, particularly addressing the translation
of climate information to the community level.

Community-based adaptation toolkit (CARE)

The community based adaptation toolkit is based on the CBA adaptation project cycle. This comprise three stages, while tools to address information and knowledge management should be used throughout. The cycle is based on:

1. Project Analysis: Stage where you learn more about the context in which you plan to work
2. Project Design: Stage when the findings of the analysis stage are used to develop and finalize project parameters prior to implementation.
3. Project Implementation: Stage when project resources are utilised, stakeholders and partners are actively engaged in implementing planned activities, the capacity of project stakeholders is built, and the project is Monitored and adapted to new conditions that may arise.
4. Information & Knowledge Management: An approach that incorporates monitoring & evaluation (M&E) for progress reporting, and focuses on learning, documentation and knowledge sharing.

• Pathfinder overview diagram

---

• Section overview
• Introduction
• Ways of framing adaptation
• Existing guidance and methodologies
• Approach of this guidance

---