You are here: Home / Toolbox / Details

---

Toolbox home References 19 short descriptions

Why it is important

Adapting to a changing climate (in a world that is simultaneously changing in many other ways) is a good example of a wicked or unbounded problem described by Chapman (2002) as problems where there is no clear agreement about what the problem is, there is uncertainty and ambiguity as to how to make improvements and the problem has no limits in terms of the time and resources it could absorb. Addressing such problems requires an approach that brings in the perspectives of those involved, not only on the problem definition but also what a successful solution might be like. This may not be easy, especially where resources are scarce and there is a history of conflict. Processes of dialogue are needed that engage all those with either influence over the process or those affected by it, and enable them to contribute freely and be heard and understood by the other people involved. Much has been said and written about stakeholder engagement and the use of participatory processes. Good arguments for engaging people that will be affected in adaptation processes are given in the following Box.

Participatory initiatives are likely to be sustainable because they build on local capacity and knowledge, the participants have ‘ownership’ of any decisions made and are thus more likely to comply with them Working closely with local communities can help decision-makers gain greater insight into the communities they serve, enabling them to work more effectively and produce better results. In turn, the communities can learn how the decision-making process works and how they can influence it effectively. The process of working and achieving things together can strengthen communities and build adaptive capacity through developing awareness of priority issues in the community, different perspectives on this as well as finding ways to address them. It can reinforce the role of local organisations, and build confidence, skills and capacity to cooperate. In this way it increases people’s potential for reducing their vulnerability and may give them confidence to tackle other challenges, individually and collectively. Participation in the planning, implementation and evaluation of projects by stakeholders accords with people’s right to participate in decisions that affect their lives. Processes of engagement can improve the likelihood of equity in decision-making and provide solutions for conflict situations. The process of engaging stakeholders may take longer than conventional processes but may be more cost-effective in the long term than externally driven initiatives because a stakeholder process that works well is more likely to be sustainable and because the process allows the ideas to be tried, tested and refined before adoption.

Box 3.7.3.1: The benefits of Stakeholder Engagement (adapted from Twigg, 2001)

Adaptation processes need to be flexible enough to support improvisation, rather than focus on control and predictable outputs that may be impossible to achieve. In such a dynamic and unpredictable system it is not possible to give guidance on ‘best practice’ as the future is unknown. Guidance therefore focuses on how to equip ourselves to create the conditions and capacity that will allow us to pick up signals of change, have options that are robust to a range of situations and be able to respond effectively. This requires us to be better at noticing change, reflecting on our assumptions of what is happening and what needs to change and learn so that our next actions get the benefit of our experience.

Tools and methods need to make sense ‘on the ground’ if they are to be absorbed and implemented. This highlights the need for ‘coproduction’ of knowledge through collaborative learning approaches between experts and users. This sounds deceptively simple but working in collaboration is not easy. Issues around power and who controls the process can have a significant impact on how effective the collaboration is in building effective learning rather than reproducing (or even reinforcing) previously held and unhelpful perceptions and a sense that ‘things will never change’. Collaboration in which both sides can address such issues openly requires an investment in building relationships and breaking down previously held perceptions of the other. Processes of collaborative learning and sharing multiple perspectives, all depend on the quality of the relationships between the individuals in the system. People need to be supported to be able to engage, especially if they are unfamiliar with participating in such exercises. Without this the level of the interaction will be reduced. The role of the facilitator becomes important here as someone who can, from a neutral position (or accepted non neutral position), encourage and support processes of engagement and dialogue.

The level of participation varies
Robert Chambers, one of the early proponent of participatory processes argues that it is up to each individual to puzzle out for themselves how they should interpret and express ‘participation’ (Chambers, 2005). In attempts to provide some structure, a number of ladders and spectra have been developed to categorise different levels at which people can participate in a process. Arnstein (1969) viewed citizen participation as a form of citizen power, suggesting the definition ‘the redistribution of power that enables the ‘have-not citizens’ presently excluded from the political and economic processes, to be deliberately included in the future’.

A more updated ladder of participation is offered by Pretty (1995) below in Figure 3.7.3.1.


This can be simplified further into who has power over the process of decision making with the spectrum ranging from stakeholders being ignored to stakeholders taking all the decisions with every permutation in between. From these ladders it can be seen that stakeholder engagement approaches vary from quite passive interactions, where the stakeholders are simply informed or provide information, to ‘self mobilisation’, where the stakeholders themselves initiate and design the entire process. Engagement closer to self-mobilisation is not necessarily ‘better’ because it is more participatory and different levels of participation are appropriate for different stages of the project and experience of the research team. Consideration thus has to be given to who is making the decisions at each stage of the adaptation process e.g

• Defining the research agenda
• Developing the assessment proposal
• Preparatory phase
• Implementation
• Analysis of results
• Dissemination and action

Kanji and Greenwood, (2001), propose a number of different levels of participation for each stage distinguished as:

• Compliance: where tasks and incentives are aligned but the agenda and process is directed by outsiders
• Consultation: where local opinions are sought, outsiders analyse and decide the course of action
• Cooperation: where local people work with outsiders to determine priorities; the responsibility to direct the process lies with outsiders
• Co-learning: where local people and outsiders share knowledge, create new understanding and work together to form action plans
• Collective action: where local people set their own agenda and mobilise to carry it out in the absence of outsiders

Defining how we see participatory approaches fitting in with our projects at each stage is a key part of the design process although it should be seen as part of an iterative process and thus likely to change to some extent as the project progresses. However, it is important to be honest with ourselves and with the people we work with about how they are being involved with openness, as far as it possible, about how the information they provide will be used and whether they have any power to influence decisions, what decisions have already been taken and what positions are already fixed. It may be that the actual engagement activities may be very participatory, but the overall process is not effective because the scope of the engagement is too constrained and there is no opportunity for developing creative solutions.

Participation is more than a set of techniques


Participatory approaches can be used in a wide variety of settings and scales to help solve short and long-term problems at local, regional and national levels. Such processes are often overtly about empowerment and building the capacity of those involved to increase their power to analyse and act and increase their control over resources necessary for their lives. Processes that engage people in decisions that affect key aspects of their lives and livelihoods inevitably need to give serious consideration to the boundaries of such engagement and what the impact might be of low involvement, raising false expectations or failing to include key voices in the process. Participatory processes can also be viewed as ‘exercises in the use and control of power to depict reality, its causes and what to do about it’ (Mbilinyi and Rajani, 2001) and thus need to be seen as far more than a set of tools and methods. There has been a backlash against the use of participatory approaches in both developed and developing world contexts (Cooke and Kothari, 2002) as they have been used without attention to the ethical aspects, to extract information quickly with no follow up or results to those who participated. Purely extractive research may be appropriate in certain situations but it becomes unethical if it is being badged as being ‘participatory’.

The mantra for participatory approaches is often about the need for ‘open institutions’ and increased public engagement in decision making but many initiatives have very little power to make real changes and skirt around the issues involved as vested interests find ways to reduce what is up for discussion preventing the possibility of tackling the root causes of a situation or identifying real solutions thus maintaining the status quo and existing unsustainable ways of doing things. This can lead to a feeling of great ‘fatigue’ amongst those involved.

Sometimes it is hard for ‘outsiders’ coming into a situation to really understand what is happening in a community as they do not see the power play in operation, for example, that some people are excluded from participating or may not feel comfortable about speaking when certain other people are in the room. To overcome this local people can be used to facilitate the process and constantly verify and cross check information for trustworthiness throughout the process. Lack of concrete action resulting from the work is another cause of ‘participation fatigue’ as is a rigid agenda that remains inflexible even as new insights are gained and priorities change. Fixed, externally-determined agendas from the onset may well narrow the discussions in such a way as to make it uninteresting or even irrelevant to those being asked to participate.

Mbilinyi and Rajani, (2001) in their paper on Conceptual Issues: Research and Social Action gives a spectrum of approaches for engaging with communities based on the goal of the work, how much reflexivity is involved, whether the decision making structures are top-down or bottom up
and the ownership and recipients of the information.

To achieve the empowering end of the spectrum the role of the outsider has to change significantly from one of ‘expert’ to one of ‘facilitator’. This transition in role was explored by Donald Schön (1983) in his book ‘The Reflective Practitioner: how professionals think in action’.

Expert Reflective practitioner	Reflective practitioner
I am presumed to know and must claim to do so regardless of my own uncertainty	I am presumed to know but I am not the only one in the situation to have relevant and important knowledge. My uncertainties may be a source of learning for me and for them.
Keep my distance from the client and hold onto the expert role. Give the client a sense of my expertise but convey a feeling of warmth and sympathy as a ”sweetener”.	Seek out connections to the client´s thoughts and feelings. Allow his respect for my knowledge to emerge from his discovery of it in the situation.
Look for deference and status in the clients response to my professional persona.	Look for the sense of freedom and of real connection to the client as a consequence of no longer needing to maintain a professional façade

 
The role of the external person shifts from being in control and has to ‘learn to be silent, to listen, to sit on the ground attentively and not to  lecture, not ‘to wag a finger or a stick’.

According to Blackburn and Holland (1998),

In the most participatory approaches, facilitators act as a catalyst and a support to the process but it is the local people who decide what to do with the information and analysis that is generated. They may choose to use the findings for their research or even to influence policy but there is usually a commitment on the part of the facilitating organisation to support any action that has been decided on through the process.

Undertaking a participatory approach
Taking a participatory approach requires a shift in the role of convenors from that of ‘experts’ to facilitators and co-learners. Facilitators of the process are responsible for ensuring the process of recording and presenting findings takes place and that the objectives of the process are revisited regularly to check that the process is still going in the right direction and to revise as appropriate. The different layers and stages of the process need to be anticipated and actively facilitated and this involves many subtle judgements about what to do, how far to push certain issues, how and whether to record what is said and done, and how to catalyse action. ‘What emerges is neither a neutral set of ‘facts’, nor a neutral process’ Cornwall and Gaventa, (2000).

Relationship building is an important part of participatory approaches and the quality of the relationships is closely linked to the development of trust and learning and capacity building. Pelling and High (2005) emphasise the importance of making sure there are informal spaces for making such connections for adaptation. Relational skills are needed to do this kind of work but are often not recognised or valued. Projects may talk about the importance of ‘good people management’ or the interpersonal skills of members of a project team, but this is not generally rewarded as an organisational or project asset. There is an assumption that everyone can do this or that is just ‘being nice’.

Clarity about the goal of the work, the scope of involvement at different stages and what people can expect to get from being involved is essential as is and checking for trustworthiness and triangulation of what is emerging. Use techniques that get to the heart of the issues but need to be skilled in creating a feeling of safety in order to do this. It may feel very dangerous for people to say what they really think especially about scare and shared resources. There is a clear ethical aspect to this: are you putting people in danger? So you need to be asking questions of the process (What can be said? In whose presence? Who dominates?). Where possible local facilitators can be used who understand the local situation, speak the local language and understand the context. Training local people who are recognised as trustworthy by the local community is also another way of building local capacity to act and ensuring that the work has a legacy beyond the end of the project.

Facilitators play a key role in the success of any project . Good facilitators do not need high qualifications but certain characteristics are important e.g. personal commitment to a participatory process (rather than a particular outcome), reliability, a good listener, able to reflect back and summarise clearly and without bias, good questioner (for clarification and deepening understanding), be open to outcome, able to work as part of a team, understand and be able to manage group dynamics, enable everyone to contribute, able to communicate well with all stakeholders. This is a lot to expect from one person but the facilitators of a process can act as a support for each other.

Participation need to happen at all stages of the process (scoping, designing, implementing, evaluating) and not just at the data gathering stage. Participatory approaches are sometimes viewed simplistically as fun, visual ways to generate interesting information and stop at this point, with a large amount of unstructured information that is taken away from those who generated it, analysed but never checked back due to lack of time or resources. Reflection on and analysis of the material generated is where patterns are noticed, deeper meanings identified and shared and a maturing of the learning becomes possible. Ideally, those who contributed to the generation of this information should also be involved in this stage of the process as this will build their capacity for analysis, increase the quality and, you would hope, social equity of the outputs. As in any editing or prioritisation process, the people who undertake this stage have a great deal of influence over what is considered as ‘important’ and what results. By taking away the information from those who generated it and analysing it remotely it is easy to misunderstand meanings. For example, undertaking the process of reflection and analysis within a community and with the people that produced the original material not only massively increases the quality of the data, the suitability of the ideas and solutions that come out of the process but also enables those involved to gain confidence in their ability to represent their views to others. By delving deeper into the causes of the problems and understanding more about why these issues are important and the reasons behind it, it becomes possible to identify realistic and relevant solutions. At each stage judgements are made about which pieces of information are the most important to providing a clear picture of what is happening and thus identifying satisfactory solutions.

General note about participatory tools:
When undertaking a participatory approach generally a number of tools are grouped together e.g. timelines, venn diagrams, seasonal calendars, ranking exercises. Often a number of different tools can be used to unearth relevant information and if one is not working you could swap for another one. There is an ethos of ‘open source’, sharing and adaptation in the use of participatory tools. Tools can be adapted to a specific context and do not have to be applied rigidly. Tools should be ‘held lightly’ to allow you to follow lines of enquiry more deeply, check for trustworthiness and ask better questions. The most important thing is to know why you are using them.

Many of the tools can be used at different stages of the process e.g. the same tool (rich pictures or H diagram) can be used to scope the problem, to gain others perspectives, to identify priorities for learning and to evaluate the process. Many of the tools can be used to promote learning if they are part of a process of action, reflection and planning. The extent to which this happens depends to a large extent on the skills of the facilitators. The same tools can be thus used to either simply help find a solution to a particular problem (basic facilitation) or to do this while the group also learns how to find solutions to similar problems arising in the future (developmental facilitation).

Useful learning can also come from undertaking a review of the tools used with the participants. How easy was it to use this tool? What did it not enable you to say? What got in the way? How could you improve it?

---

Sources of guidance and tools for participatory processes

Name	Description	References
The Barefoot Guide to working with Organisations and Social Change	This practical guide was developed by the Barefoot Collective for leaders and facilitators wanting to help organisations to function and develop in more healthy, human and effective way. The guide, and the supporting website, introduces concepts of organisational change, stories of managing change and participatory exercises to support the practice of anyone working with organisations and social movements. It is aimed at leaders and facilitators of civil society organisations, but it has a much wider application to anyone managing processes of engaging people around an issue or collaboration in a project. It is currently available in English and Bahasa Indonesia	http://www.barefootguide.org/
The Barefoot Guide to Learning Practices in Organisations and Social Change	The Barefoot Guide to Learning Practices in Organisations and Social Change is a free, downloadable and practical resource for leaders, facilitators and practitioners involved in social change who want to improve and enrich their learning processes. This guide is the joint effort of a group of development practitioners from across the globe to help them (and inspire others) to start, and continue, the journey towards learning and social change. It includes topics on community mobilising and development, adult learning, funding, evaluation, facilitation, and creative writing. There is an emphasis on using accessible language and avoiding ‘development speak’. There is also a Companion Booklet with practical ideas and tips for designing and facilitating good learning processes. Any new resources will be posted in the Resource Centre.	http://www.barefootguide.org/
Successful Communication Toolkit, ODI	This handbook was inspired by the recognition that many communication programmes fail to create meaningful change. It is designed to help development actors communicate better by moving beyond simple provision of information to focus on forms of communication that ‘inspire, inform and promote learning’. This toolkit explores such issues as why knowledge is not being used to inform policy and practice, how information and knowledge can be most appropriately targeted and what is it that makes communication clear and accessible and inspirational. The tools are divided into 4 sections: planning, packaging, targeting and monitoring.	http://www.odi.org.uk/resources/docs/192.pdf
The Guide to Effective Participation	An online guide by David Wilcox started in 1994 for community activists and professionals seeking to get other people involved in social, economic and environmental projects and programmes.   It was funded by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, a charitable organisation with a social justice focus in the UK. Some of the material may look a bit dated but it still has lots of useful advice about the reality of community engagement such as 'quick fixes' to avoid and 10 key ideas about participation.	http://www.partnerships.org.uk/guide/
Participatory Learning and Action Notes (PLA Notes)	Informal journal on participatory methods and approaches collated by IIED. Full of examples of use and reflection on practice and tips for others. Issues may be 'general' or focussed on a certain topic. Recent topics have included: young citizens: youth and participatory governance in Africa ; How wide are the ripples? From local participation to international organisational learning and Community Based Adaptation to Climate Change.	http://www.iied.org/natural-resources/ key-issues/empowerment-and-landrights/ participatory-learning-and-action
Auditing community participation - an assessment handbook	This is a guide to assessing levels of community involvement in area regeneration initiatives but with wider application to any community engagement activity. Taking part in such an audit, will enable participants to reflect, through dialogue with others, on what has been achieved and what has value. The report provides tools and appraisal exercises for measuring: the history and patterns of participation; the quality of participation strategies adopted by partners and partnerships; the capacity within partner organisations to support community participation; the capacity within communities to participate effectively; the impact of participation and its outcomes.	http://www.jrf.org.uk/publications/ auditing-community-participation
Participatory Tools to aid adaptation	A summary table on the weADAPT site by Kathleen Dietrich of Penn State University of some of the many different tools used by practitioners in their work on adaptation. Many of these tools started life in the Development or Disaster Risk reduction fields, but have been being applied to support adaptation also.	http://weadapt.org/knowledgebase/ adaptation-decision-making/ participatory-tools-to-aid-adaptation
Resources relating to gender and climate change: how climate changes and the impacts resulting affect women differently to men	Climate Change affects men and women differently largely due to differing roles and responsibilities. Gender analysis is thus an important part of climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction. Here is list of 174 resources relating to gender and climate change and disaster risk reduction related documents from the International Strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction ( ISDR) partnership and the disaster risk reduction (DRR) community	http://www.preventionweb.net/english/ professional/publications/?tid=38
Learning together to manage together - improving participation in water management	A handbook about ideas, approaches and methods for supporting public participation and social learning for water managers responsible for implementing the European Water Framework Directive but with a wider application to people engaged in all forms of natural resource management. Covers topics such as: building trust, developing common views, arriving at joint solutions and encouraging active participation.	http://www.harmonicop.uniosnabrueck. de/HarmoniCOPHandbook.pdf
Rural appraisal: rapid, relaxed and participatory	A discussion paper written by Robert Chambers, one of the early proponents of PRA, that describes the history and evolution, utility, challenges, discoveries, reversals and potential of PRA approaches	http://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/ bitstream/handle/123456789/774/ Dp311.pdf?sequence=1
Adaptation, gender and women’s empowerment	A particular climate hazard, such as a drought, does not affect all people within a community – or even the same household – equally because some people have greater capacity than others to manage the crisis. The inequitable distribution of rights, resources and power – as well as repressive cultural rules and norms – constrains many people’s ability to take action on climate change. This is especially true for women. Therefore, gender is a critical factor in understanding vulnerability to climate change and any analysis needs to include an examination of differential vulnerability due to social, political and economic inequalities. This assessment helps to tailor adaptation strategies to the specific needs, capacities and priorities of women.	http://www.careclimatechange.org/files/ toolkit/CARE_Gender_Brief_2010.pdf
Indigenous Peoples Biocultural Climate Change Assessment Annex for Methodological Toolkit for Local Assessments	This toolkit describes a practical methodology for developing and facilitating indigenous local assessments under the framework of the Indigenous Peoples Biocultural Climate Change Assessment (IPCCA), providing tools, methods and practical examples to support their local implementation. Since the context in which local assessments are undertaken across different regions of the world, vary considerably, this guide aims to provide a general methodological framework that is applicable to all local assessments without generalising differences, enabling results to be synthesised and appropriate strategic responses made within each given context.	http://ipcca.info/blog/2011/12/23/firstedition- of-the-ipcca-methodologicaltoolkit/

Examples of guidance and toolkits for Participatory Vulnerability and Capacity Assessments

Name	Description	References
Red Cross Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment	This is intended as a simple and practical guide for National Society staff and volunteers who wish to undertake a local-level VCA, as part of their community programming strategy the guide contains  a number of examples of VCA in practice. Vulnerability and capacity assessment (VCA) was developed to enable National Societies to help communities understand the hazards that affect them and take appropriate measures to minimize their potential impact and prevent hazards turning into disasters. These measures are based on communities own skills, knowledge and initiatives. VCA helps people identify the risks that they face in their locality, their vulnerability to those risks and their capacity to cope with and recover should a serious event occur.	For more information go to: http://www.ifrc.org/Global/Publications/ disasters/vca/how-to-do-vcaen.pdf Example from Rwanda http://www.ifrc.org/Global/Case%20studies/ Disasters/cs-vca-rwanda.pdf
Action Aid Participatory Vulnerability Analysis	A step-by-step field guide for field staff (and the communities in which they work). this guide is developed to assist field workers and communities to analyse people’s vulnerability, draw action plans, mobilise resources and enact appropriate policies, laws and strategies to reduce their vulnerability to disaster. This guide is specifically developed consistent with the PVA approach to: establish links between emergencies and development; — recognise developments or events at national and international level and how these impact on communities’ vulnerability; use the output of local level analysis to inform national and international level action and policies.	For more information go to: http://www.actionaid.org.uk/doc_lib/ 108_1_participatory_vulnerability_ analysis_guide.pdf Examples of the use of PVA in a number of situations is given here: http://www.actionaid.org.uk/ _content/documents/ pva_case_studies.pdf
Practical Action Participatory Climate Risk Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment (PCR-VCA)	This is a methodology developed by Practical Action that incorporates climate risk into commonly used Vulnerable and Capacity Assessment. Some of the tools have newly been developed and tested to assess the community’s perceptions of increased climate risk and its impact on their lives and livelihoods. PCR-VCA provides a set of tools to operationalise the Adaptive Livelihood Framework (AFL) which suggests that increased adaptive capacity cannot be achieved through a single, narrow interventions and a more holistic approach is needed to accurately identify the challenges and barriers. For example a strong asset base and a supportive enabling environment are necessary preconditions for building the adaptive capacity of communities. PCR-VCA set of tools are broadly categorised under three different themes:assessing the community’s overall risk context; assessing livelihood assets base and assessing the enabling environment	http://practicalaction.org/docs/south_asia/ participatory-climate-riskvulnerability.pdf
Christian Aid's Good Practice Guide to Participatory Vulnerability and Capacity assessment	This guidance explore why and how to carry out a PVCA including the main challenges that Christian Aid staff and partners have faced while carrying out the exercise, offering recommendations on how to overcome them. Part one of these guidelines explains what PVCA is, the benefits of this approach and when it can be applied. Part two describes a step-by-step approach to conducting the assessment and the main challenges that are likely to occur at each step. PVCA was developed as a disaster risk reduction tool to be used for designing any livelihoods or poverty reduction projects. With increasing understanding of the short, medium and long-term impacts of climate change, the importance of applying PVCA to a wider set of livelihood risks is growing . It also helps reveal the links between the different kind of risks a community faces and how they interact.	For more information go to: http://community.eldis.org/? 233@@.59e79141! enclosure=.59e79148&ad=1 Example of undertaking a PCVA from Bangladesh http://buildingcommunityresilience.org/ index.php?title=Towards_Building_A_ Disaster_Resilient_Community:_an_example_ of_PVCA_from_Bangladesh
Participatory Tool on Climate and Disaster Risks: integrating Climate Change and Disaster Risk Reduction into Community Level Development Projects	The tool aims to help community-level project developers, managers and coordinators to analyse existing or planned development projects with respect to climate change and disaster risks.The tool seeks to help users to understand how climate risks and other natural hazards affect local livelihoods in their project area and how the local population currently deals with these hazards. The tool can also helps in evaluating how existing or planned projects affect local resources that are vulnerable to climate and disaster risks, considering gender-specific issues and adjust existing projects or design new activities designed to strengthen beneficiaries’ adaptive capacity. The tool aims to integrate climate change and disaster risks into all community-level development activities. It can also be used to devise advocacy strategies. NB The tool is largely based on CRiSTAL and on the Care CVCA (see above) and using the same open-source philosophy readers and users are encouraged to apply and adjust the Participatory Tool on Climate and Disaster Risks for their own purposes.	http://www.adaptationlearning.net/ guidance-tools/climate-proofing-toolstrengthening- local-adaptation-andmitigation- capacities-commun
Framework for Community-Based Climate Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment in Mountain Areas, ICIMOD	This Framework for Community-Based Climate Vulnerability and Capacity Assessments in Mountain Areas provides a methodology for assessing environmental and socio-economic changes affecting the livelihoods of rural, natural resource dependent communities living in mountainous environments. It also gives guidance on how to gain a better understanding of the various forces which shape mountain communities’ vulnerabilities, and places a special focus on the capacities inherent to these communities for coping with and adapting to environmental and socioeconomic changes. The rationale of the framework is based on the assumption that in order to identify the key determinants for future adaptation, we need to have a much better understanding of current climate change impacts, of mountain communities’ perception of these changes, and of their traditional repertoire of response strategies.	The framework is intended primarily for development practitioners and institutions working on climate change vulnerability and adaptation in mountainous environments.
Climate Change Adaptation: enabling living in poverty to adapt	Case studies from around the world to explore what is needed to enable people living in poverty to adapt to climate change, and the range of interventions that are available. This approach brings together experience in the areas of livelihoods, natural resource management, and Disaster Risk Reduction, with robust decision making in order to manage uncertainty and risk, and to build adaptive capacity from household to national and global levels. The report identifies the combined need for bottom-up and top-down processes in order to create the enabling conditions needed for people living in poverty to adapt to climate change.	http://policy-practice.oxfam.org.uk/ publications/climate-changeadaptation- enabling-people-living-inpoverty- to-adapt-111978