1. World Resources Institute Side event in Montreal Moving from Rhetoric to Action on Adaptation Presentation Title: Lessons for Adaptation planning from dealing with present climate variability in Sudan By: Nagmeldin Elhassan & Sumaya Zaki-Eldeen on behalf of AF14 project _SUDAN

2. Sudan AF14: Overview  Partners: Higher Council for Environment and Natural Resources (HCENR) in Sudan and Stockholm Environment Institute Boston Center (SEI-Boston)  One of the 24 regional studies of AIACC: Global Assessment of Impacts and Adaptation to Climate Change in multiple regions and sectors http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/aiacc

3. Sudan AF14: Major Objectives T o prove that certain SL/EM measures increase the resilience of communities to climate related shocks  establish that these measures are effective and should be considered as climate change adaptation options that could be included in the planning of national adaptation strategies. to explore what enables them to be effective – i.e. what factors (participatory implementation, local governance, macro- economic policies, etc.) made it possible for the measures to be successful  Enhance and expand regional collaboration in the areas of EM, disaster mitigation and climate change adaptation

4. AF14 case studies Three case studies of successful SL projects in drought-prone communities

5. Community-Based Rangeland Rehabilitation (CBRR) Project Villages in the drought-prone Bara Province (Gireigikh ), North Kordofan, Western Sudan

6. Main Project objectives: –Create locally sustainable NRM system to rehabilitate overexploited lands, prevents degradation and improves range lands. –reduce the risk of production failure by increasing the number of livelihood alternatives… so that out-migration will decrease - reduce global warming through carbon sequestration, -preserve bio-diversity, and reduce atmospheric dust in the region

7. Major intervention of CBRRP:  Rangeland Rehabilitation: Replanting, Stabilization of sand dunes, Creation of windbreaks, Livestock restocking and management The villages undertook a package of SL measures. These included:  Institution Building  Training and capacity building  Community Development: Water development, Rural energy management, Introduction of revolving credit, Drought contingency planning

8. Methods for assessing adaptive capacity, adaptation options and uncertainties  Sustainable Livelihoods Framework and its concept of the five capitals (Natural, human, financial, physical and social) has been used.  These capitals were assessed based on three main dimensions productivity, equity and sustainability. Risk dimension was also considered  Climate variability and extremes as climate change proxy

9. Cont.  A number of indicators have been identified with the community for three dimensions for the five capitals  An assessment sheet was used to compare the situation before and after the intervention of the CBRRP  Word picture

10. Results: Natural Resources (natural capital) Rangeland improved in area, and the grazing allotment system introduced by the project improved the quality and diversity of rangeland, and hence its forage production (carrying capacity) Livestock improved in number and productivity particularly the sheep which was reintroduced to the project area Land use system become more adapted, more land allocated as grazing allotments at the expense of marginal land cultivation Access by marginalized groups improved particularly to grazing allotments

11. 0 20 40 60 80 100 rehabilitated land carrying capacity forage production BeforeAfter Assessment of productivity of natural capital before and after intervention of range land rehabilitation project

12. Results : Financial Resources (financial capital) Access to credits (revolving funds and local banking system) improved More diversity of income sources (livestock, women gardens, poultry, small industries etc) Access to market very much improved, local market linked to national and regional markets (favored by supportive policy) Average income improved in level and stability More information become available and people learned how to use information for marketing and planning purposes

13. Results: Infrastructure (Physical capital) Water infrastructure improved, water harvesting systems and water pumps more water made available for household and irrigation purposes Food storage improved in capacity and quality (grains stores, grains mills) Mud building instead of using natural vegetation Improved stoves introduced and adopted Women gardens, Grazing allotments, veterinary pharmacy etc

14. Results: Human Resources (human and social capitals) Number of trained skilled people increased in areas of planning, NRM, veterinary, human health service, pumps and mills maintenance etc (high level of awareness). Education, human health and veterinary services improved Food production and quality improved (women gardens) Efficient Local institutions well recognized and able to mobilize community and to carry on interventions (natural resources, drought, revolving funds, coordination and other committees) Marginal groups are well represented in committees and participating in decision making Traditional leaders support the committees

15. Results: Sustainability and Risks concerns Number of migrating tribes attracted by the resources in the project area, they come along with their animals lack of clear land use and land tenure policies, lack of rangeland legislation and lack of proper coordination between the people and the rangeland administration. Committees lack adequate financial and logistical resources which affect their performance Need for political recognition and support Migration of trained people to work in towns and irrigated schemes

16. Conclusions  Adaptations to current climate risks are generally consistent with adapting to future climate change  Immediate actions on AC building and enhancement of current coping capacity are necessary to reduce vulnerability to current climate-related risks and climate change.  Adaptive capacity can improve where people have better access to resources, market, technology, information, social service, high level of awareness, skills, security, strong institutions and effective organizations  National policy processes and SD planning need to integrate AC building and adaptation strategies at the community level

17.  Effective mechanisms for information exchange and sharing of experiences are highly needed to advance knowledge and actions on adaptation  Need to understand the processes, priorities and dynamics of natural systems and local communities before formulating practical adaptation strategies  The sustainable livelihood framework as a bottom up approach to assess adaptation was proved to be appropriate to address integration of biodiversity in adaptation planning  Projects such as the one under study proved to be a win-win- win option for achieving synergy between MEAs Conclusions

18. Thank You