Seguridad en los canales de transmisión de las transacciones bancarias por Internet

According to Shaw “community-based climate change approaches are getting recognition   as   one   of   the   important   climate   change   impacts   reduction   measures”  

(2006, p. 539). As mentioned earlier, CBA projects began to appear since 2003 (Sabates-Wheeler et al., 2008) which coincides with the time when adaptation became prominent on the climate policy agenda (Schipper, 2006). Three years later articles about community-based initiatives to climate change adaptation can be seen in the academic literature (Rojas Blanco, 2006; Shaw, 2006) and have exponentially increased   annually   in   accordance   with   Saleemul   Huq   and   Hannah   Reid’s   insight   in   2007   that   “Theory   and   practice   of   CBA   are   in   their   infancy,   but   both   are   likely   to   grow  very  rapidly”  (p. 2).

14 However similar principles may be seen to exist between CBA and the community architecture movement. For example, their development out of a reaction to perceived failures in top-down initiatives and their acknowledged value of community involvement in the design, construction and management of the environment.

Although academics and practitioners agree that CBA is a relatively new, and more development-oriented, layer to climate change adaptation (Ayers & Forsyth, 2009;

Ganapin, 2009; Huq & Reid, 2007), they also agree that discussions about involving local communities in policy decision-making processes related to the impacts of climate change have been taking place on the sidelines of international negotiations for several years before they emerged in the public eye (Rojas Blanco, 2006; van Aalst, Cannon, & Burton, 2008). Van Aalst and others (2008, p. 167) state a search for adaptation methods at the local scale and for ways to work from the bottom-up was first articulated in the UNEP guidelines in 1998¹⁵ and more fully captured in the Adaptation Policy Frameworks for Climate Change (APF) in 2005¹⁶. Specifically, Blanco (2006) notes that these discussions became more prominent since the eighth conference of the parties (COP-8) in Delhi at the end of 2002, following the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change (UNFCCC)¹⁷, when a series of side-events were organised by the International Institute of Environment and Development (IIED) and the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) highlighting the need to reflect upon adaptation initiatives.

Reasons for this growing attention to local impacts of climate change upon communities living in vulnerable areas and the necessary responses to build their resilience and adaptive capacity were identified briefly at the end of Chapter 1 and are namely that poor communities in low- and middle-income nations often rely more on natural resources; they have very low capacity to cope; they have few savings, few alternative livelihood opportunities, and no insurance; they are already close to or even below the poverty line; and most importantly, adaptation funding is least likely

15 See Feenstra, J., Burton, I., Smith, J., Tol, R. (Eds.) (1998). Handbook on methods for climate change impact assessment and adaptation strategies (Version 2.0). United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, and Institute for Environmental Studies, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, Netherlands.

16 See UNDP (2005). Adaptation Policy Frameworks for Climate Change. Developing Strategies, Policies and Measures. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK and New York NY.

17 UNFCCC entered into force on 21 March  1994  with  the  aim  to  set  “an  overall  framework  for  intergovernmental   efforts  to  tackle  the  challenge  posed  by  climate  change”.  The  conference  of  the  parties  (COP)  “is  the  ‘supreme  body’  

of the Convention, that is, its highest decision-making authority. It is an association of all the countries that are Parties to  the  Convention”  and  meets  annually  with  responsibility  to  keep  “international  efforts  to  address  climate  change  on   track”  (UNFCCC,  2011).

to reach them (Reid et al., 2010; Sabates-Wheeler et al., 2008). Furthermore, the increased attention upon communities and locally-based responses to climate change is driven  by  the  recognition  that:  1)  “traditional  top-down decision-making processes have become inadequate, due to their inability to create appropriate solutions for local communities”;;  2)  “communities  have  the  right  to  be  informed  about  the  ramifications of   climate   change”;;   and   3)   “also   they   are   capable   of   generating   solutions   likely   to   work  at  their  level”  (Rojas Blanco, 2006, pp. 140-141).

3.1.1 Conferences

As we notice above and will see from the following paragraphs when tracing discussions about involving local communities in policy decision-making processes related to the impacts of climate change two types of conferences, the conference of the parties (CoP) meetings and international workshops and conferences on CBA, appear as strategic lynchpins. The APFs mentioned above by Van Aalst and others stem from the five-year   “Nairobi   Work   Programme   on   Impacts,   Vulnerability   and   Adaptation  to  Climate  Change”  (NWP)  that  took  between  2004  and  2006  to  establish,   and which in sum was initiated at COP-10 in Buenos Aires (under Decision 1/CP.10), adopted at COP-11 in Hyderabad (under Decision 2/CP.11) and finalised at COP-12 in Nairobi (Covert, Kantai, Leopold, & Wilkins, 2011).  The  NWP’s  “objective  is  to   assist all Parties, in particular developing countries, including the least developed countries and small island developing states to: 1) improve their understanding and assessment of impacts, vulnerability and adaptation to climate change; and 2) make informed decisions on practical adaptation actions and measures to respond to climate change on a sound scientific, technical and socio-economic basis, taking into account current  and  future  climate  change  and  variability”  at  “international/regional  levels  as   well   as   at   central/local   government   levels”   (Sekine et al., 2009, p. 2; UNFCCC, 2011a, p. 2).

This is relevant for CBA because the NWP led to a workshop at COP-13 in Bali in 2007 that addressed each sector and level involved in the planning and implementation of adaptation, and which emphasized the importance of adaptation at community levels and of indigenous knowledge (Sekine et al., 2009). Key outcomes from the COP-13  negotiations,  explicitly  the  “Bali  Road  Map”¹⁸ and  the  “Bali  Action   Plan”   (adopted   under   Decision   1/CP.13),   also   provided significant momentum for adaptation,   and   CBA   therein.     The   Bali   Road   Map   called   for   “enhanced   action   on   adaptation”   with   specific   mention   to   addressing   the   vulnerability   to   climate   change   among communities in developing countries and to encouraging the work of civil society in adaptation, which was affirmed at COP-14   in   Poznań   (UN, 2009;

UNFCCC, 2007, p. 2). Furthermore the Bali Action Plan promoted adaptation as one of the four main building blocks in its course for a new negotiating process (to be completed by 2009) designed to tackle climate change (Carpenter, 2008, p. 9). The role of CoP meetings to promote adaptation and CBA actions continues to be significant. Specifically, the development of the CBA discourse is now facilitated through an established two-day  ‘Development  and  Climate  Days’  event  at  every  CoP,   which has a dedicated session to CBA (Huq & Reid, 2007; Reid et al., 2009).

Parallel to the CoP meetings and of increasing influence are the international CBA workshops and conferences, which bring together academics, development practitioners from NGOs and CBOs, branches of government, and donors (including UN agencies) to develop, share and disseminate concepts and practice of CBA. The First International Workshop on CBA was held in Dhaka, Bangladesh in January 2005   and   was   “jointly   organised   by   IIED,   RING   Alliance,   BCAS¹⁹ and the World Conservation   Union   (IUCN)” (Gutiérrez   &   Mead,   2007). Subsequent international workshops (termed conferences since 2010) on CBA have been organised by IIED

18 During COP-13  in  2007  “governments from around the world – both developed and developing countries – agreed to  step  up  their  efforts  to  combat  climate  change”  (Carpenter,  2008,  p.  7).    The  Bali  Road  Map  consists  of  a  number  of   forward-looking decisions that represent the various tracks that are essential to reaching a secure climate future.

19 Bangladesh Centre for Advanced Studies

with partner organisations and held biennially in 2007 and 2009 and then annually since 2010 with an increasing number of participants²⁰ and a widening scope of topics (see Table 9) (Covert et al., 2011). Bangladesh has been the predominant hosting country, however as of 2010 every second year a different country has hosted the CBA conference. In 2010 the host country was Tanzania and in 2012 it was held in Hanoi, Vietnam.

Over   eighty   representatives   from   “agencies   and   others   working   on   what   [is]   now   known as community-based   adaptation”   participated   in   the   First   International   Workshop on CBA in 2005 (Ayers & Huq, 2009, p. 1). Their objective in coming together  was  to  discuss  “the  possible  impacts  of  climate  change  on  local  communities living in vulnerable areas and how to enable them to adapt to climate change in the future”   (Gutiérrez   &   Mead,   2007,   p.   1). According to Ayers and Huq (2009) the outcomes of the workshop were therefore sharing of experiences in CBA practice, making contacts, and firming up the concept of CBA.

IISD in collaboration with IIED has taken responsibility to produce a summary report on subsequent International Workshops and Conferences on CBA since the second workshop in 2007. Their summary reports state that the objective of these events has become aiming to share the latest developments in adaptation planning and practices at different levels and to disseminate and consolidate knowledge among stakeholders, particularly in vulnerable communities, with a view to integrating adaptation into national and international development programmes (Gutiérrez & Mead, 2007;

Kantai, Louw, Nyingi, & Schulman, 2010; Leopold & Mead, 2009). The Fifth International  Conference  on  CBA  themed  ‘Scaling-up: Beyond  Pilots’  epitomises  this   as   it   focused   on   “the   need   to   spread   CBA   knowledge   and   practical   lessons   horizontally across communities and vertically across levels of governance and action”  (Covert et al., 2011, p. 1); this has subsequently been built upon in the Sixth

20 In recent years more people are opting to take part virtually and follow CBA conferences through web-based tools.

Key motivations are to cut expenses and carbon emissions (IIED, 2013).

and  Seventh  CBA  conferences  in  2012  and  2013  focused  on  “Communicating  CBA”  

and  “Mainstreaming  CBA  into  National  and  Local  Planning”,  respectively.    To  assist   in these aims, since 2007 the conferences include three days of field visits to CBA initiatives in vulnerable communities in the host country to allow participants to gain first hand experience.

Date Event Themes & topics Outcome

2005 First International

ii. How to enable adaptation in the future?

2007 Second International

A focus on scaling up beyond pilots in order to spread CBA knowledge and

national and local planning Publishing of CBA7 proceedings

Table 9. International workshops and conferences on Community-Based Adaptation to Climate Change (CBA) Source: Covert et al. (2011) and Ayers and Huq (2009)

Due to the nature and aims of these workshops and conferences it is possible to trace the evolution of the discourse and practice of CBA since 2007. In 2007, there was an emphasis within CBA on mainstreaming the understanding that (a) climate change is

relevant for development practitioners working with communities, and (b) that the entry point for building adaptive capacity is vulnerability to climatic variability (Ayers & Huq, 2009). Also the CBA community began to further self-organise through the conception of a network called CBA-Exchange (CBA-X) to centralise an anticipated   ‘tidal   wave’   of   CBA   projects and to serve as an online resource for sharing   “news,   views   and   practice”   on   CBA   in   the   form   of   case-studies, videos, policy resources, and tools²¹ (Ayers & Huq, 2009; Gutiérrez  &  Mead,  2007).

By 2009, it is purported that the battle about the value of CBA was principally won and hence discussions of CBA turned more nuanced about subtle differences in concepts and practice, for example how to distinguish CBA from other community-based developments (Ayers & Huq, 2009). Discussions about the role of major donors also came to the forefront after a realization that they were starting to engage in CBA. One example of this was a proposal from United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) to set up a CBA Fund Facility²² that would broaden the financial support options available to CBA activities (Ibid.). To help firm up CBA terminology and concepts a working group was formed at the Third CBA workshop whose work is shared through the CBA-X online platform, which was updated and formally launched in 2009. In addition, the Global Initiative on Community-Based Adaptation to Climate Change (GICBA)²³ was launched as a knowledge-sharing platform to communicate ongoing CBA experiences, refine learning and disseminate methodological tools. Between 2010 and 2013, the discourse on CBA continues to deepen and widen as among other topics discussions about scaling up,

21 The Community-Based Adaptation Exchange online platform is accessible at http://community.eldis.org/cbax/ and is hosted by Eldis, a knowledge service from the Institute of Development Studies (IDS) at Sussex University, in collaboration with IIED. According to Huq it has over 1,000 examples of CBA projects in early 2011 (Covert, 2011).

22 The CBA Fund Facility was formerly established in August 2009   as   ‘The   UN   Collaborative   Programme   on   Community-Based  Adaptation  to  Climate  Change  in  Developing  Countries’  (UN-CBA). For more information see Section 2.4.

23 GICBA is supported by several international organizations, namely: IIED, CARE, Oxfam, ActionAid, TearFund and WWF (Ayers and Huq, 2009, p. 2). Practically it exists to support the CBA-X website and the series of annual International Conferences on CBA as well as to promote CBA; support mainstreaming CBA into local and national development planning; and strengthen the capacity of stakeholders to support efforts at designing, implementing and scaling up CBA to climate change activities (weADAPT, 2009)^. How GICBA currently does this is not easily evident;

as of 2011 GICBA is briefly mentioned on the weADAPT website (see http://www.weadapt.org/initiative/13), but otherwise it is not well documented.

communication and mainstreaming of CBA practice are prominent. It is hoped that the output from these dialogues will also contribute to the IPCC Fifth Report to be published in 2014 (Huq, 2012).

3.1.2 Donors and Non-Governmental Organisations

Evidently the discussion above illustrates how conferences have played a significant role in the international awareness-raising and concept development of CBA.

However Shaw (2006) notes that not only has there been an increasing awareness at the international level for the need of CBA, for example through annual Conference of the Parties meetings and the international CBA conferences, but also donor agencies and non-governmental organisations have been instrumental in raising the profile and level of practice of CBA through pro-active funding. He refers to examples   such   as   UNDP’s   Global   Environment   Facility   and   many   other   bilateral   donors,   like   the   UK’s   Department   for   International   Development   (DfID),   Canadian   International Development Agency (CIDA), the European Union and the Netherlands government who have funded CBA projects since around 2005 (Ibid., p. 539). In addition   to   Shaw’s   list,   NGOs   such   as   Practical   Action,   ActionAid   UK,   Oxfam,   International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC), and CARE International have been instrumental. They bring experience and insight through reports, online platforms (especially CBA-X and weADAPT.org) and conference sessions from their projects to incorporate climate change into development work among poor and vulnerable communities in low- and middle-income nations. Examples of these projects will be described in Section 3.4.