By: Nagmeldin Elhassan & Sumaya Zaki-Eldeen on behalf of AF14 project _SUDAN

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

3. Sudan AF14: Major Objectives • To 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: The villages undertook a package of SL measures. These included: • Rangeland Rehabilitation: • Replanting, Stabilization of sand dunes, • Creation of windbreaks, • Livestock restocking and management • 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. • Climate variability and extremes as climate change proxy • These capitals were assessed based on three main dimensions productivity, equity and sustainability. Risk dimension was also considered

9. Cont. • A number of indicators have been identified with the community for three dimensionsfor 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. Before After rehabilitated land 100 80 60 40 20 0 forage production carrying capacity 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 othercommittees) • 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. Conclusions • 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

18. Thank You