UNDP (2015) Mt EbA report FINAL2 web vs (041215)

iCHAPTER 1 PROGRAMME OVERVIEW
Making the Case for
Ecosystem-based Adaptation:
THE GLOBAL MOUNTAIN EBA PROGRAMME IN
NEPAL, PERU AND UGANDA

ii
Authors
Lead author: Ninni Ikkala Nyman
Contributing author (Chapter 2):Tine Rossing
Contributing author (Chapter 3): Babatunde Abidoye, PhD
Acknowledgements
The following colleagues provided valuable suggestions, reviews and contributions: Anu Adhikari, Edmund
Barrow, Essey Daniel, Pablo Dourojeanni, Cordula Epple, Edith Fernandez Baca, Silvia Giada, Hum Gurung,
Adriana Kato, Sophie Kutegeka, James Leslie, Musonda Mumba, Assan Ngombe, Paul Nteza, Karen Podvin,
Yalamber Rai, Felix Ries and Florencia Zapata.
Special thanks to Caroline Petersen and Tine Rossing for detailed review, technical guidance and support.
Additional thanks toTine Rossing for extended assistance with images, layout and design.
The author also wishes to thank the following people who provided their time and insights during interviews:
Keith Alverson, Woodro Andia Castelo, Maureen Anino, Laura Avellaneda, Edmund Barrow, Eduardo Durand,
Jorge O. Elgegren, Cordula Epple, Edith Fernández-Baca, Richard Gafabusa, Aneli Gomez, Rajendra Khanal,
Sophie Kutegeka, Walter Lopez, Paul Mafabi, Musonda Mumba, Paul Nteza, Pragyajan Yalamber Rai, Ali Raza
Rizvi, Felix Ries, Angella Rwabutomize and AntonioTejada Moncada.
Copyright: © UNDP 2015. All rights reserved. Published by the United Nations Development Programme.
Citation: United Nations Development Programme (2015) Making the Case for Ecosystem-Based Adaptation:
The Global Mountain EbA Programme in Nepal, Peru and Uganda. NewYork.
Illustrations: Nieves Lopez Izquierdo/GRID-Arendal, based on technical guidance from Tine Rossing, Pablo
Dourojeanni, Caroline Petersen, Ninni Ikkala Nyman, Edith Fernandez-Baca, Adriana Kato, Yalamber Rai and
Paul Nteza.
Editing: Susan Guthridge-Gould, Beyond Jargon LLC
Design and printing: Phoenix Design Aid A/S. Printed in Denmark by Phoenix Design Aid A/S, a CO2 neutral
company accredited in the fields of quality (ISO 9001), environment (ISO14001) and CSR (DS49001), and
approved provider of FSC™ certified products.
Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes is authorised without
prior written permission from the copyright holder provided the source is fully acknowledged. Reproduction
of this publication for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior written permission of
the copyright holder.
The designation of geographical entities in this book, and the presentation of the material, do not imply the
expressionofanyopinionwhatsoeveronthepartofUNDPconcerningthelegalstatusofanycountry,territory,
or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.
Cover photo: Adriana Kato, UNDP Peru

Making the Case for
Ecosystem-based Adaptation:
THE GLOBAL MOUNTAIN EBA PROGRAMME IN
NEPAL, PERU AND UGANDA

iv MAKING THE CASE FOR ECOSYSTEM-BASED ADAPTATION: The Global Mountain EbA Programme in Nepal, Peru and Ugandaiv
UNEP, the United Nations Environment Programme, is the leading global environmental authority that sets the global environmental agenda,
promotes the coherent implementation of the environmental dimension of sustainable development within the United Nations system and
serves as an authoritative advocate for the global environment. UNEP work encompasses: assessing global, regional and national environmental
conditionsandtrends;developinginternationalandnationalenvironmentalinstruments;andstrengtheninginstitutionsforthewisemanagement
of the environment. www.unep.org
UNDP, the United Nations Development Programme, partners with people at all levels of society to help build nations that can withstand crisis,
and drive and sustain the kind of growth that improves the quality of life for everyone. On the ground in 170 countries and territories, we offer
global perspective and local insight to help empower lives and build resilient nations. www.undp.org
IUCN, the International Union for Conservation of Nature, helps the world find pragmatic solutions to our most pressing environment and
development challenges. IUCN’s work focuses on valuing and conserving nature, ensuring effective and equitable governance of its use, and
deploying nature-based solutions to global challenges in climate, food and development. IUCN supports scientific research, manages field
projects all over the world, and brings governments, NGOs, the UN and companies together to develop policy, laws and best practice.
IUCN is the world’s oldest and largest global environmental organization, with more than 1,200 government and NGO members and almost
11,000volunteerexpertsinsome160countries.IUCN’sworkissupportedbyover1,000staffin45officesandhundredsofpartnersinpublic,NGO
and private sectors around the world. www.iucn.org
BMUB, Germany’s Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety, provides funding through the
InternationalClimateInitiative(IKI).Since2008,theIKIhasbeenfinancingclimateandbiodiversityprojectsindevelopingandnewlyindustrializing
countries, as well as in countries in transition. For the first few years the IKI was financed through the auctioning of emission allowances, but it is
now funded from the budget of the BMUB.
The International Climate Initiative is a key element of Germany’s climate financing and the funding commitments in the framework of the
ConventiononBiologicalDiversity.TheInitiativeplacesclearemphasisonclimatechangemitigation,adaptationtotheimpactsofclimatechange
andtheconservationofbiologicaldiversity.Theseefforts providevarious co-benefits,particularly theimprovement oflivingconditions in partner
countries. www.international-climate-initiative.com
©AdrianaKato,UNDPPeru

vCHAPTER 1 PROGRAMME OVERVIEW
Contents
vii ACRONYMS
viii FOREWORD
xi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1 CHAPTER 1: PROGRAMME OVERVIEW
1 1.1 Introduction to this publication
3 1.2 Ecosystem-based Adaptation in Mountain Ecosystems
Programme
8 1.3 Defining the EbA approach
11 1.4 Mountain ecosystems: vulnerable to climate change
13 CHAPTER 2: Making the case for the multiple benefits
of EbA
14 2.1 Using participatory planning and‘no regrets’measures to
promote EbA
15 Case Study 1: Participatory adaptation planning in Sanzara,
Mount Elgon, Uganda
16 Case Study 2: Integrated participatory rural appraisal in
Canchayllo and Miraflores, Peru
17 2.2 Using vulnerability and impact assessments to promote
EbA
20 2.3 Environmental, social and economic benefits of EbA
40 2.4 Lessons on securing benefits through EbA
42 Case Study 3:Water source restoration and conservation at
Dandaghupte Pond, Parbat, Nepal
44 Case Study 4: Restoration of the River Sipi Micro-Catchment in
Uganda
46 Case Study 5:Vicuña, animal husbandry and sustainable
grassland management inTanta, Peru
48 Case Study 6: Community-based native grassland manage-
ment and improvement of ancestral hydrological infrastruc-
tures in Canchayllo and Miraflores, Peru
51 Chapter 2: Lessons learned
53 CHAPTER 3: Making the economic case for EbA
54 3.1 Using cost-benefit analysis to promote EbA
54 3.2 Comparing tools and methodologies for making the
economic case
56 3.3 Applying CBA to the Mountain EbA Programme
58 Case Study 7: Broom grass cultivation in ChitreVDC, Parbat
District, Nepal
61 Case Study 8: Constructing gabion walls along the Harpan
River, Nepal
64 Case Study 9: Cost-benefit analysis for sustainable grassland
management, vicuña management and animal husbandry in
Tanta, Peru
70 Case Study 10: Evaluating EbA farming practices in Mount
Elgon ecosystem, Uganda
77 3.4 Challenges of doing cost-benefit analysis for EbA
77 3.5 Using CBA to make the economic case for EbA
81 CHAPTER 4: Making the case for policy change for EbA
82 4.1 Introduction to EbA policy
82 4.2 Global policy
86 4.3 Nepal
90 4.4 Peru
93 Case Study 11: Collaboration with SERNANP implementing
EbA in a landscape reserve, Peru
94 4.5 Uganda
97 4.6 Future opportunities for making the case for policy change
for EbA
101 CHAPTER 5: Making the case for financing EbA
102 5.1 National and local level public finance for EbA
104 Case Study 12: Public Investment in Ecosystem-based Adapta-
tion in Peru
107 5.2 Community level schemes for financing EbA
108 Case Study 13: NAHI Incentive scheme for‘no regrets’mea-
sures in Sanzara, Uganda
109 Case Study 14: Community Environment Conservation Fund
(CECF) in the catchments of Sipi, Kaptokoi and Ngenge,
Uganda
112 Case Study 15: ECOTRUST Payments for Ecosystem Services for
EbA in Uganda
119 CHAPTER 6: Scaling up and scaling out: opportunities
and challenges
120 6.1 Summary of lessons learned about making the case for
EbA
121 6.2 Replicating lessons learned on making the case for EbA
123 6.3. Opportunities for further work
126 REFERENCES
131 Annex 1: Interviews
132 ENDNOTES

vi MAKING THE CASE FOR ECOSYSTEM-BASED ADAPTATION: The Global Mountain EbA Programme in Nepal, Peru and Ugandavi
TABLES
Table 1: Components and lead agencies of the Mountain EbA Programme
Table 2: Main partners in the Mountain EbA Programme
Table 3: Criteria for selecting EbA measures for the Mountain EbA project in NYCLR, Peru
Table 4: Vulnerability and impact assessments developed by the Mountain EbA Programme
Table 5: Water conservation and management measures: overview of‘no regrets’and EbA measures implemented in Nepal, Peru and Uganda, with observed and
expected benefits
Table 6: Sustainable grassland and livestock management: overview of ’no regrets’and EbA measures implemented in Nepal, Peru and Uganda, with observed and
expected benefits
Table 7: Conservation agriculture: overview of‘no regrets’and EbA measures implemented in Nepal, Peru and Uganda, with observed and expected benefits
Table 8: Landrehabilitation:overviewof’noregrets’andEbAmeasuresimplementedinNepal,PeruandUganda,withobservedandexpectedbenefits
Table 9: Alternative livelihoods: overview of‘no regrets’and EbA measures implemented in Nepal, Peru and Uganda,
with observed and expected benefits
Table 10: Ecosystemrestoration:overviewof‘noregrets’andEbAmeasuresimplementedinNepal,PeruandUganda,
withobservedandexpectedbenefits
Table 11: Economic analysis of broom grass plantations (NRs per Ha)
Table 12: Economic analysis of gabion wall
Table 13: Tanta (Peru) profitability indices, with and without EbA, r = 4%, 2014-2023
Table 14: Tanta (Peru) profitability indices, with and without EbA, r = 9%, 2014-2023
Table 15: Net profit and mean test for EbA and non-EbA practising farmer by crop enterprise over a projection of 15 years
Table 16: Net present value projections for EbA practice over non-EbA over a projection of 15 years
Table 17: Integrating EbA into national adaptation planning
Table 18. Events organized by the Mountain EbA Partnership (in bold) or where the Partnership has presented
Table 19: Opportunities for policy change for EbA at various policy and planning levels
Table 20: EbA activities included in the ECOTRUST PES facility
Table 21: Example of a payment scheme for watershed and carbon services
BOXES
Box 1: Resilience
Box 2: ‘No regrets’measures
Box 3: Vulnerability
Box 4: What areVIAs?
Box 5: Mount Elgon Conservation Forum
Box 6: Non-climatic pressures affecting the achievement of EbA benefits
Box 7: Targeted Scenario Analysis
Box 8: Project assessment criteria for cost-benefit analysis
Box 9: Cost-benefit analysis byTMI in Peru
Box 10: Defining EbA practice for the Mount Elgon ecosystem
Box 11: Terms used when referring to different levels of government and
policy
Box 12: CBD decision relevant for EbA
Box 13: UNFCCC decision relevant for EbA
Box 14: Integrating EbA into national adaptation planning: guidance by UNEP
WCMC
Box 15: Local government in Nepal
Box 16: A new approach to adaptation in Peru
Box 17: Vision of the Junín Regional Climate Change Strategy
Box 18: National Climate Change Policy of Uganda
Box 19: Second National Development Plan of Uganda
Box 20: Policy guidelines for public investment in biodiversity and ecosystems
Box 21: Definition of payments for ecosystem services (PES)
MAPS
Map 1: Panchase Protected Forest
Map 2: NorYauyos Cochas
Map 3: Mount Elgon
FIGURES
Figure 1: Vulnerability diagram
Figure 2: Millennium Ecosystems Assessment: range of services
Figure 3: Mount Elgon in Uganda with and without EbA measures
Figure 4: Panchase Mountain Ecological Region in Nepal with and without
EbA measures
Figure 5: NorYauyos Cochas Landscape Reserve in Peru with and without
EbA measures
Figure 6: Targeted scenario analysis: changes over time
Figure 7: Costs and benefits of broom grass plantation in Chitre, Parbat
Figure 8: Tanta (Peru) discounted net benefit flow, with and without EbA,
r = 4%
Figure 9: Present values for Bulambuli and Kween Districts
Figure 10: Present values for Kapchorwa and Sironko Districts

viiCHAPTER 1 PROGRAMME OVERVIEW
Acronyms
BAU business as usual
BCR benefit-cost ratio
BMUB Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conserva-
tion, Building and Nuclear Safety of Germany
CBA cost-benefit analysis
CBD Convention on Biological Diversity
CBO community-based organization
CEAP Community Environment Action Plan
CECF Community Environment Conservation Fund
CFUG Community Forest User Group
EbA Ecosystem-based Adaptation
ECOTRUST Environmental ConservationTrust of Uganda
FPCC Field Planning Coordination Committee
GCM General Circulation Model or Global Climate Model
GFS gravity flow scheme
HEAP Household Environment Action Plan
INDC Intended Nationally Determined Contribution
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
IPRA integrated participatory rural appraisal
IRR internal rate of return
IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature
LAPA Local Adaptation Plan of Action
MAP Medicinal and Aromatic Plants
MEF Ministry of Economics and Finance, Peru
MINAM Ministry of the Environment, Peru
NAPA National Adaptation Programme of Action
NAHI Nature Harness Initiatives
NBSAP National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan
NDP National Development Plan, Uganda
NGO non-governmental organization
NPC National Planning Commission, Nepal
NPV net present value
NYCLR NorYauyos Cochas Landscape Reserve, Peru
PES Payments for Ecosystem Services
PIP Public Investment Project (PIP proposal)
SBSTA Subsidiary Body for Scientific andTechnological Advice
SEM Sustainable Ecosystem Management
SERNANP National Service of Natural Areas Protected by the State,
Peru
TMI The Mountain Institute
TSA Targeted Scenario Analysis
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
UNEA United Nations Environment Assembly
UNEP United Nations Environment Programme
UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change
VDC Village Development Committee, Nepal
VIA vulnerability and impact assessment
UNEP-WCMC UNEPWorld Conservation Monitoring Centre

viiiviii MAKING THE CASE FOR ECOSYSTEM-BASED ADAPTATION: The Global Mountain EbA Programme in Nepal, Peru and Uganda
Foreword
I am pleased to be showcasing the work of the global programme on Ecosystem-Based Adaptation in Mountain
Ecosystems, funded by the International Climate Initiative (IKI), and implemented from 2011 to 2016 through
UNDP, UNEP and IUCN, in partnership with the Governments of Nepal, Peru and Uganda.
The IKI is a key element of Germany’s climate and biodiversity financing. The flagship EbA programme brings
together the climate change adaptation and biodiversity conservation agendas, supporting partner countries to
maximise achievements on both, whilst simultaneously improving living conditions.
This publication presents the results of innovative work in the three pilot countries, in making the case for
ecosystem-based approaches as part of a broader suite of climate change adaptation options. The country-level
work of the programme in Nepal, Peru and Uganda has influenced policy formulation in a number of cases, and
has spurred important shifts in public finance mechanisms.
An important objective of the IKI is to generate momentum for negotiations on the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) through targeted
cooperation with partner countries, linking negotiations with actions. The Mountain EbA programme has also
facilitated a number of key interventions at the global scale, and has generated new evidence on the cost-
effectiveness of ecosystem-based adaptation options.
Since 2008, the International Climate Initiative (IKI) of the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation,
Building and Nuclear Safety (BMUB) has been financing climate and biodiversity projects in developing and newly
industrialising countries, as well as in countries in transition. IKI supports a large number of EbA-related projects,
including region-wide initiatives in Micronesia and Melanesia, Latin America, and South-East Asia, as well as
projects specific to watershed, mountain, forest, marine, terrestrial, and coastal ecosystems. In 2015, IKI initiatives
in the EbA thematic area comprise a portfolio of 73m EUR, as part of a wider Adaptation support.
The legacy of the Mountain EbA Programme, captured in this publication, will be crucial in feeding into Germany’s
cooperation with partner countries to achieve sustainable and resilient societies, as well as wider global efforts in
this important field.
Norbert Gorißen heads the division of International Climate Finance,
International Climate Initiative, of the German Federal Ministry for the
Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety (BMUB)

ixCHAPTER 1 PROGRAMME OVERVIEW
Foreword
Our planet faces a number of interlinked crises, as we tackle the huge challenges of implementing the new 2030
Agenda for Sustainable Development. Conflict, poverty and environmental degradation are causing the migration
and displacement of millions of people.The impact of a changing climate on a natural resource base that is already
overexploited, may be devastating for many communities living close to nature.
Mountain peoples are a prime example of this. The ecosystems on which high altitude farming communities
depend are likely to be negatively affected, for example, by increasingly frequent landslides due to more intense
rainfall; or as the melting of glaciers causes flooding of glacial lakes (and later water shortages). Adaptation
strategies help society to plan better and minimize negative impacts, even turn new conditions to their advantage.
This publication focuses on ecosystem-based approaches to adaptation in vulnerable mountain areas. These
approaches use sustainable management, conservation and restoration of natural and agro-ecosystems, as part
of an overall adaptation strategy. This takes into account anticipated climate change impact trends, to reduce
vulnerability and improve the resilience of ecosystems and people to climate change impacts.
The book highlights the experience of three pioneering countries, where governments and civil society have joined
hands, supported by the German Government’s International Climate Initiative, and working with implementing
partners UNDP, UNEP and IUCN, in piloting new approaches through the Mountain EbA Programme.
This has involved testing new EbA interventions, such as stabilizing mountain slopes, that are vulnerable to erosion
from more intense rains, with indigenous plants, which can be harvested and sold. As the UN’s development
network, UNDP promotes adaptation efforts like these that have multiple benefits, and create opportunities for
poverty eradication and social inclusion. The book shows that demonstrating these benefits is a vital element of
making the case for EbA, especially with communities.
At national scale also, demonstrations of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of EbA measures have been
important in making the case for enhanced public investment in EbA. The publication tracks the experience of
the programme in undertaking cost benefit analysis of specific EbA interventions, and comparing these with a
business-as-usual scenario. It also highlights national and global policy formulation processes into which EbA
approaches have been integrated.
Together with all the implementing partners of the Mountain EbA Programme, we are proud to be able to share
the lessons learnt through the programme on effective ways to make the case for ecosystem-based adaptation. I
believe this publication is timely, and makes an important contribution to the global evidence base for EbA.
Nik Sekhran is Chief of Profession, Sustainable Development,
in the Bureau for Policy and Programming Support of
the United Nations Development Programme

x MAKING THE CASE FOR ECOSYSTEM-BASED ADAPTATION: The Global Mountain EbA Programme in Nepal, Peru and Ugandax
IN NEPAL, THE MOUNTAIN EBA PROGRAMME WAS IMPLEMENTED
IN THE PANCHASE MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL REGION, WHERE THE
ELEVATION RANGES FROM 742 TO 2,517 METRES ABOVE SEA LEVEL.

xiCHAPTER 1 PROGRAMME OVERVIEW
The Global Ecosystem-based Adaptation (EbA)
in Mountain Ecosystems Programme was
jointly implemented from 2011 to 2016 as a
flagship programme of UNEP, UNDP and IUCN,
funded by the Government of Germany through
the International Climate Initiative (IKI), in
partnership with the Governments of Nepal, Peru
and Uganda.The programme was implemented at
global level and at national level with pilot project
work in mountain ecosystems in countries that are
particularly vulnerable to climate change.
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
© Andrea Egan, UNDP

xii MAKING THE CASE FOR ECOSYSTEM-BASED ADAPTATION: The Global Mountain EbA Programme in Nepal, Peru and Ugandaxii
Ecosystem-based Adaptation can be defined as the use of
biodiversity and ecosystem services as part of an overall
adaptation strategy to help people adapt to the adverse
effects of climate change. The programme´s approach was
to help rural vulnerable mountain communities in three
countries (Nepal, Uganda and Peru) adapt to anticipated
impacts of climate change using sustainable management,
conservation and restoration of ecosystems, as part of
overall local and national adaptation strategies.
The objective of this publication is to present lessons
learned throughout the process of‘making the case for EbA’
to government and other stakeholders, encouraging them
to include EbA approaches in broader adaptation strategies,
and to bring about the required shifts in policy and finance.
Chapter 1 defines the concept and its relevance for
mountain ecosystems.
Proponents of EbA must make the case to key beneficiaries
and stakeholders early on, right from the planning and
implementation stage of adaptation initiatives. Chapter
2 presents the planning and implementation stage of the
pilot projects in Nepal, Peru and Uganda. First, initial rapid
participatory assessments increased understanding of
the linkages between climate change, ecosystems and
livelihoods, thereby providing a better understanding
of EbA and its different kinds of benefits. Second, these
assessments set the stage for implementation of early
‘no regrets’ measures on the ground that generated
key benefits. These early ‘no regrets’ activities, which
helped secure local commitment and ownership, focused
on generating economic benefits, such as promoting
alternative livelihoods or increasing agricultural or
livestock production. Also, implementing ‘grey-green’ water
infrastructure measures early on yielded tangible and visible
environmental and social benefits from the outset.
Once initial benefits from EbA activities were demonstrated
at the local scale, the case could then be made for
implementing broader, scaled-up EbA measures at the
landscape level. At this scale, EbA can provide benefits
acrosswholeecosystemsinthelongterm,whichareessential
for enhancing adaptive capacity. EbA measures provide
a range of environmental, social and economic benefits.
These benefits will differ depending on the given suite of
EbA measures implemented. Within the Mountain EbA
Programme, environmental benefits included enhancing
water provision, reducing soil erosion and increasing
vegetation; social benefits included enhanced food security,
access to clean water, strengthened local organizational
and technical capacities and empowerment of women and
disadvantaged groups; and economic benefits included
increased productivity, new sources of livelihoods and
increased income. More specifically, the EbA measures
applied in the pilot countries can increase agricultural and
livestock production during dry spells through increased
water provision by well-managed watersheds. Also,
restoring grasslands can increase provision of grazing and
forage during dry periods, regulate water and floods during
heavy rainfall and stabilize slopes to prevent landslides.
Building on the initial rapid participatory assessments, more
in-depth vulnerability and impact assessments (VIAs)
helped frame EbA options in a climate change adaptation
context, by assessing available projections of anticipated
climate impacts at regional and local scales. Undertaking
more detailed VIAs enabled the validation, redesign or
elimination of early ‘no regrets’ measures and a shift into
evidence-based EbA measures. The process also enabled
adoption of a landscape scale approach and long-term
planning of EbA measures. A watershed, catchment or
protected area was found to be a particularly good scale
for planning and implementing EbA measures. This scale
proved appropriate when making the case for landscape
scale approaches, particularly to district level governments
and protected area managers. It also ensured the attainment
of EbA benefits in a more comprehensive and sustainable
manner, especially with regard to ecosystem service
provision.
When stakeholders recognize the multiple benefits of EbA
and are eager to scale up, it is important to quantify the
value of EbA measures. Chapter 3 discusses how to make
the economic case for EbA and presents the cost-benefit
analysis (CBA) work carried out through the programme.
Cost-benefit analysis can provide an objective methodology
for quantifying EbA costs and benefits and can be used
to guide decision making on EbA, including comparing
potential EbA interventions with business as usual scenarios
or other adaptation options.
Results from the cost-benefit analysis carried out by the
programme in Nepal showed that the use of broom grass
and gabion walls as EbA measures were investments with a
net benefit. The CBA from Peru also showed that adoption
of EbA measures around sustainable grassland, livestock
and vicuña management in the community of Tanta was
economically preferable to current management practices.
The results of the cost-benefit analysis from Uganda showed
that EbA farming practices were profitable compared to

xiiiEXECUTIVE SUMMARY
non-EbA farming practices and that profitability can be
sustained in the long run.
Challenges in undertaking cost-benefit analysis for EbA
included conceptualizing and assessing the multiple
benefits provided by EbA in economic terms, including with
regards to ecosystem functions. The results of a cost-benefit
analysis can be used to make the economic case for EbA to
public investors such as local governments or ministries of
finance, or to private investors such as individual farmers or
hydroelectric companies.
Once the case has been made, EbA can then be integrated
into relevant planning and policy processes, from local
to national and global levels. Chapter 4 presents how
the programme has engaged in making the case for
policy change for EbA at global, national, regional, local
and community levels. The programme has applied a
range of approaches, including engaging in dialogues;
presenting experiences and lessons learned of planning
and implementing EbA; providing technical advice; and
carrying out policy advocacy making the case for EbA to
global policy audiences.
At the global level, advocacy efforts increased acceptance
of EbA discourse in the realm of global policy, especially
under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC), including its Nairobi Work Programme. Local
level experiences in planning and implementing EbA
contributed to making the case for needed policy changes
for EbA at the global level.
For example, Uganda’s experience in building on its project
experience as part of the Mountain EbA Programme was
shared at the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA)
in 2014 to make the case for an EbA resolution.
Atthenationallevel,thecaseforpolicychangeforEbAcanbe
made with regards to policies such as national development
plans, national climate change policies, environment and
conservation strategies, sectoral plans and policies.
COP 20 PRESIDENT AND PERU’S ENVIRONMENT MINISTER MANUEL PULGAR VIDAL AT THE OPENING CEREMONY OF THE 2014
UNITED NATIONS CLIMATE CHANGE CONFERENCE HELD IN LIMA, PERU. © Elekhh

xiv MAKING THE CASE FOR ECOSYSTEM-BASED ADAPTATION: The Global Mountain EbA Programme in Nepal, Peru and Ugandaxiv
The national development plans and climate change
policies of Nepal, Peru and Uganda provided supportive
frameworks for planning and implementing EbA measures
nationally. The projects in each country provided targeted
technical guidance and policy review inputs for integrating
EbA, including into i) national forest policy in Nepal; ii) Peru’s
Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) to the
UNFCCC, which refers to the Mountain EbA Programme
specificallyinthecontextofresultsandpracticalexperiences
that have informed the INDC; and iii) the National Climate
Change Strategy in Uganda. A variety of activities helped lift
EbA onto these national policy agendas, such as ongoing
sharing of lessons learned on EbA, organizing site visits to
show the benefits of EbA on the ground and engaging in
policy dialogues. The programme increased understanding
and buy-in for EbA amongst policy makers in all project
countries and contributed, for example, to the process of
establishing a High Level Committee on EbA in Nepal.
Planning and implemention of EbA works best at landscape
or ecosystem scale, which means that making the case
for policy change for EbA at regional and local levels of
governance is especially relevant. Making the case for
EbA at this level can be challenging, as it requires showing
convincingly how EbA benefits can contribute directly to
achieving broader development goals. Protected areas were
found to be an ideal scale for planning and implementing
landscape level EbA. Protected areas often have existing
management plans and governance structures that can be
tapped into when planning EbA, and into which EbA can be
mainstreamed. Projects in the pilot countries enaged with
protected areas including the NorYauyos Cochas Landscape
in Peru and the Panchase Protected Forest in Nepal. At
the local level, the projects tapped into existing natural
resource management groups, which served as important
entry points for making the case for EbA and integrating it
into local natural resource management plans. Successful
operationalization of EbA policies and implementation of
identified priorities and strategies require adequate financial
resources, and technical and institutional capacities. Policy
change is still needed in all three programme countries to
integrate EbA into sectoral and planning and budgeting,
THE ENTIRE MOUNTAIN EBA PROGRAMME TEAM DURING THE LAST ANNUAL GLOBAL TECHNICAL AND LEARNING WORKSHOP
THAT TOOK PLACE IN LUNAHUANA, PERU ON MAY 28-30 2015. © Adriana Kato, UNDP Peru

xvEXECUTIVE SUMMARY
as well as into local level development planning and
budgeting.
Chapter 5 shows how the programme made the case for
increased financing for EbA, which can be accomplished in
a number of ways. Public financing for EbA can be allocated
through government budgets across sectors and at
multiple scales, ranging from local to regional and national
level budgets. Planning and budgeting is important at local
and regional levels, given that the local district government
or regional level is particularly relevant for implementing
EbA at a landscape or ecosystem scale. The programme
explored how best to make the case for increased financing
for EbA from public and private sources, including through
engagement in national budgeting processes, incentive
schemes and Payments for Ecosystem Services.
In Peru, engagement in the development of the Policy
Guidelines for Public Investment in Biodiversity and
Ecosystems showed that providing technical guidance to
the policy process and showcasing benefits of EbA on the
ground were both important in making the case for EbA
finance. While communities were interested in seeing EbA
results on the ground, hard data provided by cost-benefit
analysis was particularly important in making the case for
EbA to government players. At the local level, community
economic incentive schemes were important in making
the case for EbA to communities and local government,
especially before the benefits of EbA measures could be
shown.
In Uganda, payments for ecosystem services (PES) provided
a relevant model for EbA financing. The case was made
that EbA can help ensure ongoing availability, in the face
of climate change, of such ecosystem services as water
provision, carbon storage and biodiversity conservation,
which can be applicable for PES payments. The ECOTRUST
PES facility piloted by the project in Uganda provided
learning on how EbA measures can be used to bundle
watershed and carbon services into credits, as well as
the potential of PES to sustain financing for EbA. Project
experiences also showed that identifying EbA measures
that produce new or enhanced ecosystem goods and
services, such as provision of plant products in Nepal or
fibre from vicuña in Peru, can provide an alternative source
of income and enhance sustainability of implemented
measures.
Chapter 6 summarizes lessons learned, in addition to
assessing how these could be replicated to make the case
for EbA by other projects, programmes, sites and countries.
The Mountain EbA Programme has already ‘scaled out’
some of its experiences, including to more villages within
the Mount Elgon area and to the community of Tomas in
the Nor Yauyos Cochas Landscape Reserve. Certain lessons
learned on making the case for EbA are likely to be relevant
in all types of ecosystems, including with regards to: making
the case through step-wise EbA planning; showing socio-
economic benefits early on; adopting a landscape scale
approach; and engaging a range of policy levels in planning
and budgeting for EbA. Some lessons learned may be
particularly relevant for mountain or hilly ecosystems, for
example on the use of a catchment scale. Local socio-
economic dynamics, with regards to issues such as land
availability, can strongly frame the context for making the
case, requiring differentiated approaches within similar
mountain landscapes. The experiences of the programme
are being scaled up to national-level protected area
management approaches in both Nepal and Peru.
Finally, future opportunities for making the case for EbA
are identified. This includes developing methods and tools
for EbA such as VIAs, cost-benefit analyses and indicators.
Further work is needed with regards to identifying
opportunities for collaboration with district and regional
governments on EbA, strengthening cross-sectoral policy
collaboration and developing finance mechanisms,
including in collaboration with the private sector. The
Mountain EbA Programme has been a unique flagship
programme delivered through a valuable partnership, and
has significantly enhanced understanding of EbA practice,
in addition to bridging science-policy-practice learning
from local to global levels. This learning will be important
for future projects, programmes, planning and financing
processes that engage in the design and implementation of
Ecosystem-based Adaptation to climate change.

xvi MAKING THE CASE FOR ECOSYSTEM-BASED ADAPTATION: The Global Mountain EbA Programme in Nepal, Peru and Ugandaxvi
IN PERU, THE MOUNTAIN EBA PROGRAMME WAS IMPLEMENTED
WITHIN THE NOR YAUYOS COCHAS LANDSCAPE RESERVE, WHERE THE
ELEVATION RANGES FROM 2,700 TO 6,000 METRES ABOVE SEA LEVEL.

xviiCHAPTER 1 PROGRAMME OVERVIEW
In mountain ecosystems, increasing temperatures
melt glaciers and snowpacks, bringing flooding,
then drought. Increasingly frequent landslides
follow more intense rainfall, devastating remote
agricultural villages.While healthy ecosystems
deliver critical goods and services that underpin
socio-economic development, geographical
constraints and degradation from ongoing
human activity leave these ecosystems and
their interdependent human communities
vulnerable to adverse climate change impacts.
Ecosystem-based Adaptation strategies can help
the affected communities to plan better and
minimize negative impacts, and even to turn new
conditions to their advantage.
CHAPTER 1:
PROGRAMME
OVERVIEW
© Jefatura RPNYC

2 MAKING THE CASE FOR ECOSYSTEM-BASED ADAPTATION: The Global Mountain EbA Programme in Nepal, Peru and Uganda2
Ecosystem-based Adaptation (EbA) measures use
sustainable management, conservation and restoration
of natural and agro-ecosystems – taking into account
anticipated climate change impact trends – to reduce the
vulnerability and improve the resilience of ecosystems and
people to climate change impacts.
1.1 Introduction to this publication
This publication is a legacy document of the Ecosystem-
based Adaptation (EbA) in Mountain Ecosystems Programme.
The jointly implemented programme was delivered through
a partnership between the United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP), the United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP) and the International Union for
Conservation of Nature (IUCN), together and with the
Governments of Nepal, Peru and Uganda and civil society
partners. It was funded by Germany´s Federal Ministry for
Box 1 | Resilience
The Mountain EbA Programme used the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
definition of resilience as a starting point, adapting it in
practice for application in the programme (Munang 2012).
“Resilience:The ability of a social or ecological system
to absorb disturbances while retaining the same basic
structure and ways of functioning, the capacity for
self-organisation and the capacity to adapt to stress and
change”(IPCC, 2007).
In general terms, resilience can be defined as the capacity
of a system to absorb disturbance and reorganize, while
undergoing change, so as to still retain essentially the
same function, structure, identity and feedbacks. Societies
and communities are resilient to climate change when
they have the adaptive capacity to minimise its negative
impacts, and even take advantage of opportunities.
SECURING ALL-YEAR HEALTHY CROPS THROUGH A GRAVITY
FLOW ENGINEERED IRRIGATION SCHEME, DRAWING ON RIVER
WATER IN SANZARA, UGANDA. © Silvia Giada, UNEP
the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear
Safety (BMUB) in response to the 2010 UNFCCC Cancun
Agreements towards enhanced action on adaptation,
through the International Climate Initiative. The objective of
the programme was to strengthen the capacities of these
countries to build ecosystem resilience for promoting EbA
options and to reduce the vulnerability of communities, with
particular emphasis on mountain ecosystems.
The publication focuses on showcasing and capturing
lessons learned on the process of making the case to
government and other stakeholders for EbA to be included
in broader adaptation strategies, and for the policy and
finance shifts needed to bring this about.
The process of making the case for EbA through the
programme included efforts in several strategic areas:
• Making the case for the multiple benefits of EbA
• Making the economic case for EbA
• Making the case for financing for EbA
• Making the case for policy change for EbA
In Chapter 1, the publication will first introduce the
Mountain EbA Programme, the concept of EbA and
its relevance for mountain ecosystems in particular.

3CHAPTER 1 PROGRAMME OVERVIEW
Chapter 2 will discuss what was needed to show the
environmental, social and economic benefits of EbA
to key beneficiaries and stakeholders. Chapter 3 will
showcase the experience of conducting cost-benefit
analysis for EbA as a means for making the economic case.
Chapter 4 will examine how the case for policy change
for EbA has been made at community, district, regional,
national and global levels. Chapter 5 will explain how
the case for financing for EbA was made through public
finance, incentive schemes and Payments for Ecosystem
Services. Finally, Chapter 6 will discuss opportunities for
scaling up and scaling out some of the lessons learned
from the Mountain EbA Programme to other scales, sites
and countries.
This publication is intended for a global audience of
adaptation practitioners, policymakers and donors, who
maywishtolearnmoreaboutwhyEbAisaviableadaptation
option and how to make needed policy and finance shifts to
integrate EbA into broader adaptation strategies.This report
is complemented by a number of knowledge products in
the countries, which are aimed at wider audiences.
1.2 Global Ecosystem-based Adaptation in
Mountain Ecosystems Programme
The programme´s approach has been to help rural
vulnerable communities adapt to the adverse impacts of
climate change through conserving, managing, restoring
Table 1 | Components and lead agencies of the Mountain EbA Programme
Component Lead agency
1. Development of methodologies and tools for Ecosystem-based
Adaptation decision-making in mountain ecosystems
UNEP
2. Application of methodologies and tools at national and ecosystem level UNEP
3. Implementation of Ecosystem-based Adaptation pilots at ecosystem level UNDP and IUCN
4. Formulation of national policies and building an economic case for
Ecosystem-based Adaptation at national level
UNDP
Source: IUCN, UNDP, UNEP (2010) Project Proposal to BMUB.
Table 2 | Main partners in the Mountain EbA Programme
Nepal Peru Uganda
 Ministry of Forest and Soil
Conservation, Department of
Forest
 Ministry of Science,Technology
and Environment
 Government Authorities of Kaski,
Parbat and Syangja (District
Forest Office, District Soil
Conservation Office, Panchase
Protected Forest Programme)
 Machhapuchhre Development
Organization and Aapasi Sahayog
Kendra (ASK) Nepal
 Panchase Protected Forest
Council
 Ministry of Environment;
 National Service of Natural
Protected Areas
 Ministry of Economy and Finance
 The Mountain Institute (IUCN´s
implementing partner)
 NorYauyos Cochas Landscape
Reserve
 Regional governments of
Junín and Lima and the district
municipalities and community
authorities in the Reserve
 Ministry ofWater and Environment
 Ministry of Finance Planning and Economic
Development
 Ministry of Agriculture Animal Industry and
Fisheries
 Ministry of Health
 National Planning Authority
 UgandaWildlife Authority
 Makerere University Institute of Natural
Resources
 National Forestry Authority
 National Environment Management Authority
 Members of the Mt. Elgon Conservation Forum
 Kapchorwa, Kween, Sironko and Bulambuli
District Local Governments
Source: UNEP, UNDP and IUCN (2014), programme leaflet and programme partners.

and maintaining ecosystem services and biodiversity and
enhancing adaptive capacities, as part of overall local and
national adaptation strategies. The project countries were
selected due to the particularly vulnerable state of their
mountain ecosystems to climate change impacts. Globally,
mountain people tend to be among the world’s poorest
and most marginalized populations. The disadvantages
of general rural poverty are sometimes compounded by
gender, ethnicity and geographic discrimination. Mountain
communities also tend to face additional challenges of
subsistence brought about by elevation, topography and
climate (Ives et al. 1997).
The programme had four components, the implementation
of which was led by different agencies, building on their
core areas of work, as shown in Table 1. The programme was
implemented by UNEP, UNDP and IUCN. The UNEP–World
Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC), a specialist
biodiversity assessment centre, played an important role in
delivery of components 1 and 2;The Mountain Institute (TMI)
was IUCN’s implementing partner in Peru. The programme
was carried out in collaboration with the Governments of
Nepal, Peru and Uganda. It was implemented by national
and district authorities responsible for the environment and
mountain ecosystems of selected pilot project sites together
with non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Communities,
civil society organizations and national research institutes
were also important partners. An overview of main
implementation partners is provided in Table 2.
As a flagship programme, the German Government’s BMUB
envisaged that it would make the case for EbA scientifically,
economically and practically (Ries 2015). This included
advancing the concept of EbA scientifically through tools
such as vulnerability and impact assessments (VIA). Cost-
benefit analysis contributed to the economic case. The
practical case was about demonstrating how to identify,
plan, implement and monitor EbA measures on the ground.
The programme also played a role in informing international
dialogue around EbA in various fora.
Nepal
The Mountain EbA Programme was implemented in the
Panchase region in the districts of Kaski, Parbat and Syangja
through 17 Village Development Committees (VDCs). Nine
of the 17 VDCs are within the Panchase Protected Forest,
Map 1 | Panchase Region in Nepal (Government of Nepal, EbA Nepal Project and UNDP (2015))

a conservation area operating under a goal to sustainably
manage biodiversity, water resources and ecotourism
through participatory management approaches with local
communities.2
The Panchase Protected Forest comprises
of a core (35 percent) area, and a fringe area (65 percent)
where the majority of the population lives (Y Rai 2015,
pers. comm.). Resource use in the core area is restricted,
and prohibited activities include trading of endemic
species of orchids, hunting and poaching and collection of
medicinal and aromatic plants. The remaining eight VDCs
are on the margins of the Panchase Protected Forest and are
considered, for the purposes of this project, as a buffer zone.
Panchase covers an area of 279 km² and has a population
of 62,000. The economy of Panchase is largely subsistence
agriculture based on crops and livestock.
Panchase lies in the mid-hills of Nepal, at the foot of the
Himalayas, with a climate varying from subtropical to cold
temperate. An annual average temperature increase of 0.04°C
has been observed in Nepal between 1996 and 2005, which is
in line with long term predictions for a temperature increase
of 1.2°C by 2030 for Nepal (Ministry of the Environment 2010)
and a projected increase of 2°C to 5°C for the Panchase area by
2100 (Dixit et al. 2015). Meteorological records for the Panchase
area from 1977 to 2009 show some increase in annual rainfall,
although with significant inter-annual variability, while Parbat
and Syangja districts showed some reductions in winter rainfall
and increases in summer rainfall (Dixit et al. 2015). By the 2030s,
rainfall is expected to be intense and its seasonality more
pronounced, while the frequency of floods and landslides is
likely to increase (Dixit et al. 2015).
EbA measures implemented under the project in Nepal
include: maintaining and restoring ecosystems along roads
to reduce landslides; restoring wetlands, springs and ponds
to ensure year-long drinking water supply; and soil nutrient
management to increase soil moisture during dry periods.
Peru
The NorYauyos Landscape, comprising the NorYauyos Cochas
Landscape Reserve (NYCLR) and its buffer zone, is in the high-
Andean region and includes the upper Cañete watershed in
the region of Lima and the Pachacayo watershed in the region
ofJunín–oneofthemostvulnerableregionstoclimatechange
in Peru, according to environmental impact studies. NYCLR
is a protected area that aims to conserve natural resources
in collaboration between government and communities,
while allowing for organized and sustainable management
of resources for agriculture, livestock, fishing and tourism as
livelihood activities (IUCN Category V).3
Twelve communities,
with a total population of 10,390, live in the reserve, which
HUALHUA LAGOON WITHIN THE NOR YAUYOS COCHAS LANDSCAPE RESERVE IN PERU. © Peru Mountain EbA Programme

covers2,212.7km².Itisanareaofsubsistenceagricultureand
livestock, with communities in the higher areas specializing
in livestock (sheep, alpaca, llama and vicuña, sometimes
cattle) and in the lower areas both livestock and agriculture
(beans, maize, potatoes, wheat, quinoa, medicinal plants).
Trout is also produced for personal consumption, internal
andexternalmarkets.Temperaturesarepredictedtoincrease
between 0.61°C and 1.12°C between 2011 and 2030; the
amount of annual rainfall is predicted to not change, but
there will be variability in seasonal patterns and a reduction
in surface water runoff; and extreme climatic events, such
as hailstorms, have been observed out of season (Ramon
et al. 2013).
EbA measures implemented under the project in Peru
include: restoring water channels and reservoirs to support
micro-watersheds and wetlands to secure provision of
water for the reserve communities and downstream users;
grassland management to enhance pastoral livelihoods
and increase resilience to drought and frost; vicuña
management to produce animal fibre for livelihoods and
communal livestock management in natural grasslands.
Uganda
The Mount Elgon National Park, an IUCN Category II
conservation area4
, is on the higher slopes of the mountain
covering an area of 1,279km² between Uganda and Kenya.
The project is being implemented outside the National Park,
in the districts of Bulambuli, Kapchorwa, Kween and Sironko
with a total population of 624,161 and an area of 2,303.9 km².
The population relies on rain-fed subsistence agriculture
(vegetables,fruit,paddyrice,yamsandsugarcane).Predicted
climate change impacts include temperature rise of 0.5–
0.6°C for the next 20 to 50 years, while rainfall is expected to
increase by 18.7 mm over the next 20 years (NaFORRI 2013).
In terms of seasons, the present drier months of June, July
and August are expected to receive even less rain. This is
expected to lead to several climate-related hazards such as
soil erosion, flooding, landslides and drought (Ibid.).
EbA measures implemented under the project in Uganda
include: improved water retention through roadside
drainage bunds and run-off retention drains; a gravity-
flow engineered irrigation scheme, combined with
reforestation, soil and water conservation, and riverbank
Map 2 | NorYauyos Cochas Landscape Reserve in Peru (Dourojeanni et al. (2014))

Map 3 | Mount Elgon in Uganda (Mountain EbA Programme, Uganda)
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!
! ! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Simu
Siroko
Sisi
Lw ere
Muyem
be
Sipi
Atari
Che
ptu
iNamatala
M
ir
o
i
Chese
bere
C
hebonet
Ngenge
Aragaiti
Siti
Kaptokwoi
Tabuk
Dirigana
Aterere
Nahongo
O
kwapiti
Simitiu
Tira
Simu
Nalu
gug
u
Guragado
Kakole
Sir
oko(Solonko)
Emu
chon
i
Sirimityo
Talisabagimba
Nasenyi
Kawujani
Kalasa
Kachulu
Gibu
z
ali
Kong unga
Kilulu
ma
Bungulya
Kapiao
r Okula
Kamwon
Kajamaka
Kawejani
Suam
Walanga
Sekulo
Lubumba
Karemutu
Muwozansimbe
Ka
d
okolene or Nansenyi
N
abwisa
Nalukaya
Busajabwankuba
Kamago
KOLIR
BENET
SIPI
KACHUMBALA
BUKEDEA
BUMASIFWA
ZESUI
TEGERES
CHEMA
MALERA
BULAGO
BUWALASI
MASIIRA
KAWOWO
BUKHALU
BUHUGU
BULUGANYA
KABWANGASI
BUTANDIGA
BUTEZA
NAKALOKE
BUYOBO
MUYEMBE
BUGINYANYA
BINYINY
BUKHULO
SISIYI
KAMONKOLI
BUNAMBUTYE
BUSULANI
KASEREM
BULEGENI
BUFUMBO BULUCHEKE
BUKONDE
KAPTANYA
NAMANYONYI
SIRONKO TC
KAKORO
BUKWA
BUBIITA
KAPCHORWA TC
BUMAYOKANORTHERN DIVISION
KAPRORON
KIDONGOLE
BUKEDEA
SIRONKO
BULAMBULI
KWEENKAPCHORWA
MBALE
PALLISA
BUDAKA
24
624000m.E
32
32
640
640
48
48
56
56
64
64
72
72
128000m.N
28
36 36
44 44
52 52
0 5.5 112.75
Kilometers
±
Mountain Elgon Ecosystem EbA Micro-Catchments
L.George
L.Kyoga
L.VictoriaL.Edward
L.Albert
UGANDA
Water tank
KENYA
KENYA
TANZANIA
SOUTH SUDAN
DRC
Legend
Rivers
Main rivers
!
! !
!
!!
Subcounty boundary
District boundary
River Kaptokwoi catchment
Mt. Elgon National Park
River Sippi catchment
River Sironko catchment
River Sisiyi catchment
River Ngenge catchment
MOUNT ELGON LANDSCAPE IN UGANDA. © IUCN Uganda

MAKING THE CASE FOR ECOSYSTEM-BASED ADAPTATION: The Global Mountain EbA Programme in Nepal, Peru and Uganda8
restoration to create a hybrid grey-green solution to
catchment-scale water management; and tree planting
using an agroforestry approach to stabilize soil to reduce
landslides.
Comparing landscapes
The vulnerable mountain ecosystems and communities in
all three countries are reliant primarily on rainfed subsistence
agriculture and livestock and all the sites are expected to
experience increases in temperature. Panchase in Nepal and
Nor Yauyos Cochas in Peru are likely to have more erratic
rainfall and changes in seasonal patterns. Mount Elgon is
predicted to have more rainfall overall and more frequent
intense rainfall events.
There are also significant differences between the sites.
Nor Yauyos Cochas (2,212.7 km²) and Mount Elgon (2,303.9
km²) are large project landscapes, while the project site in
Panchase is significantly smaller (279 km²). Mount Elgon
has a high and increasing population density of 271 people
per km² (for the area of Bulambuli, Sironko, Kween and
Kapchorwa) and Panchase has a density of 222 per km²,
with accelerating out-migration. Nor Yauyos Cochas, on the
other hand, has a low and decreasing density of only 4.7
per km².5
The differences in both landscape and population
have a significant impact on project measures.
The Peru project site in Nor Yauyos Cochas is in a landscape
reserve, which allows for sustainable use of natural resources
under community management practices. Part of the
project in Nepal sits in the Panchase Protected Forest, which
has a similar approach to landscape management as Peru’s
landscape reserve. However, as a new approach to forest
co-management by government and communities, the
arrangements for governing protected forests in Nepal are
still being developed (Chapter 4). The project site in Uganda
is outside the Mount Elgon National Park, although issues
around access to resources within the National Park have
trickled down to adjoining buffer areas (Chapter 2). Different
management approaches are applied to the landscapes,
based on whether and what type of Protected Areas they
are, and this has a direct impact on how EbA measures are
planned and implemented in the landscapes. These issues
will be described at further length in Chapter 4.
1.3 Defining the EbA approach
Ecosystem-based Adaptation is the use of biodiversity and
ecosystem services as part of an overall adaptation strategy to
help people adapt to the adverse effects of climate change.6
The programme adopted this definition provided by the
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).The CBD has further
elaborated on the approach through COP Decision X/33 (j)
as follows: “…ecosystem-based approaches for adaptation
may include sustainable management, conservation and
restoration of ecosystems, as part of an overall adaptation
strategy that takes into account the multiple social, economic
and cultural co-benefits for local communities”.
Table 3 | Criteria for selecting EbA measures for the project in NYCLR, Peru
1) Criteria for defining what is
(and isn´t) EbA
 The measure reduces the population´s vulnerability to climate change
 The measure directly or indirectly increases the resilience of biodiversity and
ecosystem services
 The measure uses biodiversity and ecosystem services in a sustainable manner,
without damaging them, and in some cases enhances them
2) Criteria for prioritizing between
EbA options
 Quantity of affected population
 Capacity of the measure to reduce the vulnerability of the population (efficiency)
 Importance of biodiversity and ecosystem services to the population (prioritizing
ecosystem services that support main productive activities, and biodiversity used
by the population)
 Vulnerability of biodiversity and ecosystem services to climate change
 Durability and immediacy of the measure
3) Principles for selecting EbA options  Population participates in the planning and implementation of EbA measures
Source:Dourojeannietal.(2015)´VulnerabilityAssessmentsforEcosystembasedAdaptation:LessonsfromtheNorYauyosCochasLandscapeReserveinPeru´.Unpublished.

EbA takes into account anticipated vulnerability and
climate change impact trends to reduce the vulnerability
and improve the resilience of ecosystems and people to
such climate change impacts (Mensah et al. 2014). It can
be implemented at local, national and regional levels
and at both project and programmatic scales (Ibid.). EbA
is applicable to a range of ecosystems and geographical
areas, sectors and stakeholders, in both developed and
developing countries (Ibid.). Some examples of EbA
measures include: mangrove conservation for coastal
protection against increased storm surges; forest
conservation and sustainable management to prevent
landslides with more intense rains; restoration of degraded
wetlands to protect against increasing floods; agroforestry
toenablecontinuousproductiondespitechangingclimatic
conditions; and sustainable management of grassland to
protect against floods and soil erosion (Secretariat of the
Convention on Biological Diversity 2009).
Andrade et al. (2011) propose a set of principles to
consider when implementing EbA: i) promoting multi-
sectoral approaches; ii) operating at multiple geographical
scales; iii) integrating flexible management structures; iv)
maximizing benefits with development and conservation
goals; v) being based on best available science and local
knowledge; vi) providing benefits to people, especially
the most vulnerable; and vii) being participatory, culturally
appropriate and embracing equity and gender issues.
Through experience, the Mountain EbA Programme has
complemented existing work on criteria for EbA, including
by piloting criteria for designing EbA measures for a
given site. This has included guidelines for defining which
measures can be considered as EbA and how they go
beyond business as usual natural resource management
or development activities. Table 3 provides an overview
of the criteria developed by the Mountain EbA project
for the Nor Yauyos Cochas Landscape Reserve in Peru.
EbA measures should have a specific focus on reducing
people´s vulnerability to climate change specifically, while
using biodiversity and ecosystem services in a sustainable
manner.
In terms of prioritizing between EbA options, the criteria
propose looking at issues such as the importance of
biodiversity and ecosystem services to the population
and the vulnerability of these services to climate change
impacts. The participation of the population in planning
and implementing EbA is seen as an essential underlying
principle.
Growing evidence is supporting the argument that EbA is
able to provide multiple benefits for adaptation, mitigation,
environmental protection, biodiversity conservation and
sustainable economic development (Mensah et al. 2014).
Potential socio-economic benefits include food security, e.g.
through securing food production; improved livelihoods,
e.g. through delivery of ecosystem services and income
diversification; and local actor empowerment (Naumann
et al. 2013). According to Girot et al. (2012), if properly
designed by taking into consideration social complexities,
EbA can also contribute to strengthening capacities
and empowering local groups, as well as enhancing
governance of ecosystems. Based on an analysis of peer-
reviewed literature on EbA-relevant interventions, Doswald
et al. (2014) identified additional common environmental
benefits such as biodiversity conservation and carbon
sequestration; social benefits including water security; and
economic benefits such as damage costs prevented.
Some of the challenges for implementing EbA include
the lack of comprehensive information regarding climate
impacts, ecological and societal vulnerability, as well as
DEFINING WHAT EBA IS AND ISN’T DURING A PROGRAMME
LEARNING WORKSHOP. © Adriana Kato, UNDP Peru

limited experience on how to monitor and evaluate EbA
effectiveness (Mensah et al. 2014). Institutional challenges
also arise because EbA requires collaboration across sectors
and institutions, and adaptation involves a need for forward-
looking planning and implementation over a period of
years. While the impact of some EbA measures can be
assessed relatively quickly, in other cases success or failure
can only be fully assessed after some years. Measurement of
results can also be complex because one needs to take into
account not only the counterfactual of what would have
happened in the absence of these measures, but also the
shifting baseline in terms of how the weather patterns to
which the measures are designed to respond have actually
changed over the decades, as seen with hindsight.
Though Ecosystem-based Adaptation has been applied in
practice more widely in recent years, there remains some
confusion about the term as well as skepticism about the
efficacy of the approach. An important entry point in making
the case for EbA is to make this technical term accessible to
beneficiaries. The Mountain EbA Programme has found that
the EbA approach needs to be presented in an accessible
and locally appropriate form, so as to clarify to all local
stakeholders what EbA is about. This information needs to
be disseminated widely to key stakeholders from the project
outset, alongside awareness-raising workshops that allow for
discussion and feedback on EbA – especially about how it is
different from approaches to natural resource management,
development or even other types of adaptation that could
be categorized as ‘business as usual’. Raising awareness on
the linkages between ecosystem services, livelihoods and
climate change is essential in enhancing understanding
about what EbA is and how it can provide multiple benefits
todifferentbeneficiariesandstakeholders,fromcommunities
to government policy makers.
While EbA is a new concept, it also builds on existing
practices such as integrated water resource management,
community-based natural resource management and
forest landscape restoration, bringing in the climate
change adaptation angle. Participatory assessments and
vulnerability impact assessments (VIAs) are essential
in identifying specific climate change impacts and
vulnerabilities of ecosystems and ecosystem services,
thereby making identified EbA measures additional to
existing practices (Chapter 2).
MELTING GLACIERS POSES A SIGNIFICANT CHALLENGE WITHIN THE NOR YAUYOS COCHASE LANDSCAPE RESERVE IN PERU,
THREATENING THE LONG-TERM WATER SUPPLY TO DOWNSTREAM AREAS. © Jefatura RPNYC

1.4 Mountain ecosystems:
vulnerable to climate change
The mountain ecosystems of this programme found in the
Andes of Peru, Himalayan foothills of Nepal and Mount
Elgon in Uganda are all very different landscapes. Mountains
are located in most regions of the world, but differ in terms
of shape, altitude, vegetation and climate (Kohler Maselli
2009). However, there are certain similar characteristics
regarding climate change impacts on mountains (Ibid.).
The topography of mountains is complex, with climates
varying over small distances, making climate projections
challenging. Temperatures vary with altitude, therefore
temperature increases will impact different elevations
differently. Melting of glaciers and permafrost will release
rocks and debris.
Critical water towers, mountains provide vast areas with
freshwater for domestic use, irrigation, industry and
hydropower (Ibid.). Changes in rainfall and snow will have
a direct impact on water provision and services both in
mountains and downstream in lowlands (Ibid.). These
impacts are expected in all project sites of this programme.
Melting of glaciers will also directly impact freshwater
supply and storage. Glacial melt is expected to have
particular impact in the Nor Yauyos Cochas Landscape
Reserve in Peru, which is why it is important to support
ecosystems that provide water regulation services such as
grassland management. Changes in hydrological cycles,
including increase in intense rainfalls, can destabilize slopes
and further erosion, resulting in landslides, which are a
very common hazard in mountainous areas. Mount Elgon
is particularly susceptible to drought, erosion, floods and
landslides (NaFORRI 2013).
Mountains are often biodiversity hotspots and home to
endemic species that may be particularly susceptible to
climate change due to limits in uphill migration to cooler
climates (Ibid.). Panchase has 113 orchid species, among
which two are endemic (Eria pokhrensis and Panisea
panchanesis) and may be particularly vulnerable to climate
change. Peru is considered a gene bank of potato varieties.
Native potato species are cultivated in the terraced
landscape of Nor Yauyos Cochas. With climate change, the
best conditions for their cultivation are expected to be
found at higher altitudes.
In terms of adaptation options, there are some particular
opportunities and constraints for mountainous areas. All
agricultural communities practice adaptive management
in changing circumstances, but mountain communities are
accustomed to a high degree of climate variability between
years, seasons, times of day and slopes, and therefore tend to
have extensive traditional coping mechanisms (Ibid.). They
live with risk and have developed time-tested approaches
and methods to cope with that risk. Risk coping measures
at the project sites include traditional water use practices
(Nepal and Peru) and making best use of diverse land use
opportunities (Nepal and Uganda).
Agriculture and forestry are often the main source of food
security and livelihoods in many mountain areas (Tsering et
al. 2010). All of the project landscapes in this programme
rely on cultivation of crops. On the other hand, some
mountainous areas are not suitable for crops, and grazing
and forestry become the only sources of livelihoods. Due
to altitude in the community of Tanta, in the Nor Yauyos
Cochas Reserve in Peru, there is neither forest nor arable
land. Livestock grazing is the only source of livelihood.
Several non-climatic drivers of degradation are typical to
mountain areas, such as deforestation accelerating erosion
and enhancing landslides and floods; or construction of
roads or mining further exacerbating hazards. These drivers
are present in all project sites (Chapter 2). Certain drivers
of vulnerability, such as inaccessibility, political and social
marginalitythatcanleadtofoodshortagesarealsocommon
in mountain areas (Kohler Maselli 2009). This has been
evidenced in the Sanzara community in Uganda, an area
in the rain shadow of Mount Elgon. Out-migration of the
rural workforce can reduce economic activities and, while
it may act as a form of adaptation in generating income
(through remittances), it also reduces local production
and productivity (Tsering et al. 2010). The project sites in
both Nepal and Peru have high rates of outmigration and
shortage of labour force (Chapter 2).
The project sites in Nepal, Peru and Uganda have different
climate impacts, ecosystems, and drivers of degradation and
vulnerability. However, there are also similarities typical to
mountain ecosystem in terms of climate change impacts as
well as opportunities and constraints for adaptation options.

12 MAKING THE CASE FOR ECOSYSTEM-BASED ADAPTATION: The Global Mountain EbA Programme in Nepal, Peru and Uganda12 BUILDING ON THE MOUNTAIN EBA PROGRAMME IN NEPAL, PERU AND UGANDA: Making the case for Ecosystem-based Adaptation
“CULTIVATING BROOM GRASS FOR COMMERCIAL USE HAS ALSO
BEEN INTEGRAL IN CREATING A STRONGER SOCIAL BOND BETWEEN
THE WOMEN IN OUR NETWORK, CROSSING TRADITIONAL CASTE
BARRIERS,” SAYS SABINA AC, PRESIDENT, PANCHASE WOMEN’S
NETWORK.

EbA measures provide a range of environmental,
social and economic benefits, such as enhanced
water provision and reduced soil erosion;
strengthened local organizational capacities and
empowerment of women and disadvantaged
groups; and increased productivity and income.
It is essential to demonstrate short-term benefits,
and in particular the socio-economic benefits, of
EbA to communities early on so as to make the
case for becoming involved in an EbA initiative.
The case can then be made for implementing
broader, scaled-up EbA measures, which provide
multiple benefits across entire ecosystems in
the long term and are essential for enhancing
adaptive capacity.
CHAPTER 2:
MAKING THE CASE
FOR THE MULTIPLE
BENEFITS OF EBA

This chapter discusses what is needed at the planning
and implementation stage for making the case for EbA
to key beneficiaries and stakeholders at community,
local, national and global level. The chapter focuses on
showing how, in the Mountain EbA Programme, initial
participatory assessments increased understanding of
EbA and its benefits, and enabled the implementation of
early‘no regrets’measures on the ground. These measures,
in turn, helped make the case for EbA especially at local
level. VIAs then enabled the design of well-grounded EbA
measures at an appropriate scale, which should enhance
the achievement of EbA benefits in the medium to long
term. These steps were important in making the case for
EbA and ensuring buy-in, especially with communities and
government planners at landscape level.
The chapter then makes the case for EbA by presenting
how EbA can generate multiple environmental, social and
economic benefits, exemplified by observed and expected
benefits provided by the EbA measures implemented
by the Mountain EbA Programme. In particular, given
that EbA is a relatively new approach, this chapter shows
how the benefits of EbA are essential in making the case
to communities and decision-makers. Once the case has
been made, EbA can then be integrated into relevant
planning and policy processes, from local to national and
global levels.
2.1 Using participatory planning and‘no regrets’
measures to promote EbA
Making the case for EbA at local level and securing local
commitment requires undertaking immediate, visible
actions that provide benefits at the outset of each
project’s implementation. Rapid participatory assessments
were carried out early on at each project site to gather
information needed to design and implement initial ‘no
regrets’activities.
Each country adopted a slightly different approach to
applying a set of participatory tools, as shown in Case
Studies 1 and 2. The community-level assessments
enabled identification of social and economic dynamics in
communities and provided an understanding of livelihood
sources and drivers of ecosystem degradation. The role
of various ecosystem services in supporting sources of
livelihoods was also identified. Local perceptions of climate
variability experienced to date were noted and existing
secondary climate data on future climate projections were
reviewed, where available. Based on the above information
and analysis, the assessments put forward proposed ‘no
regrets’measures.
Box 2 | ‘No regrets’measures
‘No regrets’measures, as that term is used by the Mountain
EbA Programme, means autonomous measures by
communities which do not worsen vulnerabilities to
climate change, or which increase adaptive capacities, as
well as measures that will always have positive impact on
livelihoods and ecosystems, regardless of how the climate
changes. 7
COMMUNITY MEMBERS FROM SANZARA DRAWING THE FUTURE
THEY WANT IN THEIR PARISH. © IUCN Uganda

15CHAPTER 2 MAKING THE CASE FOR THE MULTIPLE BENEFITS OF EBA
Case Study 1 | Participatory adaptation planning in Sanzara, Mount Elgon, Uganda
From: IUCN Uganda (2012) “Restoration of the River Sipi Micro-Catchment as an Ecosystem-Based Solution to Build Social and Ecological Resilience of the Sanzara
Community to Climate Change Impacts”. Kampala: IUCN.
A participatory assessment was carried out in Sanzara to develop social baselines. The Community-based Risk Screening Tool –
Adaptation and Livelihoods (CRiSTAL8
) and Climate Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment tool (CVCA9
) were used to carry out rapid
assessments of potential climate impacts and to see what adaptation measures communities were already undertaking. Five-year
timelines and trends were developed based on available, national level climate data. A problem and solution matrix put forward
main challenges linked to climate change – flooding and drought were the two prioritized problems. The matrix showed how these
affected livelihoods and different categories of people. A list of‘no regrets’activities was identified based on the assessment and
ongoing activities. Based on the list, pro-poor activities were prioritized. The PROFOR-IUCN Poverty-Forests Toolkit10
was used to identify
livelihood dependency on natural resources. Water shortage was identified as a key challenge for local livelihoods and resilience. The
assessment found that addressing water shortage, through a proposed gravity flow scheme (GFS)11
, would provide a means for making
the case for EbA, as well as build up adaptive capacities to manage natural resources as a community. This involved constructing a
concrete reservoir to capture river water high in the catchment, and piping it down to agricultural fields located in a rain shadow
that is likely to worsen with climate change. The GFS was used as an incentive and entry point to create a platform for planning and
demonstrating the value of sustainable management of the entire catchment to enhance social and ecosystem resilience. Through
this GFS platform, various proposed‘no regrets’measures (incl. riverbank restoration, soil and water conservation and integration of
agroforestry in the farming system) were specifically designed as a means to secure community buy-in and commitment, which would
then be used to make the case for broader-scale EbA measures, such as watershed restoration, that were adopted later on.
FUTURE VISION MAP OF SANZARA PARISH DRAWN BY COMMUNITY MEMBERS AS PART OF THE PARTICIPATORY ADAPTATION
PLANNING PROCESS. © IUCN Uganda

Case Study 2 | Integrated participatory rural appraisal in Canchayllo and Miraflores, Peru
From: Instituto de Montaña (IM) (2013 and 2014) Diseño preliminar de la medida robusta de adaptación al cambio climático en la Comunidad Campesina de
Canchayllo - Reserva Paisajística Nor-Yauyos Cochas: Rehabilitación de humedales y gestión comunal de praderas nativas. Resumen ejecutivo. Lima: Instituto de
Montaña.
The project staff, together with a team of local researchers, external specialists and the staff of the Nor Yauyos Cochas Landscape
Reserve, carried out an extensive integrated participatory rural appraisal (IPRA) for designing‘no regrets’measures for the communities
of Canchayllo and Miraflores. The NYCLR Management Plan prepared by SERNANP already provided good information on ecosystems
and ecosystem services. This information and the existing priorities of the Management Plan were therefore able to be used as a
basis for designing‘no regrets’measures. Measures were also identified based on local priorities and a set of criteria for EbA measures
(Chapter 1, Table 3).
Each community selected a team of local researchers (eight people per community, including two park rangers and one specialist from
the Reserve) to participate in the IPRA jointly with the team of external experts. Linkages to climate change were already identified at
this stage, including with regards to water storage and to regulating impacts of extreme temperatures. The IPRA therefore focused on
these issues. Lack of social organization was identified as a driver of degradation and activities to strengthen institutional and technical
capacities were put forward as a priority. Field trips and workshops with key stakeholders (communities, reserve staff and municipal
authorities) were carried out to identify vulnerabilities based on local perceptions, communities’needs and priorities, and to generate
ideas to address such vulnerabilities. Later, after an expert analysis, such ideas would become potential‘no regrets’measures. Two topics
were prioritized for Canchayllo: native grassland management and improvement of ancestral hydrological infrastructure. In Miraflores,
the following activities were chosen: grassland management, conservation and management of upper micro-watersheds, wetlands
and watercourses.
PASTURES SAMPLED BY LOCAL AND COMMUNITY RESEARCHERS FOR IPRA. © Aneli Gomez, TMI

Participatory assessments enabled the identification of
community priorities in terms of potential ‘no regrets’
measures, as well as showing linkages between livelihoods
and ecosystems.This helped ensure the identified measures
responded to community needs. The participatory process
itself helped create buy-in and instill a sense of ownership
for the proposed ’no regrets’ measures. Participants were
asked to reflect on what they understood by climate
change and what measures they proposed to address it.
The participatory processes helped increase understanding
of climate change and EbA through joint gathering of data
and bottom-up planning processes for adaptation. The
participatory processes also increased understanding in
communities that some EbA benefits would take longer to
achieve.They helped make the technical issues of EbA more
understandable, and provided a means to operationalize
and implement ‘no regrets’ measures. The participatory
tools that were applied were flexible and could be adapted
to local needs. In the case of IUCN Uganda, the process
itself of applying the CRiSTAL tool brought the community
together and helped lead to the formation of community
water groups, which in turn built up adaptive capacities
(Karami-Dekens Kutegeka 2012).
By understanding the linkages between ecosystems,
livelihoods and climate change, communities were better
able to understand some of the expected benefits provided
by ecosystem services, such as increased provision of
water services for livelihoods (Table 5). It was essential for
the programme to show some early benefits of ‘no regrets’
measures, in particular with regards to socio-economic
benefits that can enhance livelihoods, to make the case for
the project itself and eventually for EbA more broadly. For
example, the GFS discussed in Case Study 1 enhanced water
provision for agricultural crops, increased income from sale
of crops and improved agricultural livelihoods (Table 5).
Showing such initial benefits increased the community´s
buy-in, while enhancing their understanding of the
contribution of ecosystem services to livelihoods. It was
then easier to make the case for the adoption of broader-
scale EbA measures later on (Case Study 4).
Many of the ‘no regrets’ measures could be considered
business as usual development and ecosystem
management, until they could be filtered against the formal
VIA process and be integrated into broader scale, longer-
term EbA measures, as described below.
2.2 Using vulnerability and impact assessments
to promote EbA
Vulnerability and impact assessmentsare critical in identifying
climate change impacts and implementing evidence-based,
landscape-level Ecosystem-based Adaptation measures,
especially for medium- to long-term implementation.
They also help make the case for EbA to local and national
government planners and policy makers in particular, by
showing expected climate change impacts and how EbA
measures can be implemented to reduce vulnerability.
Vulnerability and impact assessments were carried out in
each project country.TheVIAs were planned to serve multiple
purposes.12
They identified drivers of vulnerability, climate
change impacts, biodiversity and ecosystem services. Each
VIA was carried out using a slightly different methodology
and focus. Reference for the VIAs are provided in Table 4.
Box 3 | Vulnerability
The Mountain EbA Programme utilizes the IPCC definition
of vulnerability:Vulnerability is the degree to which a
system is susceptible to, and unable to cope with, adverse
effects of climate change, including climate variability
and extremes.Vulnerability is a function of the character,
magnitude, and rate of climate change and variation to
which a system is exposed, its sensitivity, and its adaptive
capacity.
Figure 1 | Vulnerability diagram
Source: IPCC (2007)
Vulnerability
to climate change
Exposure
Sensitivity
Adaptive capacity

Box 4 | What areVIAs?
Vulnerability impact assessments, orVIAs, are a methodology for determining and quantifying, to the extent practicable, how
vulnerable a particular area is to the impacts of climate change. At the outset of any adaptation initiative, an assessment of
climate change implications for the composition and functioning of ecosystems, as well as the different aspects of human society
(e.g. social well-being, economic activities) is required to determine whether, and the extent to which, climate change will have
an impact. Once a determination has been made that climate change poses significant risks and that adaptation is needed to
manage those risks, assessments are carried out to provide essential information to inform the subsequent components of the
adaptation process: planning, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation.
Assessments of climate change impacts and vulnerability vary widely, depending on the subject matter (e.g. a natural resource/
production system such as agriculture, or an economic activity such as investment in infrastructure development); time frame
(e.g. near-term consistent with annual crop planning, or longer timeframe comparable to the design lifetime of road transport
system); geographic coverage (e.g. a transboundary watershed or a single site); and purposes of the assessments (e.g. to raise
awareness of climate change, or to inform the technical design of large/expensive infrastructure). Consequently, a wide range
of methods and tools have been developed and applied to facilitate the assessments, with the support of appropriate data and
information.
Source: UNFCCC (2011) Assessing Climate Change Impacts and Vulnerability: Making Informed Adaptation Decisions, United Nations Climate Change
Secretariat, Bonn, p. 16.
Table 4 | Vulnerability and impact assessments developed by the Mountain EbA Programme
Nepal Dixit, A, Karki, M and Shukla, A (2015) Vulnerability and Impacts Assessment for Adaptation Planning in Panchase
Mountain Ecological Region, Kathmandu
Peru Dourojeanni, D, Giada, S, and Leclerc, M (2014)Vulnerability and Impact Assessment of the Climate Change in the Nor
Yauyos Cochas Landscape Reserve and its Buffer Zone.Technical Summary. Mountain EbA Programme in Peru.
Uganda NaFORRI (2013) Ecosystem Based Adaptation in Mountain Elgon Ecosystem: Vulnerability Impact Assessment (VIA) for the
Mt Elgon Ecosystem. Republic of Uganda Ministry ofWater and Environment, Kampala.
The vulnerability and impact assessments provided
scientific evidence and complemented the participatory
assessments built on local knowledge systems. Many of the
‘no regrets’ measures were mainly focused on enhancing
livelihoods, taking into consideration observed changes in
weather patterns in recent decades. By bringing in forward-
looking climate change scenarios, the VIAs enabled the
validation and redesign of many ‘no regrets’ measures
into EbA measures that would be climate-resilient in the
longer run. In most cases, this was about validating the
results of participatory assessments and other studies
that had already been carried out, and which had been
used as a basis for implementing the‘no regrets’measures.
Based on the VIA findings and recommendations, some
‘no regrets’ activities were discontinued, as the data of
the VIAs showed that these measures were not directly
linked to climate change adaptation. For example, many
of the alternative livelihood activities such as bee keeping
and unbaked bricks were no longer continued (Table 9).
However, their value in contributing to adaptive capacities
by diversifying livelihoods and making communities
better able to deal with external shocks, including climate
change, was recognised. As such, many of these activities
were continued by communities independently or with
the support of local government agencies (P Nteza
2015, pers. comm.). Such activities aimed at livelihood
diversification to spread risk could contribute to broader
overall adaptation strategies.
Redesigning ‘no regrets’ measures was done in particular
with regards to scale. Most of the‘no regrets’measures were
implemented in targeted locations at the community scale.
Following the VIA, landscape connectivity, one of the key
premises for EbA, became an approach adopted at all sites.

An ecosystem or landscape scale for activities enabled a shift
in interventions from stand-alone ‘no regrets’ pilot activities
to interconnected EbA measures embedded in ecosystems
and focused on the provision of ecosystem services at a
landscape scale.
For example, the project in the Sanzara region in Uganda
initially had stand-alone ‘no regrets’ pilots on tree nurseries,
agroforestry, bee keeping and the gravity flow scheme (Case
Study 4). Following the VIA, the gravity flow scheme was
nested in a broader catchment and riverbank management
plan. Tree planting was integrated into broader landscape
restoration. This data and change of focus also enabled the
move away from short-term‘no regrets’measures to longer-
term ecosystem-based adaptation measures.
The VIAs enabled identification and design of appropriate
EbA measures at the needed scale. This demonstrated
that VIAs can provide a solid evidence base for designing
EbA measures that respond to climate change threats
and vulnerabilities, and which therefore are more likely
to provide multiple benefits in the medium to long
term. For example, the VIAs generated data that enabled
consideration of upstream – downstream linkages of
watersheds. This showed how integrated management at
ecosystem scale can better address climate hazards such as
floods, in addition to providing environmental benefits such
as growth of natural vegetation, or economic benefits such
as improved livestock yields and agricultural production
(Table 10 and Section 2.3.).
The VIAs produced by the programme proved to be useful
in making the case to protected area managers in the
Nor Yauyos Cochas Landscape Reserve and the Panchase
Protected Forest as to why climate change is an issue in
their landscape and how planning for EbA can provide
longer-term, landscape-scale solutions. In Nepal and
Uganda, the VIAs enabled a more integrated landscape
level planning process, which built on the community-level
participatory assessments that had been started earlier on.
In Uganda, information from the VIA was used as a basis
for the development of new Catchment Management
Plans and Parish Adaptation Plans (Chapter 4). Relevant
water management and climate change committees were
established. Plans are underway for integrating the VIA
process into existing District Development Plans for Mount
Elgon as a means to ensure sustainability of EbA measures.
In Nepal, the Panchase Protected Forest Management
Plan is under revision, which provides an opportunity for
integrating VIA results and EbA measures into this plan.
In Peru, VIA results have been integrated into the NYCLR
Management Plan. According to Gonzalo Quiroz, Manager
of the Nor Yauyos Cochas Landscape Reserve, the climate
change predictions highlighted through the VIA were in
line with changes in weather patterns that were already
being perceived in the field (Quiroz 2015, pers.comm.). This
showed that watershed level planning is important and that
activities upstream have a direct impact on downstream
provision of ecosystem services. SERNANP is also looking to
initiate watershed level planning with the Regional Water
Authority, and theVIA is seen as a useful planning tool in this
process. Further, the VIA helps make the case for scaling up
to regional level. Indeed, the results of the VIA were already
considered in the elaboration of the Regional Climate
Change Strategy for the Department of Junín (which
includes a portion of the NYCLR). Finally, SERNANP is using
the NYCLR VIA as a pilot on how to do VIAs in protected
areas, and this experience is serving to provide lessons
learned for scaling-up the use of VIAs in other protected
areas in Peru (Case Study 11).
VIAs can be useful decision-making tools for adaptation
planning, especially at sub-national level (Munroe et al.
2015). As described above, the VIAs of the Mountain EbA
Programme found that a watershed or catchment, or an
existing defined landscape such as a protected area proved
a useful scale for planning and implementing EbA. Given
the time and financial resources invested in developing
VIAs for EbA, their true value can be maximized if they are
also developed as longer-term planning tools that feed
into local-level planning processes for ecosystems and
landscapes under climate change.
Emerging from workshop discussions,13
as well as a
draft paper by Dourojeanni et al. (2015), the programme
partners have identified the value of having a phased or
integrated approach to planning EbA measures. This can
include a process that begins with a rapid participatory VIA
assessment at site scale, ideally for a defined ecosystem
or landscape: e.g. a watershed, catchment, or protected
area, and which embraces existing risk management
and knowledge systems. This enables the identification
and implementation of early EbA actions on the ground,
which in turn helps make the case for EbA at community
level, ensuring buy-in, commitment and local relevance. A
baseline and monitoring and evaluation (ME) indicators
should be designed at this stage. Depending on existing
data or lack thereof (for example, on ecosystem functions,
climatechangeimpactsandfutureprojectionsofecosystem
service supply), a more comprehensive VIA or additional

scientific studies may be needed, which can build on the
rapid assessment. In particular government users, whether
at local, regional or national level, are interested in scientific
data and comprehensive analysis provided by VIAs to
support planning and decision-making around adaptation.
2.3 Environmental, social and economic
benefits of EbA
Measuring impact and effectiveness of EbA is essential to
make the case for EbA to a range of stakeholders from local
communities and planners to national level decision-makers,
donors and global fora. The programme´s experience
in developing EbA indicators to measure impact and
effectiveness shows that a holistic approach is needed,
which considers social, economic, ecosystem and ecosystem
service indicators, in addition to including cross-cutting
climate variability and change indicators that can measure all
impacts of EbA measures in the context of climate exposure
and adaptive capacity.14
Delays took place in all countries
regarding this activity. Challenges included the fact that this
was a pilot programme and few prior experiences existed
on which to build in the development of EbA indicators.
Although many of the indicators were developed and
adopted only at later stages of the programme, valuable
lessons were learned and examples generated of indicators
that can be replicated in future EbA projects, as elaborated
in the Programme Learning Brief on Tracking and Measuring
Impact of EbA Projects (Rossing 2015). The EbA measures
implemented through the programme are beginning to
demonstrate environmental, social and economic benefits,
and additional benefits are expected in the medium to long
term, past the lifetime of the programme.Tables 5-10 provide
an overview of the multiple benefits of the implemented EbA
measures, including those that have already been observed
and those that are expected in the medium- to long term.
Environmental benefits
Ecosystem-based adaptation measures provide several
environmental benefits, which in turn enhance human well-
being. The figure below builds on the typography used in
the Millennium Ecosystems Assessment (2005) to show the
range of ecosystem services that contribute to well-being in
the context of the project sites.
DANDHAGUPTE POND (NEPAL) BEFORE AND AFTER WATER CONSERVATION MEASURES.
©UNDPNepal,2014
©TineRossing,UNDP

EbA measures around water management such as
restoring ponds, water sources and water channels, were
implemented at project sites in Nepal, Peru and Uganda, as
describedinTables5and10.Thesemeasureshaveenhanced
water provision, recharged ground water, increased soil
moisture and increased vegetation (Case Studies 3, 4 and 6;
Barrow et al. (2015); Khanal et al. (2014).) In terms of climate
change adaptation functions, these measures are expected
to increase agricultural and livestock production during
dry spells, through increased water provision. They are also
expected to regulate flooding through channelling excess
water, and to reduce the impact of landslides by capturing
silt. As described in Case Study 3, the Dandaghupte Pond
in Panchase, Nepal, was reconstructed to collect rainwater
and surface water runoff. Natural water infiltration through
the pond has enhanced soil moisture level and soil quality,
reducing soil erosion. It is expected that through reduced
water run-off and by capturing silt and eroded soil, the
pond will protect agricultural land and downstream areas
from disasters such as flooding and landslides.
Figure 2 | Millennium Ecosystems Assessment: range of services
Supporting
Services that support the
production of all other
ecosystem services
 Soil formation
 Nutrient cycling
 Primary production
 Pollination
Provisioning
Physical,tangible products
obtained from ecosystems
 Food
 Fresh water
 Wood and fibre
 Fuel
Security
 Personal safety
 Secure resource access
 Security from disaster
Basic material for a
good life
 Adequate livelihoods
 Sufficient, nutritious
food
 Shelter
 Access to goods
Health
 Strength
 Feeling well
 Access to clean air
and water
Good social relations
 Social cohesion
 Mutual respect
 Ability to help others
Freedom of
choice and action
Opportunity to be able
to achieve what an
individual values doing
and being
Regulating
Benefits obtained from
regulation of ecosystem
processes
 Climate regulation
 Flood regulation
 Disease regulation
 Water purification
Cultural services
Non-material, intangible
benefits obtained from
ecosystems
 Aesthetic
 Spiritual
 Educational
 Recreational
Ecosystem Services Constituents of well-being
Arrows colour
Potential for mediation by
Socio-economic factors
Arrows with
Intensity of linkages between
ecosystem services and human well-being
 Low  Medium  High Weak Medium Strong
Source: Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005 Summary for decision makers. In Ecosystems and HumanWell-being: Synthesis, 1-24.Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

Table 5 | Water conservation and management measures: overview of‘no regrets’and EbA measures
implemented in Nepal and Uganda, with observed and expected benefits
EbA measure Country/
implementing
agency
Climate change
adaptation
function
(observed and
expected)
Environmental
benefits
(observed and
expected)
Social benefits
(observed and
expected)
Economic benefits
(observed and
expected)
Restoration
of conservation
ponds and
natural
springs
Panchase
region, Nepal,
UNDP and
IUCN
Continuous clean
and sufficient
water available for
households and
agriculture from
restored water
source, even during
increasing dry
periods
Buffer against
water-induced
natural hazards
such as flooding,
drought and
landslides
Increase resilience
of vegetation
during dry periods
Increased water
provision for domestic,
livestock and
agricultural use
Increased
groundwater
recharge
Increased water
infiltration and
regulation of
ecosystem
Enhanced soil
moisture and soil
fertility
Increased water
downstream
Reduced risk of forest
fire due to enhanced
soil moisture
Decrease in water-
borne diseases for
humans as well as a
notable decrease in
diseases afflicting
the livestock,
particularly intestinal
parasites
Better human health
from consuming
healthier livestock
products (mil and
meat)
Reduced conflict over
scarce water resources
Water collection time
saved and utilized
saved time for
productive work
Clean and sufficient water
will likely result in healthier
livestock, which, in turn, is
likely to increase returns on
sale of both increased milk
and meat production.
Enhanced income from
improved agricultural
yield from use of water for
irrigation during dry season
Gravity flow
scheme
Sanzara,
Uganda
IUCN
Improved river
water provision for
irrigation, livestock
and domestic use
during prolonged
dry spells
Restored ecosystem
services in
surrounding
catchment
ecosystem to
sustain water flow
Provision of steady
water supply for both
human consumption
and agriculture
Improved health and
variety of crops from
steady and sufficient
water supply
Increased cohesion
social capital among
parish actors from
establishing water
groups and jointly
planning and
implementing
activities
Improved health from
stable water supply,
enough food and
better nutrition
Decrease in conflicts
of water use
Decrease in time
spent in search for
water
Improved agricultural
livelihoods and increased
income from increased local
commercial sale of more
varied and healthier crops,
enabled by the catchment-
scale approach
Income could further be
increased, if additional
support was provided to
access markets beyond
local scale
Sources: Developed by N. Ikkala Nyman and T. Rossing based on analysis of Barrow, E. et al. (2015); IUCN Uganda (2012a and b); Khanal, R. et al. (2014); Rossing, T.
et al. (2015b); A Adhikari, R Gafabusa, S Kutegeka, P Nteza, andY Rai, 2015, personal communications.

EbA measures focused on sustainable grassland and
livestock management, such as rotational grazing, livestock
organization and planting of native grass species, have
enhanced vegetation cover and diversity, and increased
forage (Table 6). These measures are expected to restore
grasslands, increase soil moisture, regulate water and
increase livestock productivity. Expected climate change
adaptation functions include increased provision of grazing
and forage during dry periods, regulating water and
floods during heavy rainfall, and slope stabilization during
landslides.
Pasture and livestock management activities in Tanta,
Peru, for example, have already significantly contributed
to enhanced condition of the pastures, with a visible
increase in vegetation cover (see photos and Case Study
5). The provisioning capacity of pastures as livestock fodder
has already increased significantly. Increase in vegetation
cover is further expected to lead to better water infiltration
capacity and reduce soil cover loss.
TANTA (PERU) BEFORE AND AFTER GRASSLAND MANAGEMENT.
©WoodroAndiaCastelo,UNDPPeru
©JamesLeslie,UNDPPeru

Table 6 | Sustainable grassland and livestock management: overview of‘no regrets’and EbA measures
implemented in Nepal, Peru and Uganda, with observed and expected benefits
EbA
measure
Country/
implementing
agency
Climate change
adaptation
function
(observed and
expected)
Environmental
benefits
(observed and
expected)
Social benefits
(observed and
expected)
Economic benefits
(observed and
expected)
Sustainable
management
of grasslands
through:
Enhanced
vicuña
management
Enhanced
animal
husbandry
Tanta, Peru
UNDP
Pastures available for
grazing and fodder
year round, including
during dry season
Protection against
flood
Storage of nutrients
and maintenance
of soil structure,
which are
supporting
ecosystem services
fundamental
to enhance the
ecosystem’s
resilience to
climatic shocks
and stresses
Reduces pressure
on natural pastures,
wetlands and alpine
ecosystems
favouring their
recuperation.
Enhanced provision
of animal fibre
Provide diverse
habitats for animals that
are predators and prey
Likely increase in
better health among
community members
from consuming
healthier livestock
products (milk +
meat)
Strengthening of
local organizations
and management of
communal lands
Capacity building
and technical
assistance in
enhanced livestock
and vicuña
management
Enhanced scenic
beauty
Generate new or
increased income for local
communities through:
New income opportunity
from commercial sale of
vicuña fibre boosted by
value chain development
Increased income from
generating better and
more milk products and
meat from livestock
Boost in recreation and
tourism activities
Rotational
grazing and
grassland
plantation
(native and
cultivated)
Canchayllo,
Peru IUCN/TMI
Tanta, Peru
UNDP
Moist grassland
reduce risk of forest
fires during dry
periods
Pastures available
for grazing and
fodder year round,
including during dry
season
Grasslands and
adjoining wetlands
help regulate heavy
rainfall and floods
Maintain soil
structure
Reduced pressure
on (over-grazed)
grasslands and
wetlands, favoring
their recuperation
Increasedvegetation
cover,wetlandand
grasslandrestoration.
Enhanced soil
moisture
Contribute to
hydrological
regulation
Enhanced provision
of pastures and
forage
Provides diverse
habitat for animals
that are predators
and prey
Strengthened
institutional
arrangements
and capacities
for community
management of
water, grasslands
and livestock
through institutional
strengthening,
capacity building,
organizing
committees and
establishing
management plans
Improves animal yields and
agricultural production.
Increased livestock
productivity through
improved livestock
distribution, grassland
quality and the creation
of natural troughs, likely
to lead to increased
livelihood income

EbA
measure
Country/
implementing
agency
Climate change
adaptation
function
(observed and
expected)
Environmental
benefits
(observed and
expected)
Social benefits
(observed and
expected)
Economic benefits
(observed and
expected)
Improved
livestock shed
(urine
collection, farm
yard manure
improvement)
(NR)
IUCN Nepal Less water demand
for irrigation in
farmyard, relevant in
periods of drought
Reduce pressure on
grasslands
Enhance soil moisture
Improved soil
properties especially
organic matter content
Improved nutrition and
dietary diversity
at household level
Improved animal
health and hygiene
Cost saving on external
inputs such as chemical
fertilizer
High market price of
organic products so
increase income
Increase livestock
production and better
income
Sources: Developed by N. Ikkala Nyman and T. Rossing based on analysis of Adhikari, A. et al. (2014); Fernandez-Baca, E. et al., (2014); Gwali, S. (2014); Instituto de
Montaña (2014); Picon, J.C., (2015a and b); Podvin K. et al. (2014); Global technical and learning workshop of the Mountain EbA Programme. Lunahuana, Peru
28-30 May, 2015. Summary.; A Adhikari, Woodro Andia Castello, E Fernandez-Baca, A Gomez,Y Rai and F Zapata, 2015, personal communications.
FARMERS IN SANZARA ARE NOW ABLE TO IRRIGATE THEIR FIELDS BY DRAWING ON STEADY WATER SUPPLY FROM NEARBY RIVER.. ©
Christopher Lutakome, IUCN Uganda
Conservation agriculture has improved soil quality and
fertility,reducedsoilerosion,enhancedwaterinfiltrationand
increased provision of crops (Table 7; Adhikari et al. (2014).
Climate change adaptation functions include the enhanced
ability of ecosystems to provide food during drought
periods, through conservation agriculture measures that
increase soil moisture, and through testing of drought
resistant varieties. Better land management, through
measures such as grass banks and hedgerows, can reduce
the impact of heavy rainfall and landslides. For example, in
Sanzara in Uganda, soil and water conservation measures
adopted by farmers have increased the provision and
quality of crops. The community has been able to produce
food even during periods of drought. This has been both
due to the adopted measures reducing soil erosion and
enhanced management of surface runoff water, and to
piloting of drought resistant crop varieties (Case Study 4).

Table 7 | Conservation agriculture: overview of‘no regrets’and EbA measures implemented in Nepal, Peru and
Uganda, with observed and expected benefits
EbA
measure
Country/
implementing
agency
Climate change
adaptation
function
(observed and
expected)
Environmental
benefits
(observed and
expected)
Social benefits
(observed and
expected)
Economic benefits
(observed and
expected)
Integrated
soil nutrient
management
(use of organic
soil nutrients
of compost
dung and
animal urine)
UNDP Nepal
IUCN Nepal
Timely cultivation
of the crops, as per
the cropping season,
mostly
due to timely
availability of
production inputs
Enhanced soil
productivity and fertility
Enhanced moisture
retention capacity
Reduced soil erosion
Reduced influx of
nutrients into water
bodies
Decreased alien and
invasive plant
invasions
Improved nutrition
and dietary diversity
through cultivation of
high value crops
Increased farm and
labour productivity
Reduced expenses on
chemical fertilizers
sale of high value crops,
especially vegetables
Soil
conservation
(incl.
agroforestry,
mulching,
grass banks,
hedgerows,
countours
and trenches)
Uganda, IUCN Increase in water
retention and
flow, availability
of continuous and
clean water to
downstream areas
during drought
Reduce soil erosion
through increase
in soil productivity
and retention,
maintenance of
nutrient and water
flow
Reduced flooding
and landslides
through enhanced
vegetation
Enhanced ability to
harvest crops
during drought
Enhanced soil
productivity and
fertility
Enhanced moisture
retention capacity
Reduced influx of
nutrients into water
bodies
Provision of a cool
environment for
proliferation of fauna
Enhanced forest
ecosystem from
reduced influx of
communities
Food security
Access to a healthier
diet
Access to clean water
Increase in community
cohesion and resilience
as farmers help each
other
Increased cultural
values of the forests un
upstream areas as less
people go to the forests
to collect
forest products
Increase in income from
enhanced agricultural
productivity as a result of
increased soil fertility
sale of product on local
market
Reduced dependence on
agricultural inputs,
leading to savings
Drought
resistant seed
varieties
Uganda, Nepal
IUCN
Crops resistant
during drought,
provision of food
Food security Additional income from
increased productivity
Sources: Developed by N. Ikkala Nyman and T. Rossing based on analysis of Adhikari, A. et al. (2014); Baral, B. et al. (2014); Gwali, S. (2014); IUCN Uganda (2012a
and b); Tiwari, S. et al. (2015); Global technical and learning workshop of the Mountain EbA Programme. Lunahuana, Peru 28-30 May, 2015. Summary.; A
Adhikari, R Gafabusa, A Gomez, S Kutegeka, P Nteza, andY Rai, 2015, personal communications.

Social benefits
The implemented ‘no regrets’ and EbA measures provide a
range of social benefits including enhanced food security,
access to clean water, access to a healthier diet, strengthening
of local organizational and technical capacities, as well as some
empowerment of women and disadvantaged groups and
breaking down social and cultural barriers (Tables 5 to 10).
A social benefit that has been observed across almost
all project sites has been the strengthening of local
organizational and technical capacities to manage natural
resources (Tables 5 to 10). In Canchayllo and Miraflores
in Peru, for example, the project has focused strongly on
institutional strengthening and capacity building as key
pillarsunderpinningallactivities(CaseStudy6).Strengthened
local organizations and networks provide important social
capital needed for increasing community resilience and
adaptive capacity. Future climate scenarios will require
effective management and decision-making structures
for planning and making decisions on ecosystem-based
adaptation measures, in response to increasingly changing
and unpredictable conditions.15
Management plans have
been developed in several of the project sites for adaptation
of watersheds and grasslands in particular. These form an
important basis for decision-making and encapsulate the
enhanced technical capacities of communities to manage
natural resources in a changing climate. These plans will be
discussed in further detail under Chapter 4.
EbA measures have provided a means of engaging
women and vulnerable groups more proactively, while
giving them a voice they did not previously have. In
Panchase, women have been active participants in
implementing EbA measures, because of the high rate
of male out-migration and large number of women
remaining in the communities. The Chitre village
development committee collaborated directly with
the Panchase Women´s Network on planting Amriso
or broom grass (Thysanolaena maxima), enabling the
women to lease abandoned lands and earn cash income
(Table 8 and Case Study 7).The activities were designed to
fit with women´s demanding schedules and workloads.
The cultivation of broom grass has also strengthened
bonds across social and cultural barriers by including
women from different castes. It has also empowered
women to undertake livelihood activities and challenge
traditional gender roles, challenging the traditional idea
that a Nepali woman, after she marries, is supposed to
remain in the home. The recent phenomenon of the
feminization of agriculture globally has in some cases
provided a positive opportunity for women to break out
of these traditional gender patterns.16
In Uganda, women
have participated more actively in agricultural activities
through the project in Sanzara, where previously their role
in livelihood generation was more passive (R Gafabusa
2015, pers. comm.).
Sustained delivery of social benefits, such as women´s
empowerment or reduction of ethnic and social tensions,
requires broad-reaching social change over a long period.
EbA measures can play but a part in contributing to such
broader change.
MEMBERS OF THE PANCHASE WOMEN’S NETWORK IN NEPAL. © Andrea Egan, UNDP

Table 8 | Land rehabilitation: overview of ’no regrets’and EbA measures implemented in Nepal, Peru and
EbA
measure
Country/
implementing
agency
Climate change
adaptation function
(observed and
expected)
Environmental
benefits
(observed and
expected)
Social benefits
(observed and
expected)
Economic benefits
(observed and
expected)
Plant cultivation
e.g. broom
grass,Timur
IUCN and
UNDP Nepal
Perfect plant for
restoration and to help
prevent landslides.
Strong root system helps
reduce top
and sub-soil loss
caused by heavy rainfall,
soil erosion and landslides
Combat invasive species
Fast rehabilitation
of ecosystem, due
to decrease in
invasive species and
regeneration of soil
and moist levels
Controlled overgrazing
Creation of women’s
empowerment and
stronger social bond
between involved
women through
capacity building
and training
Break down of caste-
determined social
and cultural barriers
New climate-resilient
livelihood income
for involved women
from selling brooms
commercially
Gabion walls Nepal, IUCN
and UNDP
Reduced landslides and
flooding during periods
of intense rain
Landslide
management
Farming yield
improved in areas
adjacent to gabion
walls, due to flood
control and absence
of upstream debris
collecting on
farmlands
Protected irrigation
canal and prevent
flooding of adjacent
farms
Protects agricultural
lands and prevents
washing away top soil
Protection to riverside
households and
infrastructure
Short-term
employment in
construction of grey-
green infrastructure
Enhanced sense of
security
Enhanced linkages
with government
agencies
Enhanced mobility
due to less flooding
on roads and bridges
Roadside
stabilization
with plantations
(incl. broom
grass)
Nepal, UNDP Ensures that the
communities have
better access to markets,
alternative source of
livelihood
Protection and
stabilization of road
slopes to reduce
sedimentation
Increased social
cohesiveness
Enhanced scenic
beauty so support
tourism
Maintenance of
infrastructure
Strengthening
institutional capacity
for community
management of
broom grass
Increased road access
to communities provide
better market access
Fast growing and
multipurpose and high
market demand
Increase income
and employment
opportunities
Alternative resource
base creation

EbA
measure
Country/
implementing
agency
Climate change
adaptation function
(observed and
expected)
Environmental
benefits
(observed and
expected)
Social benefits
(observed and
expected)
Economic benefits
(observed and
expected)
Roadside
stabilization
with plantations
(incl. broom
grass)
Nepal, UNDP Ensures that the
communities have
better access to markets,
alternative source of
livelihood
Protection and
stabilization of road
slopes to reduce
sedimentation
Increased social
cohesiveness
Enhanced scenic
beauty so support
tourism
Maintenance of
infrastructure
Strengthening
institutional capacity
for community
management of
broom grass
Increased road access
to communities provide
better market access
Fast growing and
multipurpose and
high market demand
Increase income
and employment
opportunities
Alternative resource
base creation
Gulley control Nepal, UNDP Reduces the damage
of road and agricultural
lands during e.g. floods
Protection and
stabilization of gulley
and reduced soil
erosion
Protection of road
and plantation sites
Increase productivity
of agricultural land and
decreased top soil loss
Fuel-efficient
cooking
stoves
Uganda, UNDP Landslides, soil erosion,
drought and flooding
reduced from decreased
deforestation and
improved forest and tree
cover from reduction in
fuel wood collection
 Enhanced ecosystem
restoration as a result
of reduced tree
cutting
 Increased
indigenous tree
species
 Reduction in time
spent in collecting
firewood especially
for women
 Improved human
health from
decrease in less soot/
smoke
 There is less time
spent in cooking
which gives women
more time to tend
to their spouses and
children
Increased savings that
would have otherwise
been used for charcoal
or firewood. Farmers
shift the incomes to
health and education
of their children
Sources: Developed by N. Ikkala Nyman and T. Rossing based on analysis of Adhikari, A. et al. (2014); Baral, B. et al. (2014); Gwali, S. (2014); IUCN Uganda (2012a
and b); Tiwari, S. et al. (2015); Global technical and learning workshop of the Mountain EbA Programme. Lunahuana, Peru 28-30 May, 2015. Summary.; A
Adhikari, R Gafabusa, A Gomez, S Kutegeka, P Nteza, andY Rai, 2015, personal communications.

Economic benefits
The programme has implemented a range of Ecosystem-
based Adaptation measures for generating income with
the specific aim to diversify livelihoods and thereby
increase economic resilience to climate change. These
include beekeeping, commercialization of non-timber
forest products, and ecotourism promotion in Nepal; and
production of unbaked bricks, bee-keeping and honey
harvesting in Uganda (Table 9). An increase in household
income has already been observed following these activities
(Gwali 2014) and (Tiwari 2015).
In addition, monetary profits have been made also through
other project measures, such as the local sales of produce
from both the demonstration and family gardens in
Uganda (P Nteza 2015, pers.comm. and R Gafabusa 2015,
pers.comm.; see also Case Study 4) and through the sales
of vicuña fibre in Tanta, the first of which were transacted
in September 2015 (Case Study 5). Some project measures
such as conservation agriculture have also allowed for
household savings in terms of reduced expenditure on
agricultural inputs (Case Study 10).
Broom grass (Case Study 7) has commercial potential on
local markets and even internationally, especially in India. A
single cluster of broom grass can provide enough material
for the production of 7 to 9 brooms per year, which results
in an annual income of $6 per year per plant (Rossing et
al. 2015a).17
Given that most of the women in the project
live on less than $1 a day, harvesting from up to 100 plants
each can significantly enhance incomes (Rossing et al.
2015a). Being a perennial plant, this income will contribute
to households year after year.
The potential for economic benefit has been one of the
main factors needed in making the case for EbA measures
to local communities in all project sites. Enhanced access to
water in Canchayllo, Miraflores and Sanzara was an essential
entry point for making the case for EbA, as it was seen by
communities as a means to increase agricultural and/or
livestock productivity, which would in turn lead to economic
benefits (Case Studies 4 and 6). It is important also to support
appropriate assessments of market opportunities for goods
harvested or produced through EbA interventions. Such
studies have been carried out for project sites in Nepal and
Peru.18
Communities have shown more interest in the economic
and social benefits of EbA, and less in the environmental
benefits. An important lesson learned by the programme
is, therefore, to ensure that EbA measures generate short-
term economic and social benefits, as they can be a means
to increase interest and buy-in for environmental benefits
and to secure commitment to implement ecosystem
conservation, restoration and management measures,
including in the medium to long term.
IN UGANDA, PROFITS FROM HONEY SALES ARE PAYING FOR CHILDREN’S SCHOOL FEES AND UNIFORMS, SECURING A FIRM
INVESTMENT IN A BETTER LIFE FOR THE NEXT GENERATION. © IUCN Uganda

Table 9 | Alternative livelihoods: overview of‘no regrets’and EbA measures implemented in Nepal, Peru and
EbA/‘no regrets’
(NR) measure
Country/
implementing
agency
Climate change
adaptation
function
(observed and
expected)
Environmental
benefits
(observed and
expected)
Social benefits
(observed and
expected)
Economic benefits
(observed and
expected)
Commercialization
of plant products
UNDP Nepal Diversified
livelihoods
better able to
deal with
climate shocks
Supports sub-surface
and ground water
recharge
Rehabilitation of
degraded lands
and slopes
Stabilizes slopes and
prevent soil erosion
Strengthens
local groups
Additional source
of income
Ecotourism
promotion
UNDP Nepal Improved cultural
goods and services
Access to financial
transactions
for women,
empowerment
Improved
household
sanitation
Enhanced skills
for women in
hospitality,
sanitation and
food
Enhanced
traditional
cultural customs
Additional source
of income
Bee keeping (NR) Nepal, IUCN Increased species
diversity with increase
in pollination and
productivity
Increased crop
productivity as a
result of increased
pollination
Empowerment of
women through
alternative
livelihood and
income generation
Additional source of
livelihood income
Unbaked bricks Uganda, UNDP Reduction of
deforestation
Clean indoor air
Sources: Developed by N. Ikkala Nyman and T. Rossing based on analysis of Baral, B. et al. (2014); Egan, A. Aturinda-Kyeyune (2015a and b); Egan, A. et al.
(2015b); Gwali, S. (2014); Rossing, T. et al. (2015a); Tiwari, S. et al. (2015); Global technical and learning workshop of the Mountain EbA Programme. Lunahuana,
Peru 28-30 May, 2015. Summary.; A Adhikari, R Gafabusa, S Kutegeka, P Nteza, andY Rai , 2015, personal communications.

Landscape scale multiple benefits
Following the vulnerability and impact assessments, many
initial standalone activities (such as conservation ponds,
conservation agriculture or the GFS, described above),
were linked and combined under a watershed/catchment/
landscape approach to managing and restoring ecosystems
(Table 10).
In Sanzara, Uganda (Case Study 4), a catchment scale
management approach was adopted following the initial
implementation of the gravity flow scheme and after
the results of the VIA became available (S Kutegeka and
R Gafabuse 2015, pers. comm.). The project’s work was
expanded to 22 villages along the River Sipi (from the initial
three villages in Sanzara) to cover the entire catchment from
the Mount Elgon Protected Area where the river emanates
to downstream areas. Both upstream and downstream
communitieswereengagedinrestorationandmanagement
activities, which include river bank management, soil and
water conservation measures, and planting of drought
tolerant tree and grass species on river banks, as means
to restore the landscape of River Sipi. Water quality has
already been enhanced with a sedimentation decrease of
approximately 20 percent between 2013 and 2014, based
on local measurements (R Gafabusa 2015, pers.comm.).
This is understood to be due to the use of soil and water
conservation trenches, which have reduced agricultural
sedimentation. The aim of the more integrated catchment
approach to EbA is to enhance the water regulation, erosion
regulation and natural hazard regulation functions of the
catchment in the face of climate change.
Before the project intervention, villages in Sanzara had
been dependent on food aid during periods of drought,
recently on an annual basis (R Gafabusa 2015, pers.
comm.). The initial gravity flow scheme allowed extraction
of river water for irrigated agriculture and the production
of more food (both in terms of quantity and variety) in a
shorter period and in smaller areas. This initial ‘no regrets’
measure addressed the communities´ most urgent need
to increase water availability; it was then combined
with other measures such as producing vegetables
locally using soil and water conservation methods and
piloting quick maturing, drought resistant and high value
STEADY CLEAN WATER FROM THE GRAVITY FLOW SCHEME HAS IMPROVED FOOD SECURITY AND HUMAN HEALTH IN SANZARA,
UGANDA. © IUCN Uganda

Table 10 | Ecosystem restoration: overview of‘no regrets’and EbA measures implemented in Nepal, Peru and
EbA/‘no regrets’
(NR) measure
Country/
implementing
agency
Climate change
adaptation
function
(observed and
expected)
Environmental
benefits
(observed and
expected)
Social benefits
(observed and
expected)
Economic
benefits
(observed and
expected)
Sub-watershed
restoration
Nepal, UNDP Hazard regulation:
minimize impact of
floods, landslides,
droughts and for Peru,
hail
Decreased soil erosion
from enhanced
vegetation
Enhanced provision
of water year round,
including during
drought, for agriculture,
livestock, domestic use,
hydropower and
tourism (where
relevant)
Restored ecosystem
services in surrounding
catchment ecosystem
to sustain water flow
Reduce occurrence of
natural fires during the
dry season by
enhancing wetlands in
grassland ecosystems
(Peru)
 Enhance water flow
from upstream to
downstream
 Reduce soil siltation
and soil erosion
 Reduce siltation
 Stabilise slopes
 Enhance water
recharge capacity
 Enhance vegetation
growth downstream
 Water regulation
and storage:
regulate runoff,
flooding and aquifer
recharge
 Erosion regulation
 Enhanced
carbon storage in
grasslands
 Biodiversity
conservation
Household income
from seedlings used
for reforestation
Catchment restoration:
Gravity flow scheme,
soil
and water
conservation,
river bank
management,
agroforestry,
tree planting
Uganda, IUCN  Increased cohesion
social capital
among parish actors
from establishing
water groups and
jointly planning
and implementing
activities
 Improved health
from stable water
supply, enough
food and better
nutrition
 Decrease in risk to
human well-being
from prevention of
flooding
 Decrease in time
spent in search for
water
Improved
agricultural
livelihoods and
increased income
from increased
commercial sale of
more varied and
healthier crops at
local market
Restoration
of upper
micro-watersheds,
wetlands and
water-courses:
Restoration of ancient
water channels and
reservoir dam
Community grazing
areas
for livestock
Wetland
fencing
Canchayllo
and Miraflores,
Peru
TMI/IUCN
Strengthened
institutional
arrangements
and capacities
for community
management of water,
grasslands
and livestock.
Improved
animal yields
and agricultural
production
Increased livestock
productivity and
quality
Sources: Developed by N. Ikkala Nyman and T. Rossing based on analysis of Baral, B. et al. (2014); Egan, A. et al. (2015a); Fernandez-Baca, E. et al., (2014); Gwali, S.
(2014); Instituto de Montaña (2014a and b); IUCN Uganda (2012a and b); Picon, J.C., (2015ª and b); Podvin K. et al. (2014); Tiwari, S. et al. (2015); Global technical
and learning workshop of the Mountain EbA Programme. Lunahuana, Peru 28-30 May, 2015. Summary.; A Adhikari, Woodro Andia Castello, E Fernandez-Baca, R
Gafabusa, A Gomez, S Kutegeka, P Nteza,Y Rai and F Zapata, 2015, personal communications.

Figure3|MountElgoninUgandawithandwithoutEbAmeasures
Source:NievesLopezIzquierdo/GRID-Arendal,basedontechnicalguidancefromTRossing,P.Dourojeanni,C.Petersen,N.I.NymanandP.Nteza

varieties of vegetables and fruit trees. These combined
EbA measures have provided several socio-economic
benefits, including enhanced self-sufficiency and food
security, in addition to providing income through selling
produce in the communities. The vegetables grown have
allowed for a more varied, healthier diet. Since the project
began, the communities have not applied for external
food aid (R Gafabusa 2015, pers. comm.). As a result of
the initial activities and later watershed management
measures adopted by communities upstream, siltation
has decreased and water quality measurements have
improved, providing access to clean water with direct
health benefits to local populations.
Figure 3 illustrates the Mount Elgon landscape with
and without the adopted EbA measures. For example,
reforestation measures upstream, together with soil and
water conservation measures, agroforestry and riverbank
stabilization provide multiple environmental, social and
economic benefits, as well as increasing water availability
for the gravity flow scheme downstream (which was the
initial project measure).
WOMEN’S EMPOWERMENT AND INCLUSION WAS AN INTEGRAL ELEMENT OF PROGRAMME ACTIVITIES IN SANZARA, UGANDA.

In Nepal, initial ‘no regrets’ measures were focused and
integrated. Pond restoration (Case Study 3) was integrated
with sub-watershed level wetland restoration, tree planting
to support water recharge and enhance slope stability,
and water source conservation (Table 10). When individual
water conservation approaches are integrated into a
broader watershed management approach, the water
regulation function of the ecosystem in terms of regulating
runoff, flooding and aquifer recharge is enhanced. The
natural hazard regulation function of the sub-watershed
in terms of minimizing impacts of floods and landslides is
also increased. Maintaining or enhancing these functions is
important in the face of anticipated climate change impacts.
Figure 4 illustrates the Panchase Mountain Ecological
Region in Nepal and its connection to downstream areas,
including Phewa Lake and the city of Pokhara, with and
withouttheadoptedEbAmeasures.Forexample,restoration
of conservation ponds and natural springs upstream,
combined with agroforestry, tree planting and river bank
management through green-grey measures, provide
multiple environmental, social and economic benefits, as
well as increasing water availability for both human and
agricultural consumption downstream.
POND RESTORATION ALSO HELPS DECREASE WATER-BORNE DISEASES FOR BOTH HUMANS AND LIVESTOCK. © Andrea Egan, UNDP

Figure4|PanchaseMountainEcologicalRegioninNepalwithandwithoutEbAmeasures
Source:NievesLopezIzquierdo/GRID-Arendal,basedontechnicalguidancefromT.Rossing,P.Dourojeanni,C.Petersen,N.IkkalaNymanandYalamberRai.

Figure5|NorYauyosCochasLandscapeReserveinPeruwithandwithoutEbAmeasures
Source:NievesLopezIzquierdo/GRID-Arendal,basedontechnicalguidancefromT.Rossing,P.Dourojeanni,C.Petersen,N.I.Nyman,EdithFernandez-Baca,andAdrianaKato.

In Peru, an ecosystem scale approach to managing
ecosystems and integrating EbA measures was adopted
from the outset, mainly because these activities were not
initiated until after the completion of the VIA and, hence,
were designed based on its findings and recommendations
(CaseStudy5and6,andTable10).ForexampleinCanchayllo,
conservation and management of wetlands upstream are
expected to enhance water provision downstream (Case
Study 6). Water is being channelled downstream through
restored channels and watercourses.
Natural pools are expected to form downstream which will
provide troughs for livestock and benefit the sustainable
grassland and water management activities being
implemented under the project. Grasslands are expected to
enhance soil moisture and thereby contribute to hydrological
regulation. These joint measures are aimed at enhancing the
water regulation function of the micro-watershed, especially
during the rainy season, whether there is little or heavy rain.
This will increase water availability and thereby the resilience
of the ecosystem and of communities who depend on
it, specifically during the dry season and during potential
droughts or extreme temperatures. One reason behind the
choice of the Tanta site (Case Study 5) was specifically that it
is high in the mountain ecosystem and part of the river basin
head and therefore the ecosystem services the EbA measures
will provide, including water provision, will benefit midstream
and downstream communities.
In terms of social benefits at all the project sites in Peru, the
communities have newfound appreciation for communal
land management following the success of initial grassland
and water management activities. Existing governance
arrangements for water and rangeland management have
been strengthened and, in some cases, new management
committees have been formed (Case Study 5 and 6). In
terms of economic benefits, the potential source of income
from vicuña was a clear motivator in securing community
buy-in for EbA measures inTanta (Case Study 5).The wool of
these wild camelids can be harvested sustainably, through
corralling of the animals once every two years for shearing.
The first harvest of vicuña wool was carried out in October
2015 and is expected to increase community income in the
medium to long term.
In Canchayllo and Miraflores, small-scale infrastructure
such as installing tubes and repairing break-pressure tanks
has been combined with the restoration of traditional
canals. Together with water management and grassland
management, this has enhanced water regulation capacity
and enabled the restoration of the micro-watershed.
Initiating project activities with the building of infrastructure
also provided a tangible and visible result up-front, which
reinforced community interest and engagement in the later
‘green’measures of the project (Case Study 6).
Figure 5 illustrates the Nor Yauyos Cochas Landscape
Reserve and its connection to downstream areas, including
the capital of Lima, with and without the adopted EbA
measures. For example, sustainable management of
grasslands through enhanced vicuña management and
animal husbandry upstream, combined with restoration.
CELEBRATING THE REHABILITATION OF THE 2,855-METER LONG CHACARA-JUTUPUQUIO CANAL. © Carlos Diaz Huerta, Tres Mitades

2.4 Lessons on securing benefits through EbA
The Mountain EbA Programme has charted new ground
in understanding the opportunities and challenges of
planning and implementing EbA. The following sections
describe the key lessons learned.
Understanding the multiple benefits of EbA
Understanding the full range of benefits of EbA requires
an understanding of ecosystem services, how these
provide for human well-being and how climate change
can impact delivery of these critical services. Some of the
benefits are provided in the short-term and at a local scale,
but many are long-term benefits at larger scales, which
can be a challenging message to convey and a difficult
point to prove. Communities are most interested in more
tangible, immediate economic and social benefits, and
it is not always easy to demonstrate how these are based
on ecosystem services. For example, water provision, an
ecosystem service, underpinned the many other benefits
desired by the communities of Sanzara in terms of increased
agricultural productivity and income from crops sold (Case
Study 4). Participatory processes for planning measures,
capacity building and awareness raising are essential in
understanding the multiple benefits of EbA and making the
case for adopting such measures.
Demonstrating the benefits of EbA early on
Key to implementing EbA is the ability to show benefits, and
in particular socio-economic benefits, of EbA to communities
early on. The participatory methodology applied in the
programme in designing and prioritising‘no regrets’measures
jointly with communities helped foster a sense of ownership.
Having initial‘no regrets’activities prioritize economic benefits,
such as promoting alternative livelihoods or increasing
agriculturalorlivestockproduction,canhelprespondtourgent
livelihood needs of communities and secure commitment for
EbA measures in the longer run. Implementing a ‘grey-green’
approach including water infrastructure measures early,
complemented by reforestation later, has provided tangible
and visible environmental and social benefits from the outset.
For example, the gravity flow scheme in Uganda brought
initial buy-in for the project, and was then used to show the
role of the broader ecosystem in providing water, which is
essentialforlivelihoods.Onceinitialbenefitshavebeenshown,
the case can then more easily be made for implementing
broader, scaled-up EbA measures, such as reforesting water
catchments, which provide a range of benefits in the long
term and are essential for enhancing adaptive capacity.
Implementing EbA at an appropriate scale
The programme found that implementing EbA measures at
an appropriate scale, such as at a sub-watershed, watershed,
or community/district scale, can ensure the attainment of
benefits in a more comprehensive and sustainable manner.
In particular achieving ecosystem benefits, which maximize
the provision and regulating services (Figure 2, Millennium
Ecosystems Assessment) provided by ecosystems, often require
a larger scale of implementation. Many of the benefits provided
by ecosystem services in the project watersheds downstream
depend on the restoration, management and conservation of
resources upstream. All project sites have identified catchments
or sub-watersheds as the appropriate scale for implementing
EbA measures and ensuring achievement of benefits: the sub-
watershedlevelinNepal;themicro-catchmentscaleinPeruand
the catchment scale in Uganda.
The experience has been that this is the appropriate
scale for enhancing provision of a range of ecosystem
services, including fresh water, crops and vegetation, as
well as regulatory functions such as water and soil erosion
regulation. This also accounts for interlinkages between
services and enables management of the impacts of
ecosystem service use upstream on provision of services
downstream. This approach can help bring different actors
Box 5 | Mount Elgon Conservation Forum
The overall objective of the Mount Elgon Conservation Forum, initiated in 2012, is to promote a landscape approach for
addressing critical issues in Mount Elgon, where various stakeholders get a common understanding and agree on interlinkages
within the landscape to guide strategic interventions that enhance positive change in livelihoods and ecosystem integrity.
Activities of the Forum include: a website to act as a depository of information; bi-annual meetings to share information, lessons
and to develop strategic interventions; exchange visits among partners; preparing outreach materials to strengthen information
sharing; and organizing consultative conferences and talk shows on topical issues. Partners include: IUCN, UNDP, ECOTRUST,
UgandaWildlife Authority, National Forestry Authority, Ministry ofWater and Environment, District Local Governments, East Africa
Commission, CBOs and NGOs.The Mountain EbA Programme has directly supported the formation of the Conservation Forum.
Source and further details: www.mtelgonforum.org

together for joint planning and decision-making, as through
the Mount Elgon Conservation Forum in Uganda. Further,
a larger scale is appropriate when assessing likely impacts
of climate change, e.g. impacts of temperature increase or
changes in precipitation on ecosystem service provision.
Finally, watersheds and sub-watersheds can provide a
policy-relevant scale for planning and decision-making
for adaptation at district and regional level. One lesson
learned from the project is that a landscape or watershed
level vision to implementation could be adopted from the
design stage, even if initial measures that are implemented
might be more localized‘no regrets’measures.
Combining local and scientific knowledge
Building on existing knowledge and institutions can
further embed the benefits of EbA. EbA is a knowledge-
based approach, which requires application of both new
technology and scientific knowledge on the one hand,
and local knowledge and traditional methods on the other.
This was shown through the step-wise approaches used
to develop EbA measures in the programme, starting with
‘no regrets’ measures based on participatory assessments
based on community inputs before evolving and moving
towards ecosystem-scale EbA measures, which relied on
the scientific information provided by the VIAs and were
specifically designed to respond to future climate scenarios.
Using local and traditional knowledge when implementing
EbA measures can further the achievement of benefits. For
example, in Peru ancestral hydrological structures involving
earth and stoneworks were improved, restoring a forgotten
water management model that can provide important climate
change adaptation benefits. Local and traditional knowledge
on water, livestock and grassland management is also being
relied on, and native pastures are being planted on rangelands.
In Nepal, existing conservation ponds used for hundreds
of years but degraded over time were restored to their full
function. These types of EbA approaches can tap into existing
knowledgeandskills,whileadaptingthesemeasurestoprovide
a climate change adaptation function. It is also important to
adjustEbAmeasurestolocalcapabilities.Forexample,inNepal,
where outmigration is high, measures have been designed
specifically to be in line with the time and skills women have
available, e.g. planting of broom grass (Case Study 7).
Integrating EbA into existing structures,
plans and policies
Incorporating EbA into existing local structures and
plans can further make the case on the relevance of EbA
benefits for existing goals and priorities, in addition to
strengthening institutional capacities to deal with climate
change adaptation. Project activities have built on existing
structures such as Forest User Groups and Women´s Groups
in Nepal, and Water and Pasture Committees in Peru.
EbA measures have strengthened local natural resource
management governance structures, which are essential
in implementing EbA measures and securing the benefits
provided (Case Study 6). The role of local committees and
champions is also important given that EbA measures tend
to require long-term implementation, beyond the lifetime
of projects and political government changes.
Working with government technical and extension services
hasprovidedanavenueforstrengtheninglinkagesbetween
communities and local government, as was shown in the
case of Sanzara; for gaining technical expertise from local
government experts on issues such as forestry and soil
and water conservation; and for making the case for EbA
measures to local government through practice. To equip
farmers with knowledge, structured learning was carried
out in form of farmer-to-farmer exchange visits. These
have been highly influential in increasing the farmers’
understanding and ability to implement what they learn
because of the close involvement/participation of the
district technical officers. The peer-to-peer element is a
powerful demonstration helping farmers to appreciate that
what they see can equally be done on their farms.
Showing the multiple benefits of EbA to government
planners and policy makers and thereby making the
case for EbA can increase interest in implementing EbA
measures. This can then lead to incorporation of EbA into
relevant governance structures, plans and policies, as well as
allocating budgets in relevant sectors, from local to national
level. For example, having seen early benefits on the
ground of implemented grassland management measures,
the Municipality of Tanta dedicated some of their existing
communal budget to hire two communal rangers and buy
a motorcycle to help monitor vicuñas. The MEF in Peru was
interested in the pilot in Tanta because they learned of the
multiple benefits this upstream project could potentially
provide to a large populations mid- and downstream.
A success factor for sustainability is the inclusion of EbA in plans
and policies, from local level natural resource management
planstodistrictandnationallevelplansandpolicies.Makingthe
case for policy change for EbA will be discussed in further detail
inChapter4.Further,budgetsneedtobeallocatedforfinancing
plans and policies, and implementing EbA measures on the
ground.The case for financing for EbA is discussed in Chapter 5.

Case Study 3 | Water source restoration and conservation at Dandaghupte Pond, Parbat, Nepal
From T. Rossing, N. Chhenjum Sherpa and A. Egan. (2015) “Water source restoration and conservation: Improving ecosystem resilience in the mountains of Nepal”.
[Online] UNDP. Available from: https://undp.exposure.co/challenging-gender-roles-and-crossing-castes
In the Panchase region, natural springs are the primary water source for rural areas, but these natural water sources are being
increasingly threatened by climate change and other human activities. According to meteorological data, precipitation patterns have
shown a marked shift in the past few decades, with more intense monsoonal rains, coupled with a decrease in rainy winter days.
The monsoon season is also becoming increasingly unpredictable. Most people in Panchase region are subsistence farmers, and
dependence on rain-fed agriculture is the norm. Traditional water sources upon which so many people depend are being disturbed,
degraded, and in some cases destroyed, along with the associated ecosystems.
Dandaghupte Pond and its source are located within the Parbat District in the Panchase region. The targeted beneficiaries are among
Nepal’s most disadvantaged and marginalised groups, the Dalits. The pond (fed by a natural spring) is a traditional source of water,
which has been serving the community for generations by collecting rainwater and surface water runoff. However, rising temperatures
and increasingly erratic rainfall, coupled with road construction, disrupted this vital water source, and pond recharge ceased. This
resulted in serious drinking water shortages, and also affected water for livestock and crop irrigation.
The Department of Forests under the Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation worked with the Mountain EbA project to provide
support to the Nakatipakha Community Forest User Groups to reconstruct the pond and related basin, and conserve this traditional
source of water. Water conservation was further enhanced by adding a new water collection tank. A stone lid was also put on top of
the water collection tank to protect the water source from contamination and water evaporation caused by direct sun exposure, and
underground pipes were installed to ensure downstream flow continues unimpeded by the new road. Water is now available even
during the dry periods and is of better quality. Better-managed and maintained ponds will enable more efficient use of clean water for
this community and their livestock.
Restoring ecosystems to a healthy state means they can also deliver a host of downstream benefits. Beyond the provision of adequate
clean water for both humans and animals, pond restoration also enables the natural recharge of sub-surface and groundwater
resources. Soil moisture level and quality is further enhanced by this natural water infiltration through the ponds, which in turn enables
better, more sustainable crop yields in fields close by. The pond now also provides water for irrigation. As a result, crop yield has
increased, and locals have been able to grow greater varieties of crops for longer periods outside the monsoon season, which is likely
to become increasingly unpredictable with climate change. This has led to improved health and an increase in household income.
The regenerated ponds also contribute to increased amounts of water downstream, especially during the dry season, which results
in increased vegetation, tree growth and water for agriculture. The pond leads to reduced water run-off, decreased soil erosion and
protection of agricultural land and downstream areas from flooding and landslides. Social benefits include access to sufficient and
clean water all year round. Based on evidence from case studies elsewhere, such access is likely to enable a decrease in water-borne
diseases for humans and livestock. Healthier livestock in turn provide healthier milk and meat for human consumption, which, in turn, is
likely to increase returns on their sale.

PROVIDING DEPENDABLE, CLEAN WATER IN A CHANGING CLIMATE IN THE PANCHASE REGION IN NEPAL BY RESTORING
CONSERVATION PONDS. © Andrea Egan, UNDP

Case Study 4 | Restoration of the River Sipi Micro-Catchment in Uganda
From IUCN Uganda (2012) Restoration of the River Sipi Micro-Catchment as an Ecosystem-Based Solution to Build Social and Ecological Resilience of the Sanzara
Community to Climate Change Impacts. [Online] IUCN. Available from: http://www.ebaflagship.org/downloads/ppt/Appendix_1-IUCN_site_information.pdf
The River Sipi is one of eight remaining perennial rivers flowing from Mount Elgon. The upstream section of the river is reasonably well
vegetated. High population density in the midstream areas, combined with intensive agricultural activities, compromises the quality
of water. Poor farming methods on steep slopes lead to extensive soil erosion and consequent siltation of the river, and increase the
probability of landslides. This is compounded by high population pressures and an acute land shortage, resulting in farming being
undertaken in ecologically sensitive areas, such as along riverbanks and on steep slopes. Impacts of poor management in the River
Sipi catchment are most pronounced in the downstream section in Sanzara Parish. Due to its location in the rain shadow, the parish
naturally experiences long dry spells each year. This natural adverse impact is now exacerbated because the river suffers from declining
water levels and contamination as a result of upstream actions. It is anticipated that this will be further worsened by longer dry periods
as a result of climate change. The population of Sanzara Parish (formed of three villages) is very poor and has, in the past, relied on food
aid from the District Local Government.
A gravity flow scheme (GFS) was constructed for Sanzara Parish to highlight the importance of critical ecosystem services provided
by the River Sipi catchment and to provide a sustainable flow of water for the local population. Interventions were initiated in three
villages: Chema, Kasongo and Kapsinda in Sanzara parish, Kapchorwa District. The interventions have now been scaled up to the
midstream covering all four sub counties, and embrace a total of 22 villages. The project was initiated in 2012, in partnership with
the Kapchorwa District Water office. Based on a participatory process, it was agreed that any action to address water shortage would
provide economic space and help to both mobilise and incentivise community involvement. At the same time communities would
develop an appreciation and recognition of the value of the River Sipi in securing and improving their livelihoods.
The gravity flow scheme feeds a tank with a storage capacity of 200 m3
. This has already brought relief to over a thousand people
in Sanzara who did not previously have access to a secure water source. The participatory process of deciding upon and then
constructing the GFS promoted unity and community cohesion, in a parish that was initially divided and marred by ethnic and land
conflicts. Community members acknowledged that water shortages were adversely impacting all of them equally, despite other
differences, and this realisation provided a forum for them to discuss and negotiate the best approach to sustainably manage the River
Sipi catchment.
The GFS has allowed community members to develop irrigated agriculture, and produce more food in a shorter period and smaller
area. Improved on-farm soil conservation and agro-forestry will reduce the incidence of landslides, and enhance the ability of the
system to cope with more extreme events. Since 2012, the communities have been able to produce their own food using drought-
resistant, quick-maturing crops, and have no longer relied on food aid. New crop varieties include cassava, sorghum, fruit trees and
vegetables such as cabbages and onions. Management of the GFS has been linked to community governance structures and the GFS
operations and maintenance committees also oversee and coordinate the catchment management actions. The GFS has enhanced
capacities of local groups to better manage the water sources and lands, and to initiate restoration of degraded areas. This strengthens
local governance and the people’s ability to adapt to climate change.
Following construction of the GFS, restoration measures have been agreed upon in the most degraded areas of the catchment. Tree
nurseries have been established in each village of the parish and to date 20,000 trees have been planted by 100 families for catchment
restoration. Using appropriate indigenous tree and grass species which are drought-tolerant for restoration will improve the resilience
of the overall system to climate change.

DISTRICT OFFICIALS AND COMMUNITY MEMBERS AT THE NEW WATER OUTLET IN SANZARA, UGANDA. © Julie Diekens, IISD

Case Study 5 | Vicuña, animal husbandry and sustainable grassland management inTanta, Peru
Tanta village is located at the headwater of four important rivers that provide water for 11 million inhabitants of Lima and Junín Regions
– for domestic, agricultural and hydroelectric use. There are around 400 inhabitants in Tanta who farm across an area of 34,715ha.
Temperatures are expected to increase, and while overall volume of annual rainfall is expected to remain constant, rainfall patterns
are expected to change and surface water runoff is expected to decrease. Cattle farming at the family level and sheep, cows, llamas
and alpacas at the communal level are the main source of livelihoods. Grasslands, which provide for grazing livestock, are essential
to the local economy and well-being. Drivers of grassland degradation include overgrazing, exceeding the carrying capacity of these
grasslands as determined by local soil structure and climate. The situation is worsened by mismanagement and lack of customary
norms. The condition of the majority of the grasslands ranges from average to poor and very poor. Dry periods with low precipitation
have a strong negative impact on grassland production. Due to the local climate and altitude, crop production is not feasible in Tanta.
Vicuña management, in association with animal husbandry and sustainable grassland management, are the main project activities
being implemented with SERNANP, the local community and local government of Tanta. The community has freed 2,000 ha of
communal land from domestic animals to allow the vicuña, a wildlife species, to return to this area. Vicuñas are known to graze more
evenly and trample less. This leaves more topsoil, thereby reducing degradation of grasslands and increasing water absorption capacity
of the soil. Vicuñas produce animal fibre, contribute to scenic beauty and enhance tourism potential. It is expected that this will create
employment opportunities for the local community from the commercialization of the fibre and tourism activities. Vicuña provides
high-value fibre for which there is high demand on domestic and global markets. The fibre can be harvested every two years. A rapid
increase in numbers of vicuña has been observed since the area of Moyobamba was freed of domestic animals. The first harvest of
vicuña through the programme took place in October 2015.
Pasture management and livestock management are other project activities. This includes rotational grazing and using both natural
(rocks, lagoons, mountains) and built (cattle mesh) fences around 4,500 ha of communal land for livestock pastures. Livestock, which
used to graze in shared pastures, have now been separated to different pastures by species. New pastures are being planted, using
both native, and a mixture of native and introduced varieties. These measures have already significantly contributed to enhanced
condition of the pastures, with a visible increase in vegetation cover. The pastoral plants are flowering and pollinating. Increase in
vegetation cover also leads to better water infiltration capacity and reduces risk of soil erosion. Previously, pastures provided for 0.5
sheep a hectare per year, while under new, introduced-variety pastures, a hectare can now provide for up to 18 sheep. This is a 36-fold
increase in the provisioning service of pastures as livestock fodder. Under new native pastures, a hectare now provides for three sheep a
hectare, a six-fold increase.
The project has strengthened local organizations and management of communal lands. A management plan, developed with support
from the project, has been agreed by the community. The vicuña are providing a new source of income to communities in the remote
area of Tanta. Healthier ecosystems in Tanta will have a direct impact on the services this upstream community provides, especially in
terms of water provision and regulation, to a vast rural and urban area downstream.
Sources: Fernandez-Baca, E. et al. (2014); Fernandez-Baca, E. (2014) Visit to the NorYauyos-Cochas Landscape Reserve with Michael Huettner: Travel report. UNDP.
Unpublished; Flores, E. (2015) Parte 1: “Diagnóstico (línea de base) de la Situación Actual del Ecosistema de Pastos Naturales, Suelos y Agua en Seis Sectores de la
Granja Comunal de Tanta”. UNALM. Unpublished; Picon, J. C. (2015b); Woodro Andia Castelo, 2015, pers. comm.

THE WILD VICUÑAS ARE REIGNED IN TEMPORARILY TO GIVE THEM AN ANTI-PARASITIC DRUG TO HELP IMPROVE THEIR HEALTH
AND SURVIVAL RATE. © Carlos Diaz Huertas, Tres Mitades

Case Study 6 | Community-based native grassland management and improvement of ancestral
hydrological infrastructures in Canchayllo and Miraflores, Peru
From K. Podvin, D. Cordero and A. Gomez. “ClimateChangeAdaptationinthePeruvianAndes:implementingno-regretmeasuresintheNorYauyos-CochasLandscape
Reserve”in Murti, R. and Buyck, C. (ed.) (2014). Safe Havens: Protected Areas for Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation. Gland, Switzerland.
The communities of Canchayllo and Miraflores are located in the Nor Yauyos Cochas Landscape Reserve. Low agricultural production,
especially of native crops, associated with loss of traditional knowledge and lack of market access, has led to the migration of the local
population, especially youth. Many households have shifted from agricultural activities towards less labour-intensive cattle farming.
This shift towards cattle farming, with weak community organization and dense cattle distribution, is causing degradation of the native
grassland ecosystem in certain areas.
The project partnered with the NYCLR-SERNANP, as well as municipal authorities and regional governments to undertake programme
activities. The EbA measures chosen by both communities include community-based sustainable water management, where upper
micro-watersheds, wetlands, watercourses, and their associated vegetation (mainly grasslands) are managed to provide water storage,
groundwater recharge and regulation services. In addition, community-based sustainable native grassland management is being
implemented to enhance pastoral livelihoods and increase resilience to drought, frost and other extreme events. Each measure is
composed of three pillars. The first on institutional strengthening and community organization has implemented a community water
and grassland management plan for both Canchayllo and Miraflores. Natural resources management committees have been either
strengthened or, where needed, new ones have been created. The second pillar on capacity building to enhance local and traditional
knowledge aims to link local and traditional knowledge with new technological knowledge for identifying best practices to apply on the
ground.
The third pillar,‘grey-green’infrastructure, consists in Canchayllo of the restoration of a natural water reservoir dam to reduce water
filtration and ensure its storage during the dry season. Furthermore, an underground pipe has been restored to transport water from
the upper part of the watershed to the community farm, where the water is distributed through ditches to promote its infiltration
into the soil, thereby regulating water availability in the upper and middle micro-watershed. It is expected that the restoration of
the underground pipe channel will bring moisture to around 800 ha of grasslands during the dry season, contributing to wetland
restoration in the upper part of the watershed and the creation of natural watering troughs for livestock. In Miraflores, the grey-green
infrastructure included enlarging protected zones around the Yanacancha lakes encircling the upper micro-watershed, in order to
prevent cattle and other animals from entering the area. This is expected to promote wetland enhancement and to allow natural
regeneration of the surrounding areas’native vegetation. In addition, an ancient water channel was restored to transport water to the
Curiuna grazing area. The water channel is expected to create new natural watering troughs for livestock and/or restore the wetlands as
a result of the increase in water availability.
Environmental benefits are expected to be achieved through better management and protection of native grasslands, as well as the
restoration of upper micro-watershed wetlands. These measures respond to the climatic vulnerability of the highland pastures, where
wetlands have been reduced in size. These expected outcomes and benefits include hydrological regulation through enhanced
water storage, groundwater recharge and regulation services. Restoring wetlands in grassland ecosystems is expected to reduce the
occurrence of natural fires during dry seasons and lessen the impact of extreme temperatures. Short- and long-term socio-economic
benefits are expected to be generated through strengthened institutional arrangements and capacities for community management of
water, grasslands and livestock. The community water and grassland management plans will seek to improve grassland productivity by
organizing grazing activities in the different areas, reducing pressure on over-grazed areas and distributing livestock across the landscape
to where pastures have a higher carrying capacity. In addition, the plans will aim to improve community management of these shared
resources.
Tangible activities such as grey-green infrastructure were needed in order to reaffirm local commitment to the project. Although such
infrastructure activities will provide benefits in the short term, it is important that local stakeholders understand that EbA benefits (both
at the institutional, socio-economic and ecosystem dimensions) will take time to consolidate.

THE RURAL COMMUNITY OF CANCHAYLLO SUCCESFULLY REHABILITATED THE CHACARA-JUTUPUQUIO CANAL AND REPAIRED
THE CREST OF THE DAM IN THE CHACARA LAGOON. © Carlos Diaz Huertas, Tres Mitades

Box 6 | Non-climatic pressures affecting the achievement of EbA benefits
Experience from the project sites shows that the achievement of EbA benefits can be undermined by various non-climatic
pressures. Ecosystem degradation and vulnerability at project sites is driven by a range of factors, such as overexploitation of
natural resources, issues of land ownership or population patterns. In many cases it is difficult to say to what extent vulnerability
of ecosystems and livelihoods has been caused by climate change, and to what extent by other compounding factors.
The midstream and downstream watersheds of River Sipi and River Atari in Uganda have high population density and land
shortages, which have driven communities to undertake intense agricultural activities on river banks, clearing vegetation for
cultivation and increasing the occurrence of soil erosion and siltation of the river. Unsustainable farming practices on steep slopes
have led to further soil erosion and siltation, as well as increasing the probability of landslides (Case Study 4).
Land ownership issues have proved problematic for the implementation of EbA measures in Mt Elgon, where there is individual,
customary land tenure of small land plots. Farmers have been unwilling to sacrifice medium-term income by dedicating scarce
land to long-term measures such as tree planting (R Gafabusa and P Nteza 2015, pers. comm.). Having small individual plots
can lead to project activities taking place on dispersed land and implementing EbA measures at different rates (P Nteza 2015,
pers. comm.).This can challenge implementation and the achievement of impact at a landscape scale. One of the solutions
the project has identified is establishment of clear Memoranda of Understanding between communities, government and the
project for undertaking agreed activities, and in some cases this has been accompanied by incentive mechanisms and payments
for ecosystem services that help compensate for short-term losses. Secure rights to and responsibilities for land (ownership,
sustainable use and management) maximize the chances of successful EbA. Compared with the situation in Uganda, with many
small privately owned parcels of land, it has been significantly easier implementing EbA measures on larger areas of communal
land in Nepal and Peru.
Outmigration is an issue at project sites in both Nepal and Peru. In the Panchase area, outmigration has led to tracts of land being
abandoned, including terraces, the maintenance of which requires frequent labour input.This has meant that much land is not
productively used, and has allowed the spread of invasive plant species.The project has had to design EbA measures that are
feasible given the time and capabilities of the local population and women in particular (Case Study 7). In NorYauyos Cochas, the
lack of labour force due to outmigration can impede implementation of large scale and infrastructure-based EbA interventions.
Implementing canal restoration, for example, has meant significant inputs of time from the community members that remain (A
Gomez 2015, pers. comm.).
In Panchase, unregulated construction of infrastructure, in particular of roads, without consideration of ecosystem fragility and
functions has accelerated soil erosion, landslides and biodiversity loss, while undermining ecosystem functions such as water
provision. In addition, when faced with such large scale interventions, EbA measures remain small in comparison and might end
up having limited impact. Because of its status as a Landscape Reserve, NorYauyos Cochas has experienced less pressure from
land use change than the project sites in Nepal19
and Uganda. However, there are ongoing political debates on the expansion of
mining in Canchayllo, which could pose a threat to the implementation of EbA. Construction of new dams for hydropower could
also cause ecosystem disturbances.
Embedding EbA as part of broader development plans and policies that address issues such as land use planning and
infrastructure development, for example at district level, can be one way of addressing some of these pressures and increasing
the likelihood of landscape scale multiple benefits being achieved.
Sources: Baral, S. et al. (2014); Dixit et al. (2015); Ikkala (2011); Instituto de Montaña (2014); NaFORRI (2012); Shah et al. (2012); Peru APR- PIR Report, July 2013-
June 2014.

Chapter 2 | LESSONS LEARNED
Participatory assessments increased understanding
of the linkages between climate change, ecosystems
and livelihoods and thereby enabled a better
understanding of EbA and its benefits in the longer
term. Framing EbA benefits can be challenging, as the
links and causalities between livelihoods, ecosystems and
climate change can be complex to understand. In addition,
the process of carrying out participatory assessments
enabled a sense of ownership and buy-in for identified‘no
regrets’measures.
It is essential to show the benefits, and in particular
the socio-economic benefits, of EbA to communities
early on to make the case for EbA. Having initial‘no
regrets’activities that focus on economic benefits, such as
promoting alternative livelihoods, or increasing agricultural
or livestock production, can help secure commitment.
Implementing grey-green water infrastructure measures
early on has been another approach to providing tangible
and visible environmental and social benefits from the
outset.
Once initial benefits of EbA have been shown, the
case can then more easily be made for implementing
broader, scaled-up EbA measures, which provide a
range of benefits in the long term and are essential for
enhancing adaptive capacity.
Undertaking vulnerability and impact assessments
helps to frame EbA options in a climate change
adaptation context. VIAs enabled the validation or
redesign of early‘no regrets’measures into evidence-
based EbA measures. They also enabled the adoption of a
landscape scale approach and long-term planning of EbA
measures.
EbA measures provide a range of environmental,
social and economic benefits. These include
environmental benefits such as enhancing water
provision, reducing soil erosion and increasing vegetation.
Social benefits include enhanced food security, access
to clean water, strengthening of local organizational
and technical capacities and empowerment of women
and disadvantaged groups. Economic benefits include
increased productivity, new sources of livelihoods and
increased income.
Benefits derived from EbA measures can be shown in
relation to climate change adaptation functions. EbA
measures can, for example, increase agricultural and
livestock production during dry spells, through increased
water provision by well managed watersheds. Restoring
grasslands can increase provision of grazing and forage
during dry periods, regulate water and floods during heavy
rainfall and stabilize slopes during landslides.
A watershed or catchment was found to be a
particularly good scale for planning and implementing
EbA measures. This scale is appropriate in particular
when making the case for landscape scale approaches to
district level governments and protected area managers.
It also ensures the attainment of EbA benefits in a more
comprehensive and sustainable manner, especially with
regards to ecosystem provision and regulating services.
Building on existing knowledge can further embed the
benefits of EbA. EbA is a knowledge-based approach,
which requires both scientific and traditional
knowledge.
Incorporating EbA into existing local structures and
plans can further make the case on the relevance of
EbA benefits for existing goals and priorities, in addition to
strengthening institutional and adaptive capacities to deal
with climate change adaptation.
Showing the multiple benefits of EbA to government
planners and policy makers can show how EbA helps
fulfill public policy goals, and can increase interest in
implementing EbA measures. This can then lead to
incorporation of EbA into relevant governance structures,
plans and policies, as well as allocating budgets in relevant
sectors, from local to national level.
Measuring impact of EbA is essential, as so far most
evidence is case study-based, and more quantitative
evidence is needed to make the case for EbA. The
development of EbA indicators is in its initial stages.

MOSES MONJE FROM SIRONKO DISTRICT OF MOUNT ELGON,
UGANDA, PROUDLY HOLDS A COFFEE BEAN FROM HIS NEW HARVEST.
A LOAN FROM A PROGRAMME-SUPPORTED COMMUNITY LENDING
AND SAVING SCHEME ALLOWED MOSES TO INVEST IN A CLIMATE-
RESILIENT AGRICULTURAL INCOME STREAM.

In Nepal, cultivating broom grass and constructing
gabion walls proved good investments. In Peru,
sustainable management of grassland, livestock
and vicuña performed better economically
compared with current management practices.
In Uganda, not only were EbA farming practices
more profitable than non-EbA but the profit
could be sustained in the long run.These findings
came from a cost-benefit analysis (CBA) of each
pilot project.This objective methodology for
quantifying EbA costs and benefits can be used
to guide decision-making on EbA measures.
For example, a CBA can compare potential EbA
interventions with business as usual scenarios or
with alternative adaptation options.
CHAPTER 3:
MAKING THE
ECONOMIC CASE
FOR EBA

This chapter sets out the relevance of cost-benefit
analysis in making the economic case for EbA and why
this approach was chosen. It presents the CBA work
carried out by the programme in Nepal, Peru and Uganda
and demonstrates how CBA can be used to make the
economic case for EbA.
3.1 Using cost-benefit analysis to promote EbA
Cost-benefit analysis is a method to evaluate the economic
and financial feasibility of a proposed action by a public
or private sector role-player that results in certain benefits
and certain costs. CBA is an economic methodology that
can help make better decisions. Ecosystems provide a
variety of services, underpinning human well-being and
socio-economic development. These services can be
quantified and valued to estimate the benefits gained from
a landscape. Various investments can be made – in the case
of this programme, through ‘no regrets’ and EbA measures
– to maintain or enhance these ecosystem services. CBA
can be used to attempt to estimate the cost of these EbA
investments and compare it with the benefits provided
by these retained or enhanced ecosystem services. If the
benefits exceed the costs, it makes economic sense to
invest.
CBA can thereby help make decisions regarding EbA
investments, whether at local level, by individual farmers,
cooperative organizations or companies, or at national
level through state expenditure. It provides a methodology
for making decisions in situations of scarcity, or limited
resources, and offers an objective way to choose between
competing alternatives by weighing their relative costs
and benefits. For example, if a farmer is to invest in soil
and water conservation measures as part of EbA in order
to reduce soil erosion under increasing conditions of
drought, he will be interested in knowing whether these
measures will provide more benefits and return on the
land, compared to business as usual use of fertilizers. The
CBA framework can be used to sum up decision criteria for
choosing the best alternative.
CBA can be used to compare EbA with business as usual
(BAU) natural resource management – for example,
restoring conservation ponds to increase water provision
or no longer using conservation ponds once they dry
up or become degraded. It can also be used to compare
EbA with other adaptation options – for example, using
mangroves or a seawall to provide coastal protection from
sea level rise.
3.2 Comparing tools and methodologies
for making the economic case
A number of economic tools and methodologies are
available to evaluate, rank or prioritise EbA options,
or compare them with non-EbA options. CBA can be
used when the costs and benefits of an EbA option are
measurable in monetary terms and the value placed on
investing in the EbA option can be quantified. However, in
certain cases it may be possible to attach monetary value
only to the costs of a project, but not to the benefits. In
this case, a cost-effectiveness analysis can be a useful tool.
Multi-criteria analysis can be useful to decision-makers
when environmental or social impacts cannot be assigned
a monetary value. It can be used to consider a full range of
criteria, e.g. social, environmental, financial, economic and
technical.Theprogrammealsoconsideredtargetedscenario
analysis (TSA), which uses socio-economic indicators to
compare the pros and cons of continuing with business
as usual (BAU) or following in which ecosystems are more
effectively managed (sustainable ecosystem management/
SEM). This approach can also be applied to compare a BAU
scenario with an EbA scenario. It is conducted for a particular
productive or consumptive sector, with a specific decision-
maker in mind who has the mandate to make policy or
investment decisions that could bring about a shift from a
BAU path to a SEM/EbA path (Box 7). Although a full TSA
approach was not applied in any of the three programme
countries, the methodology influenced the way that the
results from assessing costs and benefits were presented in
the three countries.
The Mountain EbA Programme decided to use CBA as its
methodology for making the economic case for EbA, as
it is a widely used methodology accepted by decision-
makers, especially in the Ministries of Finance and Planning.
Compared to other methods, it provides an objective way of
ranking alternatives. For example, the Ministry of Economy
and Finance in Peru uses CBA for appraising projects and
only accepts CBA as a project appraisal tool.21
Given that
the Ministries of Finance were key partners of the project
and a target audience for whom to make the case for EbA
(Chapters 4 and 5), the use of CBA was deemed particularly
relevant for this programme.
Methods for assessing projects in CBA include calculation
of net present value (NPV); internal rate of return (IRR); and
benefits-cost ratio (BCR). These methods are explained
in Box 8. CBA identifies all direct and indirect benefits
and costs of a project, quantifies potential physical and
biophysical impacts and values them in monetary terms,

55CHAPTER 3: MAKING THE ECONOMIC CASE FOR EBA
Box 7 | Targeted Scenario Analysis
TSA compares the implications of two contrasting management strategies on the basis of relevant socioeconomic indicators
(both quantitative and qualitative) for a specific productive or consumptive sector. It draws from all available information, from
existing or newly generated data to expert opinions.TSA is a balanced presentation of evidence, weighing the pros and cons
of continuing business as usual (BAU) or following a sustainable development path in which ecosystems are more effectively
managed (SEM). ATSA is conducted with a specific decision-maker in mind (e.g. government official or business).The appeal
of theTSA approach in making a case for EbA is its graphical presentation of results. Information on a specific decision and/or
management practice is presented as a continuous, long-term analysis, showing relative change over time.
The five steps of aTSA are: i) defining the purpose of the analysis; ii) defining the BAU baseline and SEM intervention; iii)
selecting criteria and indicators; iv) constructing the BAU and SEM scenarios; v) making an informed policy or management
recommendation.
The main product generated using the data amassed during aTSA is a set of graphics, with time on the horizontal axis and a
measurable indicator, such as revenues or number of jobs, on the vertical axis. In the graph there are two curves, one capturing and
depicting BAU and one the SEM (or EbA) scenario. ATSA graphic should be accompanied by a narrative that explains whom it is for
(stakeholders), how it was generated (assumptions, data sources) and levels of confidence and uncertainty, among other things.This
complementary text will both rationalize the graphs and also act as the bridge between the graphs and policy decisions.
Figure 6 | Targeted scenario analysis: changes over time
Source: http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/librarypage/environment-energy/environmental_finance/targeted-scenario-analysis.html ]
Year 1
Net profits for
Stakeholder 1
Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7
time
SEM
Planning horizon
Indicator
BAU
BAU and SEM measured within a
spatial scale and for a specific stakeholder
(e.g. net profits per coffee farm in
CentralValley of Costa Rica)
compared against a range of optimality criteria on an ex
ante basis (see Box 8 below). Cost-benefit analysis for climate
change adaptation is typically done ex ante as a criterion
for deciding between alternatives for climate change
adaptation. The results from the CBA provide evidence on
the optimal adaptation option that the project, or decision-
makers, should propose or invest in.
In the case of the Mountain EbA Programme, the ‘no
regrets’and EbA measures were chosen on the basis of the
participatory assessments and vulnerability and impact
assessments, as described in Chapter 2. The cost-benefit
analyses were generally applied to interventions already
being implemented by the programme and the results
of the CBA were not, therefore, used to choose between

EbA options. In some cases (e.g. siltation dams in Nepal),
CBA was used to evaluate potential future EbA measures.
The purpose for carrying out cost-benefit analyses for this
programme was to use the results of the CBAs as tools for
making the economic case for EbA and for guiding decision-
making on future EbA investments.
3.3 Applying CBA to the Mountain EbA Programme
Cost-benefit analyses were carried out in the three
programmecountrieswithdifferentfocusesandapproaches.
Differences included focusing on communities in Nepal and
Peru, and on individual farmers in Uganda. This was due
to land ownership patterns at site level, where the project
measures in Nepal and Peru are implemented primarily on
Box 8 | Project assessment criteria for cost-benefit analysis
Economists use discounted methods of project assessment to appraise a project.These methods include the net present value
(NPV), economic internal rate of return and benefit cost ratio (BCR).These methods are based on estimating discounted streams
of benefits and costs based on the discount rate.
Present values (PV) of benefits and costs are derived from future values (FV) of benefits and costs by a process known as
discounting. Discount rate depends on inflation, marginal rate of time preference, and risk associated with a project or
intervention. It is used to reflect the productivity of the capital and the preferences of the population. Discounting is how future
values (FV) are converted into present values (PV).That is:
Where t is time and δ is the discount rate. Applying the same principle to benefits and costs, we can define our project
assessment criteria as follows:
1. Net present value (NPV):This is the difference between the discounted benefits of a project and discounted costs of
the project. A project is said to be desirable if the sum of discounted benefits is greater than the sum of the discounted
costs.That is NPV 0.
2. Internal rate of return: the internal rate of return is defined as the discount rate that makes the stream of benefits equal
to the stream of costs.The internal rate of return is compared to the discount rate to decide if the project is beneficial
or not. A project with an IRR that is higher than the discount rate is considered a good project.Technically, this implies
that the return from the project is higher than the cost of capital that goes into the project. Mathematically we can
define this as:
3. Benefit cost ratio:The benefit cost ratio as the name implies is the ratio of the discounted stream of benefits and the
discounted stream of costs. A benefit cost ratio of 1 implies that the benefits are equal to the costs.
communal land, and in Uganda on private land (Chapter 2).
Different approaches were also taken regarding what EbA
options are being compared to – whether to business as
usual approaches that allow degradation to continue, or
to other adaptation options (e.g. infrastructure).
In all three cases, the CBAs sought to understand if, given
the choice between EbA and another adaptation option,
or between EbA and inaction/business as usual, EbA would
be the optimal choice; and if not, what were the factors
influencing this, and in which circumstances would it not
be optimal.
Identifying and defining scope is one of the first steps of
carrying out a cost-benefit analysis. This step of the CBA
FV
B C
B C
FV
B C
B C
B
C
B C
FV
B C
B C
B
C
B C
FV
B C
B C
B
C
B C

typically requires understanding the project, analyzing
data (spatial, climate and geographical) and engaging
in focus group discussions to narrow down the suite of
feasible adaptation options. Thus, CBA is typically part of
the design of the project proposal and planning. Under this
programme, the participatory assessments and vulnerability
and impact assessements served as a proxy for defining the
scope of the CBA. This made the scope of the CBA differ
across countries. The economists in the countries used the
data available from those initial assessments and discussions
with the project team to define the scope. The CBA for each
country addressed one or more of the problems raised in
the VIAs. With a different scope in each case, the data needs
for carrying out the CBAs in each country also varied, as will
be described below.
Various studies including Leary (1999); Nassopoulos et al.
(2012); and Wise et al. (2014) have identified and described
frameworks for applying economic methodologies for
assessing climate change adaptation projects, given the
peculiarities of climate change, especially uncertainties
related to the benefits and costs. Leary (1999) provides
a framework for assessing the benefits and costs of
adaptation to both climate change and climate variability,
which are factored into the methodology for CBA used in
this project.
Climate change impacts differ across the three countries
and project sites. Thus, climate change has been
incorporated in different ways. The baseline assumption is
that the stream of benefits and costs that accrue from the
project and the identified alternatives (including business
as usual) are not affected by climate change. However,
with climate change impacts being mainly negative and
expected to intensify in the future, the stream of benefits
and costs will also be affected. The general premise is that
EbA strategies will lead to better outcomes than other
options (BAU in particular), because they improve the
ecosystem and should lead to higher benefits or lower
costs than the other scenarios. Climate change impact
projections for the region or country were used to make
the link to benefits and costs.
3.3.1Nepal
The CBA framework was applied to various interventions in
Nepal that focus on major exposures identified in the VIA:
landslide and erosion. Several interventions were included
in the CBA:
• plantation of broom grass (Thysanolaena maxima) in
degraded grasslands in Chitre VDC;
• plantation of Timur (Zanthoxylum armatum) in private
land in Parbat VDC;
• construction of gabion walls and revegetation along
the banks of Harpan River; and
• proposed siltation dams along or on the streams of
Harpan River.
The first three interventions are currently being
implemented in the project area. The siltation dam is a
proposition that has not yet been constructed and the
CBA was carried out to measure the feasibility of the
investment.
Products derived from broom grass and Timur provide
alternative livelihoods, and the plants can grow in dry
land and reduce soil erosion under changing climatic
conditions (Case Study 7). Two scenarios of project or
investment outcomes were generated for each of these
two plantation interventions: one with the intervention
and the other without it (BAU scenario). As outlined
in Case Study 7, the CBA analysis shows that planting
broom grass as an EbA intervention is more profitable
and viable in terms of benefit-cost ratios than business
as usual.
In the case of broom grass, understanding the production
process and yield of broom grass was important, as well
as the ecosystem services the plant provides. Projects in
other parts of the country that had invested in broom
grass were used to evaluate the investment for this
project, because implementation in Panchase had only
recently begun and could not be used to gather needed
data. This is a standard technique in CBA, known as
benefit transfer. In this case, the yield of the broom grass
as observed in another location was assumed to be the
same on average as at the project site, based on assumed
similarities in climatic conditions.
For the gabion walls and siltation dams, analysis of the
business as usual scenario could not be carried out,
mainly due to lack of data and shortage of time. Instead,
a simple cost-benefit analysis to estimate the efficiency
and cost-effectiveness of the investments was carried
out (Case Study 8). The research found it very difficult to
gather externality and valuation data needed for CBA,
as this is a new approach and information is not readily
available in Nepal (Kanel 2015). The simple economic
analysis carried out shows, however, that investment
in the construction of gabion walls with anchoring
vegetation has net benefits.

Case Study 7 | Broom grass cultivation in ChitreVDC, Parbat District, Nepalu
From:T. Rossing, N. Chhenjum Sherpa and A. Egan. 2015. ”Challenging gander roles and crossing castes: Promoting women´s livelihoods through broom grass
cultivation in the Nepal Himalaya”. UNDP.
K. Kanel, 2015. Cost-benefit analysis of EbA interventions: Case studies from Panchase Project Area. Draft, unpublished.
Broom grass as an EbA project
The Panchase region has lost its once stable population of young men, who now migrate in search of better economic opportunities
in Pokhara and Kathmandu and further afield in India, Malaysia and the Middle East. As a result, there is a lack of young men in these
mountain communities, leaving mostly the elderly, women and children behind to maintain the households.
Approximately 30 percent of the land originally used for cultivation in the Panchase region is currently abandoned, leading to a
problematic decrease in agricultural production and an increase in invasive vegetation. Abandoned, overgrazed and unproductive
grasslands and crop terraces in the region are vulnerable to climate change impacts such as rising temperatures and unstable rainfall
patterns, which are drying up water sources, changing vegetation characteristics, and making landslides more frequent and severe.
Broom grass (Thysanolaena maxima), an indigenous plant commonly known as Amriso, is a popular product in Nepal. Amriso’s
inflorescence (panicles) can be used to make sweeping brooms, while the leaves of the plant can be used as livestock fodder and the
stems as fuelwood. The plant has mainly been grown for personal use, yet it has untapped commercial potential on local markets, regional
centres and even internationally (particularly in India). It has the ability to quickly regenerate even in degraded, dry lands and slopes, and
out-competes invasive species. Its strong web-like rooting system also helps to reduce top- and sub-soil loss, thereby reducing soil erosion.
This is particularly important with increasingly frequent intense rainfall events. These characteristics make Amriso ideal for Ecosystem-
based Adaptation. It can thrive on dry lands; reduce soil erosion; improve slope stability and reduce landslides; rehabilitate degraded lands;
and provide an alternative source of income for sustainable livelihoods.
Cultivation of broom grass has a long-standing tradition among poor rural communities in Panchase. The project, led by the
Department of Forests of the Government of Nepal and UNDP, is supporting the Panchase Women´s Network to scale up Amriso
plantations. As part of the project, the women’s network was able to lease 0.25 hectares of marginal land, which was barren and
degraded at the time, and prone to soil erosion given its steepness.
AMRISO/BROOM GRASS GROWING IN PANCHASE, NEPAL. © UNDP Nepal

Cost-benefit analysis
A CBA was carried out at the project site. Two scenarios of project or investment outcomes – one with the intervention and the other
without it (BAU scenario) were generated for the broom grass plantation intervention.
The methodology included a desk study, expert and stakeholder consultations. Data was gathered from pilot sites with the project team
and stakeholders on the types of ecosystem services and their values, through various market and non-market (including applying
valuation techniques such as benefit transfer, replacement cost and avoided damage cost) mechanisms. Similarly, the cost of the EbA
interventions was calculated based on the types of financial disbursement made by the project for each EbA intervention, and the
breakdown of such costs and other costs borne by the stakeholders and beneficiaries in the project area. Economic analysis was carried
out to estimate benefit-cost ratio, internal rate of return and cost-effectiveness of the EbA interventions.
Costs and benefits were mostly based on market prices. However, some of the benefits could not be easily captured through market
prices. So, two additional valuation methods were used to value the external benefits of reduced soil erosion. One of the valuation
methods was the replacement cost method. This method is a valuation approach to estimate the value of the lost soil nutrients due to
erosion. It is the value of the nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium or NPK) required to compensate the productivity of the
soil due to soil erosion. For this, the magnitude of nutrients lost needs to be established alongside the market price of these nutrients.
A business as usual scenario was analysed based on grass from degraded grassland. Costs included annual rental fee of the land; yield
of grass from the degraded grassland; cost of harvesting and transportation of the grass to the household. Benefits included the value
of the grass for household use. Given this was a BAU case, no additional benefits would be provided for soil conservation.
The economic life of the broom grass plantation is estimated to be 15 years, for the purpose of estimating the optimal level of benefit
from this as an EbA measure. Hence, the same period of economic life has been assumed for the grassland management. The EbA
project covered the costs of a rental fee, in Nepalese Rupees, of NRs 14,000 per hectare of grassland for broom grass plantation. This
cost will lead to an annual discounted loss of about NRs 3,528 or a negative net present value of NRs 29,816 per hectare. The benefit
cost ratio would be 0.9, which also indicates negative returns. The present value calculation was based on a 10 percent discount rate
(standard used in Nepal).22
An analysis of the EbA project site assessed initial costs of land preparation and weeding; rhizomes as planting materials; training
costs for the women’s network; wages for maintaining the broom grass plantation. Benefits include the sale of brooms on the market;
household use of leaves for feeding livestock, including in the dry season; and household use of stems for fuel. Major income from the
plantation is from the sale of bundles of broom grass which is in high demand within the country and in neighbouring countries.
Figure 7 | Costs and benefits of broom grass plantation in Chitre, Parbat
CostsBenefits(NRs)
Total value from broom
grass plantation
Total initial cost of broom grass
planationa in NRs
Total recurring cost of management and havest
Total cost of broom grass plantation in NRs
Net benefit of broom grass plantation
80000
60000
40000
20000
0
-20000
-40000
-60000
-80000
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
2026
2028

Other benefits accrued to society from EbA include reduced soil erosion on site and reduced sedimentation downstream as a result. Soil
erosion is estimated at 10.62 tons/ha/year under the business as usual scenario (degraded grassland management), where no actions are
undertaken to reduce land productivity (e.g. no use of fertilizers or other non-EbA land management approaches to reduce erosion). Soil
erosion is estimated at 5.54 tons/ha/year under the EbA scenario (broom grass plantation), so there is a net reduction of 5.08 tons/ha/year
of erosion from the land. The other external value is NRs 192 per hectare per year to account for the benefits of reduced sediment load in
Phewa Lake. Figure 7 shows the discounted present value of benefits and costs of broom grass plantation for the EBA case. The results are
presented this way building on how results are presented in a targeted scenario analysis. A look at the figure indicates that broom grass
plantation is beneficial with benefits looking higher than the sum of costs.
Table 11 presents the results for the discounted present value of benefits, costs and the three decision criteria (NPV, BCR and IRR) that
relate to the scenario. It should be noted that the net impact of EbA is the difference between the BAU scenario and the EbA. Since for
the EbA scenario the net present value is a lot higher than the BAU (about nine times higher) and the ratio of benefits to costs for the
EBA case is 1.3, one can conclude that the EBA intervention of broom grass is relatively profitable. Other decision criteria also suggest
that the EbA options are better relative to the BAU – the internal rate of return of 21 percent is higher than the discount rate of 10
percent, which is the assumed cost of capital.
The cost-benefit analysis shows that the planting of broom grass remains a viable and profitable investment compared to business as
usual. It should be noted that the EbA scenario also provides additional benefits, which were not quantified and are described below.
The implication of this is that the EbA scenario becomes even more attractive if those benefits are accounted for.
Other benefits
Amriso grows quickly and requires minimal time and effort to plant and maintain, making it a good fit for the women’s demanding
schedules and increasing workloads in an area with high male outmigration. Cultivating Amriso for commercial use has also been
integral in creating a much stronger social bond between the women in the Network, crossing traditional caste-determined social and
cultural barriers. The Amriso initiative is planned, executed and safeguarded by the women themselves, thereby challenging traditional
gender roles in Nepal and empowering the women. Local politicians were initially skeptical but became supportive once they saw the
success of the demonstration plantation of the Women´s Network. Broom grass is grown on private land, by the Women’s Network on
jointly leased land, and on communal land. There is good potential for scaling-up broom grass cultivation as an income-generating,
climate resilient livelihood option within Chitre VDC.
Table 11 | Economic analysis of broom grass plantations (NRs per Ha)
BAU EbA
Discounted annual net benefit (-NRs 3,528)
Net present value (NPV) -NRs 29,618 NRs 277,392
Benefit cost ratio (BCR) 0.9 1.3
Internal rate of return (IRR) 21%
BROOMS FOR SALE IN POKHARA, NEPAL. A SINGLE
CLUSTER OF BROOM GRASS CAN PROVIDE ENOUGH
MATERIAL FOR 7-9 BROOMS PER YEAR.

Case Study 8 | Constructing gabion walls along the Harpan River, Nepal
From: Kanel, K (2015) Cost-benefit analysis of EbA interventions: Case studies from Panchase Project Area. Draft, unpublished.
Construction of gabion walls with anchoring vegetation was undertaken to control the ravages of the fast moving Harpan River at
Ghatichhina, likely to be intensified by the effects of climate change in the watershed area. This is described as‘bio-engineering’in
Nepal, and represents a hybrid green-grey approach to adaptation. Dry stones are stacked in a mat of gabion wire; and bamboos and
other shrubs and trees are planted on top of the stacked gabion wall. The trees or bamboos help to support or anchor and reinforce
the gabion structure on the ground and make it more effective.
The cost of the gabion includes the soil excavation, fabrication of gabion wire, setting the gabion boxes, transportation of materials
from Pokhara to the site, filling boxes with stones, and bamboo plantation on top of the gabion wires. An annual maintenance cost
of the structure was also estimated. All of the investment cost was born in the first year. Most of the labour cost of constructing these
gabion walls with trees on them, and the annual maintenance cost are borne by the local land owners (about 40 percent in total),
while the capital cost of gabion wire, the costs of skilled labour, and the costs of transportation of stones to the site are borne by the
government or by the EbA project (about 60 percent). Two types of benefits accrue from the gabion wall structures: benefits to private
landowners from protection of their land against erosion, and benefits to downstream users of water and the tourism industry from
reducing siltation in Phewa Lake as a result of erosion.
Part of the land along the Harpan stream, where no EbA intervention had occurred, was eroded in the 2014 rainy season. The
dimension of the damage and the amount of the soil loss from the site was measured to estimate the annual total loss of productive
land along the stream without an intervention, and the amount of sediment that would be deposited in Phewa Lake from the erosion.
Once the gabion wall structures are constructed, these losses or damages would be avoided. The benefit of avoided losses (damage
averted) due to the reduction on sedimentation in Phewa Lake is estimated to be NRs 155 per ton of soil sedimentation avoided
(derived from a previous study on Phewa Lake, Kanel et al. 2013).
The total investment cost of the bio-engineering structure, which is incurred in the first year, is NRs 651,231. The recurring cost (NRs
25,000) that is incurred from the second year onwards is borne by the farmers. The life of the structure is estimated to be 20 years.
Annual benefits from the investment include private and external (social) benefits. The private benefit of annually protection of the
land (90 square meters) is NRs 141, 509, and the annual social (indirect) benefit or avoided cost is NRs 12,555 or a total annual benefit of
NRs 154,064.
A simple cost-benefit analysis was carried out to estimate the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the investment. A discount rate of 10
percent was chosen. The total discounted benefit of the cost was NRs 782,140, and the discounted benefits were NRs 1,288,737 over a
period of 20 years. Thus, the benefit cost ratio is about 1.6. The internal rate of return is 19 percent. Similarly, the net present value (NPV)
of the investment is NRs 506,597. 91.8 percent of benefits accrued to private farmers, while 8.2 percent of benefits accrued to society
through reduced sedimentation in Phewa Lake. All of these results show that the gabion wall is a very beneficial investment and a cost-
effective way of helping society adapt to anticipated climate change.
Table 12 | Economic analysis of gabion wall
Total discounted benefits NRs 1,288,737
Total discounted costs NRs 782,140
Net present value (NPV) NRs 506,597
Benefit cost ratio (BCR) 1.6
Internal rate of return (IRR) 19%
Calculated with a discount rate of 10% and life span of 20 years.

A GABION WALL CONSTRUCTED IN THE HARPAN RIVER, NEPAL, TO HELP PREVENT SILTATION AND RIVERBED EROSIION.

3.3.2Peru
The project in the community of Tanta in the Nor Yauyos
Cochas Landscape Reserve is focused on vicuña, animal
husbandry and sustainable grassland management (Case
Study 5), in order to generate hydrological and other
ecosystem service benefits that help the community and
downstream water users adapt to climate change. Through
the EbA interventions of the project, livestock is now
separated in grazing areas with natural and built fences, and
the wild vicuñas are allowed to roam in the northern part of
Tanta. These measures to manage grazing and rangelands
will lead to increased vegetation cover, reduced loss of soil
cover and enhanced water infiltration capacity, which in
turn will help maintain water provisioning and regulation
services in the face of anticipated climate change impacts.
The cost-benefit analysis focused on comparing the
livestock and rangeland management practices designed
for EbA, as described above, with a business as usual
scenario. Business as usual was defined as the continuation
of current livestock management characterized by
overgrazing and sharing of pastures by livestock and
vicuñas, with loss of vicuñas as a result of sharing limited,
overgrazed land. The valued ecosystem services were: i)
food for domestic cattle and vicuña; ii) provision of alpaca
fibre; iii) provision of (sheep) wool; iv) provision of alpaca
meat; v) provision of sheep meat; vi) provision of beef;
vii) provision of vicuña fibre; and viii) provision of water
for agricultural purposes. Other benefits such as increased
water infiltration, water regulation and soil erosion
control, expected over time and at a larger scale, were
also evaluated. These additional benefits were found to be
more complicated to measure.
The WaterWorld model developed by King’s College
London for the Tanta area provided the best available
data to use in estimating the monetary value of water
infiltration, regulation and soil erosion control benefits from
the project. WaterWorld is a testbed for development and
implementation of land- and water-related policies for sites
and regions globally, enabling intended and unintended
consequences to be tested in silico before they are
tested in vivo. The WaterWorld model can also be used to
understand hydrological and water resources baseline and
water risk factors associated with specific activities under
current conditions and under scenarios for land use, land
management and climate change.
The WaterWorld model does not calculate the rate of
water infiltration directly, but provides erosion values.
The CBA study used these erosion values as a proxy for
what happens to the water retention capacity of the soil.
The assumption made was that soil erosion would lead
to increased water runoff and reduced water storage
capacity of the soil, thereby reducing overall water
infiltration/retention capacity.23
In terms of the cost-
benefit analysis, evaluating this additional benefit not
only improves the net present value but also highlights
the benefits of EbA. While the final CBA result in the
country did not include the benefit of water infiltration,
we note that the results presented undervalue the
benefits of the project.
The cost-benefit analysis conducted in Peru found that the
EbA measures were economically preferable to business as
usual scenarios (Case Study 9).
LAND USE ZONING HAS BEEN AN IMPORTANT PART OF
ENHANCING CLIMATE-RESILIENT ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND
GRASSLAND MANAGEMENT IN THE NYCL RESERVE. © James
Leslie, UNDP Peru

Case Study 9 | Cost-benefit analysis for sustainable grassland management, vicuña management and
animal husbandry inTanta, Peru
By Jorje O. Elgegren, with Daniel Abanto (publication forthcoming)
Introduction and methodology
The cost-benefit analysis was carried out in the District of Tanta in the Province of Yauyos, which forms part of the Region of Lima. This is
a mountainous area formed primarily of wetlands and grasslands. The area has potential for commercial grazing of alpacas and sheep,
although current management practices have led to overgrazing, soil erosion and an increase in invasive plants. The area consists of
both private and communally owned land. The Mountain EbA project focuses on vicuña management, in association with animal
husbandry and sustainable grassland management (Case Study 5).
A conventional cost-benefit analysis was carried out, extending the scope to incorporate the benefits brought in by EbA measures in terms
of both market and non-market benefits. The CBA analysis studied two scenarios: i) without the project and EbA measures (BAU); and ii)
with the project EbA measures. Both scenarios assume the impact of climate change over time on temperature, soils and water availability,
which ultimately impact on Tanta’s carrying capacity. In addition, at the request of the Ministry of Economy and Finance (MEF), scenarios
were also developed for a situation without climate change (these are not addressed in this case study).
Eight ecosystem services were valued in terms of change in productivity. Carrying capacity was also valued for the first service, i.e. food
for domestic cattle and vicuña. The valued ecosystem services were: i) food for domestic cattle and vicuña; ii) provision of alpaca fibre;
iii) provision of (sheep) wool; iv) provision of alpaca meat; v) provision of sheep meat; vi) provision of beef; vii) provision of vicuña fibre;
and viii) provision of water for agricultural purposes.
Sources for estimating productivity changes included studies (including those produced by the Mountain EbA project) and personal
communications with technical project staff in the field. The analysis was carried out for a time horizon of 20 years, from 2014 to 2033.
The discount rate used was 4 percent (as used by the Government of Peru for the evaluation of climate change mitigation projects),
however, results are shown for a rate of 9 percent (the usual figure applied by the government for the remainder of project types).
ANIMAL HUSBANDRY, INCLUDING SHEEP, IS AN IMPORTANT INCOME GENERATION WITHIN THE NOR YAUYOS COCHAS LANDSCAPE
RESERVE IN PERU. © Carlos Diaz Huertas, Tres Mitades

Results of analysis
The focus of analysis was the community of Tanta, which was divided in two different project areas: i) community farm, where domestic
cattle (cow, sheep and alpaca) are raised; and ii) vicuña project, where vicuñas are managed in the wild.
The main costs of the community farm are: i) equipment and inputs, e.g. fences, trucks, slaughter house, veterinary services, etc.; ii)
labour, e.g. infrastructure construction and maintenance, shepherding, etc.; iii) training; iv) internship programme; and vi) provision of
technical assistance.
As for the vicuña project, the main cost components were: i) inputs for basic chaccu (the act of gathering wild vicuñas to proceed to
shearing); ii) shearing equipment; iii) labour for chacu and shearing; iv) training; and v) internship programme.
Local market prices were used in most cases, with the exception of alpaca and vicuña fibre, where border (export) prices (and costs)
were used to express social value.
The results of the CBA are highly positive for the use of EbA measures in Tanta. Table 13 shows the profitability indices using a discount
rate of 4 percent over the evaluation period.24
The internal rate of return (IRR) is not included because the net benefit is not negative.
Table 13 | Tanta (Peru) profitability indices, with and without EbA, r = 4%, 2014-2023
Profitability indices Without project (BAU) With project (EbA)
NPV Soles S/. 1,381,862.61 S/. 2,391,004.37
NPV US dollar $486,571.34 $841,902.95
IRR NA 20%
BCR 2.71 1.27
Note: The Peruvian Nuevo Sol (PEN) is the currency of Peru.
Figure 8 | Tanta (Peru) discounted net benefit flow, with and without EbA, r = 4%
SOLES
Without project
(BAU)
With porject
(EbA)
200000
0
-200000
-400000
-600000
-800000
-1000000
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033

The net present value (NPV) is twice as much in the case of the project (EbA) scenario, compared to the BAU scenario. While both
the BAU and EbA scenarios have a BCR greater than 1, making them profitable, the BCR is much higher at 2.71 for the BAU scenario,
compared to 1.27 for the EbA scenario.
Figure 8, in turn, shows the flow of discounted benefits with EbA measures (in green) and without EbA (in red) for the evaluation period. As
can be seen, the figures become positive under the with–EbA scenario as early as year 2 (2016) and keep well over the flow of discounted
benefits of the alternative scenario through the end of the period, which is another strong indication that the EbA scenario is preferred
economically over the without–EbA scenario.
Table 14 presents the estimates of the decision criteria using a discount rate of 9 percent over the evaluation period.25
The EbA scenario
retains a higher net present value, making it attractive financially over BAU. As in the case above, the investor would prefer the with-EbA
scenario.
Conclusions and recommendations
Cost-benefit analysis can be readily adapted to conduct economic analysis of EbA measures. This has implications in terms of making
the case for EbA, as CBA is widely used in countries like Peru, where the Ministry of Economy and Finance (MEF) plays an important role
in every government sector, including environment. Since CBA has shown, at least at a pilot site level, that EbA measures are preferred
to BAU, the case is ready to be made to policy makers and senior management in MEF.
Working in close coordination with policy makers, especially with MEF, has proven highly beneficial in terms of using the standard
parameters, formats, tables and figures that MEF uses regularly in their reports and presentations.
The CBA suggests that EbA measures may be highly sensitive to how the discount rate is set, at least in the case of Peru’s pilot site, but
this is far from conclusive. Additional studies should be conducted by the government in this regard. Further, ideally a CBA should be
carried out comparing EbA to a grey-infrastructure scenario for landscape management.
Table 14 | Tanta (Peru) profitability indices, with and without EbA, r = 9%, 2014-2023
Profitability indices Without project (BAU) With project (EbA)
NPV Soles S/. 914,644.36 S/. 1,140,594.10
NPV US dollar $322,057.87 $401,617.64
IRR NA 20%
BCR 2.65 1.09
Note: The Peruvian Nuevo Sol (PEN) is the currency of Peru.

CELEBRATION AFTER A SUCCESSFUL CHACCU, THE ANCESTRAL TRADITION OF TEMPORARILY GATHERING WILD VICUNAS TO SHEAR
THEM. © Carlos Diaz Huertas, Tres Mitades

Box 9 | Cost-benefit analysis byThe Mountain Institute (TMI) in Peru
From Podvin, K., Gomez, A. and Alvarado, L. (2015) Cost – Benefit Analysis of the no-regret measures in Canchayllo and Miraflores (NorYauyos Cochas
Landscape Reserve – Perú), PowerPoint presentation, The Mountain Institute. Presented during 2nd Global Workshop on Sharing Learning on Using
Cost Benefit Analysis for Making the Case for Ecosystem-Based Adaptation, June 1st, 2015, in Lima, Peru.
TMI is carrying out an assessment on the cost-effectiveness of‘no regrets’measures in Canchayllo and Miraflores. A hybrid
methodology has been developed using traditional CBA and economic valuation, alongside a participatory CBA process
for EbA.The methodology has been developed and validated. At the time of going to press in late 2015 this methodology
was in the process of being applied. Lessons learned will be used to develop a step-by-step participatory CBA toolkit.The
ecosystem services that are being valued include fodder provision, water regulation for agricultural farming practices, and other
environmental, social, cultural and recreation services.
Costs and benefits will be compared for a scenario without EbA before the project and with EbA under the project. Methods
used include secondary market prices (direct use values), using data from the CBA carried out inTanta by UNDP. In addition,
an assessment of costs and benefits based on local perceptions will be carried out, applying qualitative multi-criteria analysis,
using inputs from the project team.This approach will allow integration of local stakeholders and help build capacity, while
also emphasizing benefits that may not have been identified and valued in a traditional CBA. Challenges include how to
institutionalise the participatory results, which remain subjective, and how to use these more qualitative results for make the
policy and financing case for EbA.
3.3.3Uganda
In Uganda, households in the Mount Elgon region own
the land on which the project focuses, and have property
rights to use the land as they choose. The project is
focused on catchment management, including soil and
water conservation measures, reforestation and riverbank
management as part of a broader adaptation strategy
to address expected climate change impacts in terms
of soil erosion, landslides, drought and flooding (Case
Study 4). In making the case for EbA in the Mount Elgon
area, households needed to be convinced that adopting
EbA practices such as reforestation and soil and water
conservation will lead to higher revenue and better yield
from their farm over time, including under projected
climate change scenarios.
The cost-benefit analysis work compared the outcomes
of a hypothetical farmer who adopts the set of measures
outlined above, defined as ‘EbA farming practices’, with the
outcomes of a hypothetical farmer who does not adopt
these measures and rather continues with business as usual.
The data used to evaluate the outcomes for each of these
farmer types was constructed from a set of data obtained
from real farmers, gathered across 12 sub-counties in all
four project districts. Each farmer was classified as either
an “EbA-practising farmer” or a “non-EbA-practising farmer”.
The analysis of farm level revenue was used as input to a
HERDING ALPACAS IN TANTA, PERU. © James Leslie, UNDP Peru

financial CBA to measure effectiveness of each type of
farming practice (Case Study 9).
Given the focus on the private, household level in Uganda,
household level primary data was needed in order to
evaluate the impact of EbA interventions. This required
sampling households undertaking the various EbA
interventions that were to be evaluated (e.g. trenches or
drainage channels, grass bunds, planting of indigenous
trees as part of agro-forestry). The sample had to be chosen
in such a way as to understand which of the activities done
by a farmer classified him or her as an EbA farmer. There
was also a need to represent upstream, midstream and
downstream project interventions in the sampling, and a
spread in terms of varying benefits and/or measures that
were adopted.
Challenges arose with regards to how to appropriately
classify and identify an EbA farmer versus a non-EbA farmer.
Making this distinction was essential so as to be able to
A FARMER IN UGANDA BENEFITTING FROM HEALTHY AND ABUNDANT CROPS FROM INTRODUCTION OF CLIMATE-RESILIENT
AGRICULTURE. © Andrea Egan, UNDP
estimate the impact on productivity and profit of adopting
an EbA strategy on a given farm. Farmers enrolled in the
EbA Mountain project were not the only farmers practising
EbA-type measures on their farms and this needed to be
captured. This required a detailed survey that was stratified
to capture a range of activities of farmers in the districts.
The results of the cost-benefit analysis showed that EbA
practice was not only viable, but also that the viability
can be sustained in the long run, even at the relatively
high 12 percent discount rate. The practice of EBA was
viable throughout the landscape with the exception of
the midstream areas in Kapchorwa and Kween Districts,
where poor absorption of EBA practices, rather than the
use of the EBA practices per se, seemed to result in this
performance (see Case Study 9 for further details). Even in
the areas where EbA practice was not viable, the failure to
achieve positive outcomes was more a result of partial or
flawed implementation of EbA practices, rather than the
EbA practices themselves.

Case Study 10 | Evaluating EbA farming practices in Mount Elgon ecosystem, Uganda
From: UNDP (2015) Natural Resource Economic Analyses for the Ecosystem Based Adaptation (EbA) Project in Mount Elgon Ecosystem: Draft Report. Uganda,
Ministry of Water and Environment. Unpublished
Introduction and methodology
The natural resource economist’s assessment was undertaken to establish the current and potential contribution of EbA practice to
livelihoods improvement and conservation of the Mount Elgon ecosystem. The vulnerability and impact assessment (VIA) conducted
for Mount Elgon (Chapter 2) identified EbA measures such as soil stabilization through tree planting and grass bunds to reduce
vulnerability to erosion and landslides, with more frequent intense rainfall events anticipated. Land use planning was also defined as a
supporting measure for EbA in this context, helping determine the most appropriate practices in each area for reducing vulnerability to
climate change across the landscape. The measures outlined in the VIA were used as a basis for defining EbA practice as it is referred to
in the context of this economic assessment.
The most popular practices for EbA are hillside ditches and bench terraces, often practised together with grass bunds and use of
organic manure. Hillside terraces are popular in the upstream and midstream areas. Grass bunds are often planted alongside hillside
terraces and/or in the demarcation of contours. In the Mount Elgon landscape, terraces, drainage channels, grass bunds and contours
are more commonly practiced in Kapchorwa, followed by Kween and then Bulambuli and Sironko Districts respectively.
In addition to EbA measures supported by the Mountain EbA project, livelihood practices are also promoted by project partners as
part of an EbA approach, since these practices enable farmers to spread their risk or create new added value, in the face of potential
adverse impacts of climate change on incomes from business as usual farming practice. These livelihoods practices are promoted
through community-based organizations and NGOs such as ECOTRUST, and private sector stakeholders, including coffee processing
and exporting firms, and occasionally through government interventions.
The economic assessment made use of a profitability analysis – gross margin analysis that fed into the cost-benefit analysis. The cost-
benefit analysis was used to show the net present value of implementing a range of EbA practices, vs. not practising EbA in the landscape.
The sampling frame was defined based on the landscape zoning for the study area; comprising upstream, midstream and downstream
zones. Twelve sub-counties in the Districts of Bulambuli, Sironko, Kween and Kapchorwa were selected based on location within the
Box 10 | Defining EbA practice for the Mount Elgon ecosystem
On the basis that the following measures help retain soil moisture, soil fertility, crop productivity, slope stability, and surface
and groundwater availability – all increasingly important in the face of climate change – a specific set of measures implemented
through the EbA project in the Mount Elgon Ecosystem was included in the definition of EbA practice.
In this context, EbA practice refers to:
(a) Soil and water conservation measures such as: (1) hillside trenches, (2) bench terraces, (3) farming along contours and (4) grass
bunds
Or (b) Other practices such as (5) addition of organic manure, (6) use of improved seed and/or (7) wise use of fertilizers, (8) proper
spacing and (9) agro-forestry
– where at least three of measures 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 are undertaken in combination;
and/or (c) If one of (measures 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9)is practised alongside the soil and water conservation measures outlined in (a).
If a farmer does not have practices fitting into one of these three categories as described above then they would not be
considered as practising EbA and would be categorised as Non-EbA practising.

landscape and existence of EbA practice within farm households. Overall, 770 people were interviewed, of whom 375 were EbA-practising
farmers, while 395 respondents were categorized as non-EbA-practising farmers.
Farm household data was obtained through an administered questionnaire. The gathered data was comprised of farm household crop
and livestock production data (consisting of inputs, outputs and prices for produce), socioeconomic data, and data on EbA practice
and livelihoods characteristics. Additional data based on case studies of key agricultural enterprises was also obtained to illustrate the
potential of EbA in the landscape. A third set of data on soil erosion captured in the rivers due to erosion after rains was also obtained
for each of the sampled sub-counties. The production data was used to illustrate profitability and the economic case of the cost-benefit
analysis, case studies illustrated the potential of key enterprises, while the soil erosion data highlighted the soil erosion hotspots.
The principal focus of the data analysis was to achieve cost-benefit analysis based on the net present value (NPV). However, the analysis
also consisted of a descriptive analysis of farmer characteristics, exploring the scenarios that were built, based on orientation developed
using the targeted scenario analysis (TSA) approach; profitability analysis based on gross margin analysis; and using the t-test to show
the significant differences between gross margins earned for EbA and non-EbA farming practice.
Crop enterprise profitability for EbA and non-EbA practising farmers
The gross revenues for EbA practising farmers were generally higher than those of the farmers not practising EbA (Table 15). Findings
on gross revenues for EBA practising farmers showed strong performances in Bugitimwa, Kamu, Ngenge and Sipi sub-counties. The
strong gross revenue performance was based on incomes from coffee, bananas and rice in Bugitimwa and Sipi, Kamu, and Ngenge
sub-counties respectively. Farmers who produced higher value commodities always had the likelihood of a higher profit, whether or
not they had EbA practice on their farm. With perennial crops such as bananas and coffee, the farmers also had the boost of minimising
nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium (NPK) soil nutrients loss from avoided soil erosion, compared to annual crops where soil and soil
fertility losses, and the need to compensate by purchasing external inputs such as fertilisers, cut into farmers’returns.
Table 15 | NetprofitandmeantestforEbAandnon-EbApractisingfarmerbycropenterpriseoveraprojectionof15years
District Sub-county Gross margins Net profit (UGX)
EBA NEBA
Bulambuli Buginyanya 10,729,395 8,727,038 2,002,357
Kamu 19,933,236 16,019,824 3,913,412
Bulegeni 5,492,072 1,576,281 3,915,791
Kween Benet 9,592,793 9,309,927 282,866
Kaptoyoy 1,858,317 6,372,819 -4,514,502
Ngenge 15,252,965 12,315,995 2,936,970
Sironko Bugitimwa 24,239,316 9,148,413 15,090,903
Bukiise 12,249,610 9,909,327 2,340,283
Busulani 4,989,574 1,670,976 3,318,598
Kapchorwa Sipi 14,785,421 10,924,162 3,861,259
Kapsinda 10,607,162 11,887,263 -1,280,101
Kawowo 5,570,847 3,419,845 2,151,002
0.028
Differences in mean
test (p-values reported)

Upstream and midstream areas generally had higher gross income than the downstream areas. The higher revenue in upstream areas
shows the higher productivity and production effort, while the lower gross income downstream may have been associated with
variations in agro-ecological zones. The upstream cooler climate with volcanic soils is conducive for crops such as coffee and bananas,
which generally have stable high prices. The downstream flat lands have warmer conditions with loamy, and clay-loam soils, in which
grains such as maize, millet and pulses including beans, cowpeas and soybean are more frequently produced. Grains and pulses
generally have lower and unstable prices.
Generally, the gross margins of EbA-practising farmers were higher than those for non-practising farmers, indicating a higher
percentage of total revenue retained by the farmer after incurring direct costs. The exceptions were in Kaptoyoy and Kapsinda
sub-counties, where non-EbA-practising farmers had a higher margin than EbA-practicing farmers. Standard statistical tests of the
differences in average margin between the two groups showed that the gross margins are higher for the EbA-practising farmers (Table
15).
The profit analysis for crops showed much higher profits for EbA-practising farmers vs.non-EbA- practising farmers in Bugitimwa followed
by Sipi, Kamu, Ngenge and Buginyanya sub-counties. The higher profits seemed to be due to the cumulative effect of high crop yields
and how these costs outweighed the labour and input costs. The labour costs across the landscape generally show higher costs for EbA-
participating farmers compared to non-EbA practising farmers. The implementation of EbA practices such as contour farming, terraces and
planting of grass bunds were largely associated with the additional labour requirement.
(1.000.000)
-
1.000.000
2.000.000
3.000.000
4.000.000
5.000.000
6.000.000
7.000.000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
AmountinUGX
Years of projection
Sironko Bugitimwa Sironko Bukiise Sironko Busulani
Kapchorwa Sipi Kapchorwa Kapsinda Kapchorwa Kawowo
(6.000.000)
(4.000.000)
(2.000.000)
-
2.000.000
4.000.000
6.000.000
8.000.000
0
AmountinUGX
Bulambuli B
Kween Bene
Figure 9 | Present values for Kapchorwa and Sironko Districts

12 13 14 15
ni
wowo
(6.000.000)
(4.000.000)
(2.000.000)
-
2.000.000
4.000.000
6.000.000
8.000.000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
AmountinUGX
Years of projection
Bulambuli Buginyanya Bulambuli Kamu Bulambuli Bulegeni
Kween Benet Kween Kaptayoy Kween Ngenge
Figure 10 | Present values for Bulambuli and Kween Districts
The performance of EbA-practising farmers in Kaptoyoy sub-county was lower than for the other areas. The crop gross revenues in
Kaptoyoy point to low production and productivity that minimises the profitability of EbA practice investments farmers made.
The profitability of EbA-practising farmers across the landscape was significantly higher than that for non-EbA-practising farmers
across the landscape. The strength of the significance based on a one tailed t-test result at 5 percent level of significance showed that
investing in EBA was a worthwhile undertaking and generally likely to increase the income position of participating farmers.
Cost-benefit analysis
One of the major appeals of EbA is the potential impact on reducing loss of fertile topsoil. The rate at which this loss of soil productivity
will be reduced as a result of implemented EbA measures or other soil improvement technologies, however, differs by region and
slope. According to Nkonya et al. (1999), soil loss in upstream areas would require long-term investment to achieve change, given the
steepness of the slopes, therefore decreasing soil productivity was simulated at 5 percent annually even for EbA option. This decline in
soil loss will be expected to be higher upstream without EbA. Downstream areas with less soil loss would require modest investments
in technology for soil erosion control. EbA is expected to be more effective and the investment would be expected to lead to a higher
return compared to non-EbA investments. Therefore, we assume a 2 percent increase in soil productivity as a result of EbA investment
above the status quo. Midstream areas were simulated to be at constant level of returns to scale implying no soil loss due to EbA
investments.
The net present value (NPV) shows that generally using EbA practice is a viable alternative to maintaining non-EbA practice (Figures 9 and 10
below).26
The exceptions were for Kapsinda and Kaptoyoy sub-counties. Nonetheless, the cost-benefit analysis shows that using EbA practice
at the current rate, the viability of an EbA practice scenario in Kapsinda would be attained by the 12th
year of the projection. However, the NPV
were not viable within the projection period.

Robustness test for the Bugitimwa NPV, based on Table 15, shows that the EbA scenario would only become not viable with a decline
in profitability of between 58 percent and 80 percent over the 15-year projection. For Kaptoyoy sub-county, an additional increase in
profitability of at least 57 percent will be required for EbA practice to be viable. Whereas a 57 percent improvement in gross margin can
be attained through increased productivity and improvement in prices, the profitability of the Bugitimwa sub-county farms would only
be compromised were there an escalation in degradation associated with a very large decline in productivity and prices.
The results of cost-benefit analysis show that profitability from EbA practice can be sustained in the long run, even at the relatively
high 12 percent discount rate. The practice of EbA seems quite viable throughout the landscape, with the exception of the midstream
areas in Kapchorwa and Kween Districts. A further limitation to adaptation in Kaptoyoy sub-county was the failure to diversify crop
enterprises. The performance of crop enterprises was low, moreover the crops produced were mainly annual crops. The low adaptive
capacity from income diversity, gross revenue and low use of inputs to boost production, cumulatively contributed to the poor
performance observed.
Conclusions and recommendations
The main influence of EbA practice studied was through crop enterprises, where research showed how EbA practice can help farmers that
plant crops improve crop productivity. Practising EbA with perennial crops significantly enhanced profitability. EbA practice has a higher
income success when farmers choose crops with strong value chains. Crops with strong value chains include coffee, bananas, rice, and Irish
potatoes. The results of the cost-benefit analysis showed that EbA practice was not only viable, but also that the viability can be sustained
in the long run, even at the relatively high 12 percent discount rate. The practice of EbA was viable throughout the landscape, with the
Table 16 | NetpresentvalueprojectionsforEbApracticeovernon-EbAfora15-yearprojection
Bulambuli Kween
Buginyanya Kamu Bulegeni Benet Kaptayoy Ngenge
0 994,143 5,049,600 6,296,806 96,280 (3,922,746) 3,934,629
1 1,015,768 4,636,711 5,645,949 109,764 (3,374,312) 3,553,478
2 1,021,346 4,254,332 5,062,276 119,254 (2,898,367) 3,208,835
3 1,014,069 3,900,663 4,538,863 125,450 (2,485,675) 2,897,251
4 996,626 3,573,943 4,069,497 128,950 (2,128,145) 2,615,599
5 971,281 3,272,456 3,648,605 130,259 (1,818,694) 2,361,041
6 939,925 2,994,546 3,271,188 129,808 (1,551,124) 2,131,006
7 904,139 2,738,622 2,932,761 127,958 (1,320,012) 1,923,160
8 865,231 2,503,162 2,629,303 125,014 (1,120,618) 1,735,390
9 824,281 2,286,720 2,357,204 121,232 (948,798) 1,565,779
10 782,174 2,087,923 2,113,229 116,826 (800,933) 1,412,591
11 739,627 1,905,474 1,894,475 111,972 (673,861) 1,274,255
12 697,219 1,738,154 1,698,337 106,817 (564,824) 1,149,347
13 655,407 1,584,813 1,522,482 101,481 (471,417) 1,036,576
14 614,552 1,444,378 1,364,813 96,062 (391,541) 934,777
15 574,927 1,315,844 1,223,453 90,640 (323,370) 842,892
Total 13,610,714 45,287,341 50,269,240 1,837,768 (24,794,438) 32,576,607

Sironko Kapchorwa
Bugitimwa Bukiise Busulani Sipi Kapsinda Kawowo
0 6,046,734 3,844,815 4,874,118 830,198 -517,625 2,635,436
1 5,527,010 3,473,287 4,392,307 781,665 -421,749 2,393,484
2 5,049,242 3,137,235 3,957,789 734,001 -340,475 2,173,126
3 4,610,404 2,833,323 3,565,960 687,578 -271,776 1,972,511
4 4,207,640 2,558,520 3,212,661 642,676 -213,889 1,789,938
5 3,838,257 2,310,078 2,894,132 599,504 -165,287 1,623,844
6 3,499,725 2,085,503 2,606,980 558,204 -124,645 1,472,794
7 3,189,675 1,882,533 2,348,137 518,873 -90,814 1,335,471
8 2,905,888 1,699,115 2,114,833 481,562 -62,801 1,210,667
9 2,646,297 1,533,391 1,904,568 446,29 -39,749 1,097,276
10 2,408,973 1,383,673 1,715,081 413,047 -20,915 994,286
11 2,192,127 1,248,436 1,544,336 381,805 -5,662 900,768
12 1,994,093 1,126,294 1,390,490 352,516 6,564 815,876
13 1,813,331 1,015,993 1,251,883 325,121 16,234 738,835
14 1,648,412 916,399 1,127,015 299,549 23,757 668,936
15 1,498,016 826,484 1,014,533 275,724 29,482 605,534
120 53,075,825 31,875,079 39,914,825 8,328,313 (2,199,349) 22,428,782
exception of the midstream areas in Kapchorwa and Kween Districts. Even in the areas where EbA practice was not viable, this seemed to
be more a result of poor absorption of EbA practice than of the EbA practices per se.
An overall lesson that can be drawn from this analysis for policymakers is that EbA practice should be linked to strong commodity
value chains to enhance the monetary income for farmers. Additional applied research is needed to identify more synergies between
EbA practice, ecosystems and climate change adaptation based on existing livelihoods. There is a need for increased focus on both
subsistence and commercial crop enterprises, including stimulating increased crop diversity. Natural resource economics assessment
showed that EbA practice has great potential to be scaled-up, both within the Mount Elgon landscape and in other mountain
ecosystems of Uganda, such as Rwenzori.

ENHANCING FOOD SECURITY IN SANZARA VILLAGE, UGANDA, THROUGH CLIMATE-RESILIENT AGRICULTURE AND ECOSYSTEM
RESTORATION. © Andrea Egan, UNDP

3.4Challengesofdoingcost-benefitanalysisforEbA
Cost-benefit analysis can be challenging for a number
of reasons. Quantifying and estimating monetary values
of any commodity can be challenging. This is even more
challenging when ecosystem services and environmental
resources are considered. Many environmental goods are
either extremely difficult to value in practice, or confidence
in the values/methodology used may be low. This requires
careful selection of economic methods, and making careful
tradeoffs between the dual risks of underestimating benefits
and overconfidence in estimating benefits. In any CBA work,
being conservative about benefits can be a better practice,
with high confidence in the values estimated.
Conceptualizing total benefits from an EbA project or
intervention can be challenging for an economist who is
not familiar with the biophysical nature of the project. For
example, for the CBA of broom grass plantation in Nepal
(Case Study 7), initial focus was on the economic value
and livelihood benefits. Bringing in the ecosystem benefits
took time, and an argument was gradually built up about
the value of the roots’ soil binding and water retention
capacity, as ecosystem services that can help adapt to
climate change. Undertaking costs benefit analysis for EbA
interventions requires more extensive background research
on multiple benefits than is normally the case in doing CBA.
Certain data on the benefits of EbA, such as those relating
to ecosystem functions, can be hard to measure and obtain.
For example, making a comprehensive assessment of how
grassland management, water retention capacity and soil
erosion are interlinked in Tanta in Peru, or how broom grass
reduces soil erosion in a given site in Panchase in Nepal,
requires not only observation, but detailed monitoring and
scientific expertise, as was discussed in Chapter 2. Capturing
such benefits in a CBA will remain challenging. Lack of data
can also lead to an undervaluation of the benefits provided
by EbA. The experience of the programme has shown that,
while ideally site-specific data would be used in undertaking
cost-benefit analysis for EbA interventions, proxy data from
other, similar sites, can be used for the purposes of a CBA in
some cases, as was done for the broom grass CBA.
In other cases, the time required to get necessary
information on benefits from technical experts may be too
long for the goal of using the results for a CBA as to feed
into a specific decision-making process. The economist
thus needs to make a tradeoff between adding more
benefits and only using the available benefits that are
easily calculated. For instance, in Peru, estimates of the
water retention/infiltration capacity provided by partners
were not identified in time to be incorporated in the final
CBA report and had to be left out.
One other challenge is related to incorporating climate
change considerations into conducting cost-benefit
analysis. In order to be able to incorporate climate change,
it is necessary to build on other studies that have already
estimated the anticipated impact of climate change on
the specific project area. However, in many cases this
information is not available or only available at the national
or regional scale, requiring further work to be downscaled
to the project site.
3.5UsingCBAtomaketheeconomiccaseforEbA
Cost-benefit analysis is a methodology that can be
used to justify investment in a particular intervention or
project. How the results of the CBA studies will be used
in each project country of the Mountain EbA Programme
will depend on the scope of the CBA and available entry
points. Someexisting opportunities for using CBA results
are presented below. At the time of writing, CBA results
were available for Nepal, while the studies were still being
finalized in Peru and Uganda.
In Nepal, the project, in coordination with the recently
established High-Level Technical Committee on EbA
(Chapter 4) organized a National Sharing Workshop on
Cost-benefit Analysis of EbA interventions to share the
findings of the CBA study as well as discuss opportunities to
mainstream EbA approaches in various sectors of forestry,
soil conservation, agriculture and local development. The
workshop was attended by representatives of the Technical
Committee and key officials from Ministry of Forest and
Soil Conservation, Ministry of Agriculture Development,
National Planning Commission, and Ministry of Federal
Affairs and Local Development.
In Peru, the project has worked closely with the Ministry
of Economy and Finance (MEF) in the development of
Policy Guidelines for Public Investment in Biodiversity and
Ecosystems (see Case Study 10). The project has presented
initial results of the cost-benefit analysis work to the MEF. A
case study based on CBA results fromTanta will be developed
togetherwiththeMEF,providinganexampleoftheeconomic
benefits of undertaking investment in EbA. This hard data
can increase municipal, regional and national level interest
in developing EbA-related Public Investment Project (PIP)
proposals. The aim is to include the CBA results in training

materials on how to apply the policy guidelines in practice,
which would then be used in training project managers at
all levels of government in developing PIPs for investments
harnessing the power of biodiversity and ecosystems.
In Uganda, CBA results and data generated will be used
to make the case to the government through meetings
with the Top Policy Committee of the Ministry of Water
Environment. In addition, results will be showcased during
a Joint Sector Water and Environment Review being held
by the National Climate Change Policy Committee and
the National Environment and Natural Resources Sector
Working Group. The CBA report will be summarized into
policy briefs targeted at policy makers, and booklets with
key findings in a summarized form will be published and
widely distributed.
In addition to the current plans to use the cost-benefit
analysis work to make the case for EbA, results could be used
in the future to make the economic case for EbA to various
local governments, sectoral ministries or other policy
makers potentially interested in investing in ecosystem-
based adaptation measures. Results would also be relevant
for private stakeholders, whether individual farmers or even
private companies considering EbA investments. They can
be useful tools for policy advocacy at global level, in sharing
needed hard quantitative data on EbA benefits.
IN UGANDA, SUPPORT TO THE SANGAASANA WOMEN’S COLLECTIVE FOR AN UNBAKED BRICK PRODUCTION IS PREVENTING
FOREST LOSS, CREATING NEW INCOME AND EMPOWERING WOMEN. © Monicah Kyeyune, UNDP Uganda

Cost-benefit analysis provides an objective, widely
accepted methodology for quantifying EbA costs and
benefits. CBA can be used to guide decision making on
EbA. This can be done with regards to assessing whether
EbA is a beneficial investment as such; whether it is more
beneficial than not taking action or a‘business as usual’
scenario; or in comparison to other adaptation options (e.g.
infrastructure-based options).
Results from the CBA carried out by the project
in Nepal showed that planting broom grass as an
EbA measure to control soil erosion and provide
drought-resilient livelihoods was more beneficial
than business-as-usual grassland management.
Constructing gabion walls with anchoring vegetation
was found to be a beneficial EbA investment.
The CBA from Peru shows that the adoption of EbA
measures around sustainable grassland, livestock
and vicuña management in the community of Tanta
is economically preferable to current management
practices.
The results of the cost-benefit analysis from Uganda
showed that EbA farming practice was not only viable
compared to non-EbA farming practice, but also that
the viability can be sustained in the long run. The
Uganda analysis also suggests that EBA practice should be
linked to strong commodity value chains to enhance the
monetary income that farmers earn.
Challenges for doing CBA for EbA include
conceptualizing and assessing the multiple benefits
provided by EbA, for example with regards to climate
change adaptation and ecosystem functioning
(Chapter 2). This affects both how the scope of the CBA
is framed, as well as the inclusion of interlinkages and
benefits of e.g. pasture management, water regulation
and soil conservation functions into CBA calculations.
Measuring such benefits can require both time and
scientific expertise. Lack of data can lead to undervaluing
EbA benefits, while the time needed to gather data can
be too long in relation to the need for quick CBA results to
guide specific decision-making processes. Proxy data from
other sites can sometimes be used for carrying out CBA
for EbA, for example, transferring data for assessing broom
grass yields and soil erosion control capacity from other
similar sites.
CBA results can be used to make the economic case
for EbA to public investors, such as local governments
or Ministries of Finance, or to private investors such
as individual farmers or private companies. The hard
quantified data provided by CBA can be particularly
relevant when reaching out to new sectors, such as
Ministries of Finance or Planning, and when making
the case for the value of hybrid green-grey approaches
to adaptation over approaches based only on grey
infrastructure interventions. Ministries of Finance and
private sector investors are key players for providing
sustainable financing for EbA (Chapter 5).

CATHERINE NABUTSALE FROM SIRONKO DISTRICT IN MOUNT
ELGON, UGANDA, IS TEACHING THE NEW GENERATION ABOUT
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION.

The Mountain EbA Programme has engaged in
making the case for policy change for EbA at
global, national, regional, local and community
levels through a range of approaches, including
through providing information and technical
advice, engaging in events and dialogues, and
direct assistance in shaping plans, policies and
governance arrangements that support the
implementation of EbA.
Experiencesgeneratedbytheprogrammeare
alreadybeingusedtomakethecaseforpolicy
change.InUganda,theGovernmentofUgandaused
programmelessonstoadvocateforanEcosystem-
basedAdaptationresolutionattheUnitedNations
EnvironmentAssembly.InPeru,theprogramme
informedthedevelopmentoftheadaptationINDC,
thecountry´scommitmenttoactionpost-2020under
anewinternationalclimateagreement,whileinput
emergingfromtheprogrammestrengthenedNepal’s
newforestpolicyatnationallevel.
CHAPTER 4:
MAKING THE CASE
FOR POLICY CHANGE
FOR EBA

4.1 Introduction to EbA policy
Ecosystem-based adaptation has been endorsed as an
adaptation option in international policy fora through
decisions of both the CBD and the UNFCCC (Boxes 12 and
13). These global policy frameworks can provide guidance
for the development and implementation of national
policies. Bodies and programmes of the Conventions,
such as the Nairobi Work Programme under the UNFCCC’s
Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice
(SBSTA), can enhance the development of such guidance,
as will be discussed below. The UN Convention to Combat
Desertification (UNCCD) is engaged in enhancing the
adaptive capacities of dryland populations to highly variable
environmental conditions, highlighting the importance of
land-based adaptation.27
However, key limitations remain as to the efficiency of such
internationalpoliciesinguidingthedevelopmentofnational
level planning and implementation of EbA, including with
regards to lack of sufficient global adaptation finance, weak
transfer of capacity building and technical resources from
global to national level (Chong 2014).
Despite these limitations, EbA planning needs to take
place at national level. Research on the integration of
Box 11 | Terms used when referring to
different levels of government and policy
For the purposes of this Chapter, the following terms are
used in the policy context:
 Global: referring to international Conventions and bodies
such as UNFCCC and CBD
 National: referring to national and sectoral level policies
and institutional arrangements in Nepal, Peru and
Uganda
 Regional: referring to regional governments
encompassing larger geographic areas, e.g. Junín in Peru
 Local: Local governments, meaning District Development
Committees in Nepal; municipality in Peru; district,
county and municipality in Uganda, and their plans and
strategies
 Community:The localized level referring to theVillage
Development Committees (VDCs) or ward in Nepal;
community in Peru; village or Parish in Uganda, and their
plans and strategies
Box 12 | CBD decision relevant for EbA
CBD Decision X/33“Invites Parties and other governments
to: (k)… integrate ecosystem-based approaches for
adaptation into relevant strategies, including adaptation
strategies and plans, national action plans to combat
desertification, national biodiversity strategies and action
plans, poverty reduction strategies, disaster risk reduction
strategies and sustainable land management strategies.”
Box 13 | UNFCCC decision relevant for EbA
The UNFCCC“Invites all Parties to enhance action on
adaptation under the Cancun Adaptation Framework,
[…] by undertaking, inter alia, the following: (d) Building
resilience of socio-economic and ecological systems,
including through economic diversification and
sustainable management of natural resources”.
FCCC/CP/2010/7/Add.1
EbA into national level policy frameworks is gradually
emerging. Early research shows, for example, that EbA
is applicable across multiple sectors and scales (Sierra-
Correa et al. 2015; Chong 2014; Doswald et al. 2014;
Munroe et al. 2014; Pramova et al. 2012; UNFCCC 201128
).
Some of the challenges for the inclusion of EbA in national
policy frameworks include fragmented national policies;
weak institutional and governance structures; weak
enforcement of existing policies, laws and regulations;
and lack of financial and human resources (Chong 2014).
Early case study-based research on mainstreaming EbA
into municipal or local level planning has shown the
importance of bridging organizations that can support
governance of EbA across scales (Vignola et al. 2013),
the need to support learning by doing and integrating
a diversity of actors in municipal planning processes for
EbA as to cross sectoral divides (Wamsler et al. 2014).
4.2 Global policy
At the global level, the Mountain EbA partnership has
been actively involved in sharing its experience and
lessons learned on EbA through a range of dialogues,
workshops and events during meetings of the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

83CHAPTER 4: MAKING THE CASE FOR POLICY CHANGE FOR EBA
Box 14 | Integrating EbA into national adaptation planning: guidance by UNEPWCMC
UNEP has developed guidance on how EbA can be integrated into national adaptation planning (Munroe et al. 2014), through
its specialist biodiversity assessment centre, UNEP-WCMC.The step-by-step recommendations start by assessing the existing
legal and institutional frameworks relevant for EbA, existing resources and institutions. Interconnectedness of ecosystem services
should be assessed and multiple stakeholders brought together for joint planning. Climate change scenarios are then assessed
to identify the impact of climate change on ecosystem services and dependent livelihoods, on the basis of which adaptation
options can be identified, including ones that cross sectoral boundaries such as grey-green infrastructure. Implementation
strategies for the identified options should align with existing national and sectoral plans.The final step involves monitoring
implementation strategies.The Mountain EbA Programme has been informed by the development of this guidance, and has
adopted a process somewhat in line with this step-wise guidance, in terms of how adaptation planning has evolved at national
and local level, and this has been described in Chapter 2 and below.
(UNFCCC), the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD),
the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA) and
other high-level intergovernmental policy forums and
events. This has included organizing and presenting
at events, participating in dialogues, providing direct
technical advice, and policy advocacy. Work has been
carried out by programme team members from UNDP,
UNEP and IUCN; by the funding partner, BMUB; as well
as by the Governments of Nepal, Peru and Uganda.
This section presents some of the key achievements in
making the case at a global level.
The United Nations Environment Assembly, the governing
body of UNEP, has the mandate to take strategic
decisions, provide political guidance on the work of
UNEP and promote a strong science-policy interface.29
At
its first session in 2014, the UNEA adopted a resolution
on ecosystem-based adaptation. The resolution was
advocatedforbyUganda,whobroughtinitsexperienceof
implementing EbA in practice through the Mountain EbA
Programme (K Alverson 2015, pers. comm.). This helped
make the case on the value of EbA to other countries and,
together with Zimbabwe, proposed the resolution that
was adopted. The UNEA Resolution 1/8 requests UNEP,
in partnership with Governments and other stakeholders,
to develop and implement ecosystem-based adaptation
programmes, and encourages all countries to include
ecosystem-based adaptation in their policies. The UNEA
experience shows how, through a government partner
and based on national level experience on implementing
EbA in practice, the Mountain EbA Programme managed
to make the policy case for EbA to an intergovernmental
governing body of the UN, thereby prioritizing EbA as
a key topic in UNEP’s global agenda from now on, in
addition to empowering governments to include EbA in
their national plans and policies.
Table 17 | Integrating EbA into national adaptation planning
Step 1 Laying the groundwork and understanding the adaptation context
Step 2 Analysing climate change scenarios and assessing current and future vulnerability
Step 3 Identifying, appraising and selecting adaptation options
Step 4 Developing implementation strategies
Step 5 Monitoring and evaluating adaptation planning
Source: Munroe, R., Mant, R., Hicks, H., Kapos, V., Woroniecki, S., Soi, N., Crane, S., Vestergaard, O., and Kay, R. (2014) How can ecosystem-based adaptation to
climate change be integrated into national adaptation planning? UNEP, Nairobi, Kenya.

The Mountain EbA partners were actively involved
in organizing the UNFCCC Nairobi Work Programme
technical workshop on ecosystem-based approaches to
adaptation, which had been requested by the UNFCCC
COP (Decision 6/CP.17; UNFCCC, 2013). The workshop was
held in Dar Es Salaam (Tanzania) in March 2013 and took
into account the role of ecosystems, including forests,
in adaptation; vulnerability and impacts in ecosystems;
the implementation and benefits of ecosystem-based
approaches for adaptation; and lessons learned. The
Mountain EbA partners assisted in the design and facilitation
oftheworkshop,inadditiontoholdingseveralpresentations
during the workshop (K Alverson, E Barrow M Mumba
2015, pers. comm.). Several aspects of the programme were
presented, including: the importance of multiple benefits
and the experience of making the case for policy change
for EbA; the use of EbA tools; and the VIA experience from
Uganda. The report of the workshop includes concrete
examples from the Mountain EbA Programme, including on
VIAs and economic assessments, as part of its discussion and
recommendations on priority areas of work for enhancing
understanding on EbA. The report of the workshop was
included in the conclusions of the UNFCCC Subsidiary Body
for Scientific and Technological Advice at its 38th
Session
(FCCC/SBSTA/2013/3).
The partnership has also engaged in the Nairobi Work
Programme process more broadly, through attending
events and reviewing documents (K Alverson, E Barrow M
Mumba 2015, pers. comm.). This engagement has enabled
access to an important platform that feeds practical
experience on adaptation into the UNFCCC policy process
through its Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technical
Advice. The programme has enhanced thinking on issues
such as how to mainstream ecosystems into VIAs, the value
of carrying out economic assessments for EbA, and the
importance of the multiple benefits of EbA. With practical
experience to back the case, the programme has increased
buy-in for EbA amidst a range of stakeholders, from other
governments to researchers and organizations (K Alverson,
E Barrow, M Mumba F Ries 2015, pers. comm.). The
Nairobi Work Programme has provided an ideal platform
for outreach on making the case for EbA. The programme
has played an important role in including EbA in future
work of the Nairobi Work Programme, where the range of
stakeholders involved can jointly further understanding on
this approach to adaptation.
The current negotiating text for UNFCCC COP 21 to be held
in Paris in November-December 2015 (FCCC/ADP/2015/1),
includes options for reducing risks to ecosystems and
people caused by climate change, as well as enhancing
the Nairobi Work Programme in order to incorporate an
approach of sustainable management of ecosystems in
adaptation. These provide a background that could enable
the inclusion of references to EbA-relevant measures in the
agreement to be adopted in Paris.
The partnership of the Mountain EbA Programme has
been very active in sharing lessons learned and its evolving
thinking around the concept and implementation of EbA
througharangeofhigh-levelpolicyevents.Thishasincluded
events, sessions and presentations focused specifically on
the Mountain EbA Programme (Table 18). The partners,
UNEP, UNDP and IUCN, as well as BMUB, have been active
in presenting and engaging in dialogue. Having the range
of partners involved in making the case has strengthened
outreach, political weight and influencing power (K
Alverson, E Barrow, M Mumba F. Ries 2015, pers. comm.).
In addition, these global platforms have provided unique
opportunities for Government partners from Nepal, Peru
and Uganda to present their experiences of implementing
EbA at country level. Engaging government partners in this
INTRODUCING EBA DURING A PROGRAMME-SPONSORED SIDE
EVENT AT COP-20 IN LIMA, PERU, 2014. © Adriana Kato, UNDP
Peru

way is a unique opportunity to make the case for EbA from
government to government at a global policy event. In
addition to reaching out to governments, these events have
also provided an opportunity to make the case for EbA to
other international and non-governmental organizations,
research institutes and donors.
TheUNFCCCCOP20,heldinLima,Peru,providedanexcellent
opportunity to showcase the work of the Mountain EbA
project that was being implemented in Nor Yauyos Cochas
Landscape Reserve in Peru. The global programme, and the
Peru experience in particular, were showcased through a
range of events, as shown in Table 18.
A guided tour was arranged for the United Nations
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and the President of Peru
Ollanta Humala to visit the Mountain EbA Programme in
Tanta (Dourojeanni 2014). The three-hour helicopter tour
provided an exceptional opportunity to present and discuss
climate change impacts in Peru, the linkages between
ecosystem services and climate change adaptation, and
the EbA measures implemented by the Mountain EbA
Table 18 | Events organized by the Mountain EbA Partnership (in bold) or where the Partnership has presented
Meeting Event title Organizer
UNFCCC COP 20, Lima,
Peru, 2014
Enhancing local knowledge and capacity about Ecosystem-based
Adaptation through innovative communication strategies and tools
UNDP
My Mountain, My Forest, My Sea: Our Daily Bread SERNANP/UNDP
Making Ecosystem based Adaptation Effective: Lessons from the Field IUCN
Climate Mitigation and Adaptation in Forest Landscape Restoration:
Exploring the Synergies
IUCN
Natural Protected Areas as Effective Strategies for Climate Change
Management in Peru
SERNANP/UNDP
CBD COP 12,
Pyeongchang,
Korea, 2014
Ecosystem-based Adaptation: Contributing to the Post-2015
Development Agenda.
Presentations by Government of Uganda and UNDP
UNDP
Adaptation Knowledge
Day IV, Bonn, Germany,
2013
What do Decision-makers and Practitioners Need to Know about
Ecosystem-based Adaptation (EbA)?
Presentations by Government of Nepal,WCMC and UNDP
UNEP
Lessons Learned from Climate Change Adaptation Case Studies.
Presentation by Government of Peru
UNEP
CBD COP 11, Hyderabad,
India, 2012
Ecosystem-based Adaptation: Sharpening our Approach to Assessment
and Monitoring
Partnership and
Government of Germany
UNFCCC COP 17, Durban,
South Africa, 2011
Ecosystem-Based Adaptation in Mountain Regions (EBA Flagship
Initiative)
Partnership
Adaptation Knowledge
Day II, Bonn, Germany,
2011
Ecosystem-based Adaptation –Tools, methodologies and experiences
on the ground. Presentations by Governments of Nepal and Uganda; by
Programme Partners
UNEP

Programme. The role of SERNANP and of protected areas
as part of an overall adaptation strategy was highlighted.
The President of Peru indicated particular interest in the
EbA pilot project in Tanta on the management of vicuñas,
a national flagship species of Peru. Unfortunately due to
unforeseen weather circumstances, the helicopter was
unable to land in the community of Tanta. Nevertheless,
the direct engagement with the United Nations Secretary-
General and the Peruvian President represented a unique
opportunity for the Mountain EbA Programme to make the
case for EbA at the highest political level.
The programme has managed to bridge practice and
policy from the local to global level, by presenting local-
level experiences on EbA to a global level policy audience,
as a means for making the case for EbA. The partners have,
independently, also attended a range of other events,
which have provided further opportunities for sharing the
experience and lessons learned from the Mountain EbA
Programme. No single event is likely to be the platform
where the case can be made for policy change for EbA;
however, the range of events have provided an ongoing
platform for influencing key policy makers and practitioners
(K Alverson, E Barrow, M Mumba F Ries 2015, pers.
comm.). This outreach has provided a much larger audience
than could have been reached by any of the partner
organizations working alone (Ibid.). The fact the Mountain
EbA Programme has been delivered as a partnership
between UNEP, UNDP and IUCN has also meant that three
organizations, in addition to the German Government’s
International Climate Initiative, have put their technical
expertise and organizational standing behind making the
case for EbA. This political weight given to messaging on
EbA has led to faster recognition and acceptance of EbA
discourse at the global policy level (Ibid.). The partnership
has enhanced understanding on what EbA is, how it can be
designed and implemented, what are some of the benefits
and challenges involved.
4.3 Nepal
4.3.1Nationallevelpolicychange
A solid framework for guiding Nepal’s climate change work
is provided by the country’s National Adaptation Programme
of Action (NAPA, 2010) and Local Adaptation Plans of Action
(LAPAs) and the National Climate Change Policy (2011) (Nepal
GUIDED TOUR TO TANTA PROJECT SITE FOR SECRETARY GENERAL BAN KI-MOON AND PRESIDENT OF PERU OLLANTA
HUMALA. © James Leslie, UNDP Peru

2013). However, while climate-compatible development has
become a major development strategy for Nepal, turning
policy into action remains a challenge (Ibid.).
The National Climate Change Policy has a specific objective
(7.4.) that aims to enhance adaptation by and resilience
capacity of local communities through natural resource
management. It also puts forward a set of policies for
“climate-friendly natural resources management” (8.7.),
which includes a range of EbA measures such as sustainable
management of forests, agro-forestry, pasture and
rangeland, and soil conservation to address the impacts of
climate change and provide for livelihoods.
Nepal´s 13th Plan (2014-2016), the country´s overarching
development plan, includes implementing development
programmes which support climate change adaption as
one of seven key national priorities. Adaptation measures
are integrated as strategies for delivering sectoral policies
put forward in the 13th Plan with regards to agriculture,
irrigation, food security, forests and soil conservation, water
and sanitation, local development and environment. Many
of these adaptation strategies put forward are directly
relevant for EbA, for example, strategy 3.2. on Environment
and Climate Change: “Adapt to climate change and
sustainably conserve and manage natural resources by
pursuing disaster risk mitigation, poverty alleviation, and
environmental protection”.
Climate change has also been acknowledged in sectoral
and environmental policies and plans. The Nature
Conservation National Strategic Framework for Sustainable
Development (2015) has been developed by the National
Planning Commission and includes EbA approaches. The
National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP,
2014) addresses the changing context of conservation
and provides nature-based adaptation solutions to climate
change impacts. Nepal has a strong policy framework
supporting local level adaptation measures, including
through Local Adaptation Plans of Action) and channelling
adaptation finance to local level. The Environment Friendly
Local Governance Framework (2013) aims to focus climate
change adaptation at the local level and complements
the LAPA framework. Climate change is recognized in
the Agro-biodiversity Policy 206330
(First Amendment)
and conservation of agrobiodiversity is put forward as
an adaptation strategy. The Forest Policy (2015), which
also includes adaptation, will be discussed below. A key
challenge for the implementation of all EbA-relevant plans
and policies in Nepal remains the lack of financial and
human resources for implementation, and weak technical
capacity (Gurung et al. 2015).
The Mountain EbA project coordination sits under the
Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation, which has provided
a direct avenue for delivering project activities through the
Ministry, as well as an opportunity for the project to engage
in broader policy dialogue, in particular with regards to
forest-related policies. The new forest policy (2015) has
climate change as one of seven thematic areas and includes
EbA as one of the approaches put forward for adaptation.
The Mountain EbA project is involved in a working group
developing a five-year action plan for the delivery of the
climate change area of this Policy in all 75 Districts of Nepal.
The project is thereby providing direct technical input
into how this key national policy will be implemented in
practice, with regards to climate change and making the
case for integrating EbA measures into its delivery.
The Panchase Protected Forest is one of 13 of its kind in
Nepal. Given these were only established in 2011, they
lacked defined rules and regulations (P Rai 2015, pers.
comm.). Through its collaboration with the Panchase
Protected Forest under the Department of Forests, the
Mountain EbA project has been a pilot project in terms of
increasing understanding and developing the concept of
protected forests themselves (P. Rai 2015, pers. comm.). The
project has provided technical and financial support to the
Protected Forest Council to produce draft guidelines on
protected forests, which provide regulations and directives
on managing protected forests, which are in the process
of being approved by the government (P. Rai 2015, pers.
comm.). The proposed guidelines incorporate EbA and
providetheopportunityforintegratingEbAintothenational
protected forest management plans and programmes (H
Gurung 2015, pers. comm.). Through its active engagement
in developing the Guidelines on Protected Forests, through
both practical implementation of EbA measures in
Panchase and technical guidance to national level policy
development, the project has successfully made the case
for EbA being part of protected forest management at a
national scale in Nepal.
The project has collaborated with Tribhuvan University
in validating the VIA tools and methods developed and
implemented by the Mountain EbA project (Chapter 2).
These have been tested in the Shivapuri Nagarjun National
Park. The aim is to integrate the results of the tested VIA
approach into the National Park´s Management Plan (P.
Rai 2015, pers. comm.). This could pave the way for policy

change that would enable integration of VIAs and EbA
measures into other Protected Area Management Plans.
The project is engaged in ongoing discussions with the
Department of National Parks and Wildlife Management
to this end (Ibid.). Capacity development of protected area
managers (e.g. park wardens) and planning officers would
be essential in mainstreaming EbA opportunities into
protected area plans and programmes (Gurung 2015).
Research carried out by the project identified future
opportunities for integrating EbA into national policies
and strategies in Nepal (Gurung et al. 2015). This includes
considering the relevance of EbA for the National
Adaptation Plan (NAP) and Intended Nationally Determined
Contributions (INDC) developed as part of national
commitments under the UNFCCC. The case could be made
formainstreamingEbAintotheVision2030documentbeing
developed by the National Planning Commission, which
would increase the weight given to EbA in national level,
cross-sectoral development planning. In the forestry sector,
both the adaptation and mitigation benefits provided by
ecosystems can be of particular relevance, especially given
increased funding for forestry in Nepal and the recent
establishment of a Reduced Emissions from Deforestation
and Forest Degradation (REDD) Implementation Centre,
which addresses both mitigation and adaptation projects.
The project is also engaged in the process of forming
a High-Level Technical Committee on EbA to be led by
the Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation. The main
role of the Committee is to coordinate and mainstream
ecosystem-based approaches to climate change adaptation
into sectoral plans and programmes.31
This will be done,
for example, through technical guidance, facilitating
discussions on investment opportunities and identification
of capacity development needs. The Committee will
include representatives from various Ministries, such as
the National Planning Commission; Ministry of Forest and
Soil Conservation; Ministry of Science, Technology and
the Environment; Ministry of Agriculture; and Ministry of
Federal Affairs and Local Development. The project´s role
in showcasing benefits on the ground and identifying
opportunities for EbA planning and policy has helped make
the case for national level recognition of the importance of
ecosystem-based approaches to adaptation in Nepal.
It is important to note that following the catastrophic
earthquakes of 25th April and 12th May 2015, Nepal´s
policy priorities have changed and any future opportunities
for short- to medium-term policy change are likely to be
readjusted and reviewed based on new national priorities
in the face of massive scale reconstruction. Adaptation to
effects of climate change will continue to be important,
but will be carried out alongside increased investments in
reducing the impacts of natural disasters, including those
not affected by climate change, such as earthquakes.
4.3.2Locallevelpolicychange
The project has focused its activities at the level of the
Village Development Committee (VDC). It has engaged
with existing resource user groups, such as: Community
Forest User Groups (CFUGs), Agriculture Groups, Water User
Groups and Livestock Groups, as well as Women´s Groups.
These have been key implementing partners and have
enabled the implementation of measures through existing
governance structures, thereby building on existing
expertise and strengthening capacities to manage natural
resources under climate change. Workshops and training-
of-trainers events have been provided at VDC level. CFUGS
are the major participants in and beneficiaries of many of
the implemented EbA measures, such as conservation
ponds and plantations. One of the measures the project has
promoted is the integration of EbA solutions into existing
local level management plans. For example, CFUGs have
recognized the ecosystem services and value-added of EbA
measures, such as promotion of specific plant species, in
the long-term, and the EbA project has been supporting
CFUGs through capacity development trainings towards
integration of the EbA approach into the management
plans of CFUGs (P Rai 2015, pers. comm.).
Box 15 | Local government in Nepal
Nepal is divided into 75 District Development Committees
(DDCs), which make up the top tier of local government
in Nepal.The second tier is occupied in the rural areas by
3,915Village Development Committees (VDCs) and in the
urban areas by 58 municipalities.The third tier is made up
of the wards, with several wards perVDC.The term‘village
development committee’is commonly used to refer both to
the geographical area and the executiveVDC committees
of elected and nominatedVDC officials. One of the most
important functions ofVDCs is to implement development
programmes to improve local infrastructure, livelihoods
and services.
Source: Inlogos (2009). Assessment of Village Development Committee
Governance and the use of Block Grants. Page 1. Kathmandu: Ministry of
Local Development and United Nations Development Programme.

Following the vulnerability and impact assessment, the
sub-watershed was identified as an appropriate level for
implementing EbA measures. Sub-watershed management
plans were prepared based on the results of the VIA, which
prioritised Andheri Khola, Harpan Khola and Orlang Khola.
These plans identified both climatic and non-climatic
drivers of vulnerability, and prioritised EbA options and roles
for implementation. Ten additional sub-watershed plans
are currently being developed. The aim is now to integrate
these sub-watershed plans into the Panchase Protected
Forest Management Plan (P. Rai 2015, pers. comm.).
The Panchase Protected Forest Management Plan is a five-
year work plan, which is currently being reviewed and
revised. The project is supporting the review of the plan,
including an analysis on gaps regarding climate change
and adaptation, in addition to highlighting opportunities
for integrating EbA and the sub-watershed plans (P. Rai
2015, pers. comm.). The review will be submitted to the
Department of Forests and the Panchase Protected Forest
Council for their consideration on how these opportunities
could be included in the revised management plan.
The project has engaged in making the case for EbA to various
stakeholders involved in planning at local level. The project
provided technical support and engaged in discussions that
led to the forming of the Panchase Protected Forest Council
andthethreeDistrictForestCouncils.Themanager,rangersand
councils of the Protected Forest are important implementing
partners of the project and were involved in designing ‘no
regrets’and EbA measures for theVDCs within the forest.
At district level, ‘no regrets’ measures were developed with
district line agencies for the eight VDCs that are outside the
Panchase Protected Forest. The project has signed MoUs
with district line agencies for delivery of project activities,
thereby instilling a sense of ownership of and accountability
for implemented measures, as well as aligning them with
ongoing government activities. Supported by initial
capacity building on EbA, several relevant district offices
have provided technical backstopping for EbA activities,
including: soil conservation, forest, livestock and agricultural
development agencies. These are key project partners and
their extension staff has worked directly with e.g. CFUGs on
land use, technical inputs, providing guidance on species
used, and implementation of EbA interventions. Such
collaboration has been an important step in strengthening
local ownership, bringing change into planning practices
and ensuring sustainability of project interventions (Tiwari
2015). Collaboration with existing institutions has provided
IN NEPAL, THE PROGRAMME MOBILIZED THE ENTIRE CHIHANDANDA COMMUNITY FOREST USER GROUP TO BE INVOLVED IN RE-
PLANTING EFFORTS. © Andrea Egan, UNDP

a channel for making the case on EbA and mainstreaming it
into local planning processes.
The project has established a Field Planning Coordination
Committee (FPCC), chaired by the Regional Forest Director
andwithparticipationfromgovernmentdistrictlineagencies,
Panchase Protected Forest Council and VDC representatives.
The FPCC oversees the project and helps plan and endorse
project action plans, as well as enabling government
ownership of implemented measures. The FPCC has been a
key channel for disseminating information, such as the results
of theVIA.This specific body dedicated to the EbA project has
provided an important channel for dialogue and discussion
on EbA planning and implementation at a local scale, and has
been a platform from which to disseminate information and
make the case for EbA more broadly within local institutions
and to key stakeholders at local level.
The case for policy change for EbA in Nepal has been made
effectively, especially at local and district level.This has been
achieved through engaging with existing government
structures and groups such as Forest Community User
Groups and Panchase Protected Forest Council in
implementing EbA measures in practice, thereby building
capacity and increasing understanding of the benefits and
relevance of EbA. Research by the project (Gurung et al.
2015) identified that significant opportunities remain for
integrating EbA into local level planning processes, across
sectorsinareassuchasforestry,soilconservation,agriculture
and infrastructure. The project has played an important role
in developing understanding at national level on protected
forest management, as well as making the case on how EbA
measures are relevant for protected forests. The project has
also provided technical guidance on how to integrate EbA
into the new Forest Policy and supported the process of
forming a High-Level Technical Committee on EbA. Overall,
the project has increased understanding of the relevance of
ecosystem-based adaption for national development and
climate change planning and policies in Nepal.
4.4 Peru
TheMountainEbAprojecthasadoptedauniqueapproachby
bridging local to district, regional and national level planning
and implementation of adaptation measures, an innovative
approach for climate change project delivery in Peru.
The Ministry of the Environment (MINAM) is the national
level counterpart.The project has also engaged closely with
the Ministry of Economy and Finance (MEF) in developing
‘green guidelines’ for mainstreaming climate change and
ecosystem considerations into public investment projects.
This initiative will be discussed in further detail in Chapter 5.
MINAM and MEF sit on the project Steering Committee, in
addition to the national Protected Areas agency, SERNANP,
and the Regional Governments of Lima and Junín. The
Steering Committee provides a space for dialogue and an
entry point for making the case for EbA to government
counterparts.
The National Climate Change Strategy (MINAM, 2014a)
integrates an ecosystem-based approach to adaptation in a
comprehensive manner. The Strategy provides a framework
with objectives, actions and priority themes, and identifies
critical ecosystem goods and services, from which sectoral
or regional plans can select and prioritise in their own
planning. The valuation of ecosystem services is identified
as a key service, and proposed actions include increasing
understanding of climate change impacts on ecosystem
services and carrying out vulnerability assessments. Cross-
cutting themes for all work, whatever the sector, are
ecosystem-based: air; water and soil; forests; biodiversity;
and ecosystems and landscapes. The Peruvian National
Climate Change Strategy goes beyond proposing EbA as
an adaptation measure, to adopting an ecosystem-based
lens, where appropriate, to all adaptation planning. Overall,
by being a pilot project on EbA in Peru, the project has
increased understanding of EbA at national level, which is
also reflected in the Strategy.
The Peru Intended Nationally Determined Contribution
(INDC) was recently developed, with the project team
asked to contribute by reviewing the draft and providing
Box 16 | A new approach to adaptation in Peru
“The most significant change that the Mountain EbA
Programme has brought about is having ecosystems form
the basis of an adaptation project.This has enabled both
MINAM and SERNANP to articulate our on-going work on
e.g. Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) and conservation
in the context of adaptation to climate change.Working with
local governments directly has also been a new approach to
project delivery for us.”
Eduardo Durand, Director General of Climate Change, Desertification
and Hydrological Resources, MINAM (2015, pers. comm.)

recommendations on how to integrate EbA (Peru 2015).
The scope and objectives for achieving Peru’s adaptation
goalsintheprioritizedsectorsofwaterandforestryinclude
EbA-relevant elements. The scope of the water sector
specifically refers to ecosystem/natural infrastructure,
while the forestry sector considers protecting the
ecosystem services that forests provide and promotes
comprehensive land management within a landscape
approach. The INDC even refers to the Mountain EbA
Programme specifically in the context of results and
practical experiences provided by key projects, which
have informed the INDC adaptation proposal. The project
team also hopes to be included in the consultations on
the development of the National Adaptation Plan (NAP),
which will be developed following the INDC (J Leslie E
Fernandez-Baca 2015, pers. comm.).
Overall, Peru has a solid set of policies at national level that
provide a framework for implementing ecosystem-based
adaptation (Ikkala 2011) and (Soncco 2014). Climate change
and adaptation are comprehensively addressed through the
National Climate Change Strategy and the legal requirement
that each regional government should have a Regional
Climate Change Strategy. This enhances decentralization
on climate change and provides an opportunity for more
detailed and localized adaptation planning. Sub-watershed
level adaptation plans also exist for several watersheds. Climate
change is included in various environmental policies, such as
the National Policy on the Environment (MINAM, 2009), the
National Action Plan on the Environment 2011-2021 (MINAM,
2011),andtheStrategyfortheConservationofBiodiversity2021
(MINAM, 2014b). Although not specifically linking ecosystems
and adaptation, they do provide an enabling framework by
prioritizing ecosystem management, while also identifying
climate change as a threat to ecosystems, and emphasizing
the importance of overall climate change adaptation. At
the sectoral level, the National Policy and Strategy on Water
Resources (2012) identifies an action around ecosystems
and adaptation. The National Plan for Risk Management and
Adaptation to Climate Change in the Agricultural Sector 2012-
2021 does not specifically refer to EbA.
Peru’s Bicentenary Plan 2011-2021, the main document
guiding national development, has an objective on the
“conservation and sustainable use of natural resources and
biodiversity using an integrated and ecosystem approach for
an environment that enables good quality of life for people and
healthy, viable and functional ecosystems in the long term”,
under which climate change adaptation approaches should
be implemented. Peru’s policy structure itself is conducive
for policy and planning on adaptation, and provides greater
opportunities for integrating ecosystems and adaptation
than many other countries. Peru is one of the world´s ten
most megadiverse countries, on the one hand making its
biodiversity vulnerable to climate change, on the other
hand it also provides an important natural resource. The
conservation and sustainable use of natural resources are
regarded as important contributors to local, regional and
national development and are seen as national policy
priorities (MINAM 2015).
4.4.2Regional,districtandlocallevelpolicychange
The project´s strongest focus in instituting policy change
has, however, been at the regional and local level. The
development of Regional Climate Change Strategies is
stipulated in the National Climate Change Strategy (2014).
The Mountain EbA project has worked directly with the
Regional Government of Junín in formulating the Regional
Climate Change Strategy (2014) (W Lopez 2015, pers.
comm.). The project provided technical support to the
formulation of the strategy, through a consultant technical
advisor who was engaged throughout the participatory
process for developing the strategy, which included holding
over 25 consultative workshops. The consultant assisted
IN PERU, WORKING WITH COMMUNITY MEMBERS AND
SERNANP RANGERS TO INTEGRATE EBA INTO THE NEW RESERVE
MANAGEMENT PLAN. © Hector Bonilla, UNDP Peru

in both training and information provision, including
introducing the concept and approach of EbA. The project
supported the formation of a management committee,
composed of civil society, regional government and MINAM
representatives, who worked jointly on the formulation of
the strategy.The strategy provides policy guidance, which is
then developed into action plans for implementation. EbA
is included as an approach in both the vision and strategy of
the Junín Regional Climate Change Strategy.32
EbA is thereby recognized as a cross-cutting approach
for the whole Junín strategy. An annex includes specific
projects that are proposed, many of which are focused on
EbA, such as: restoring areas with high rates of soil erosion;
broadening areas of conserved wetland to enhance water
storage capacity; conserving and protecting lagoons,
rivers and pastures to ensure continued provision of water
and water regulation services; integrated management of
watersheds; and terracing on slopes leading to roads and
infrastructure, as a measure of protection from landslides.
A more comprehensive climate monitoring system is also
proposed. The regional strategy covers a range of sectors
and provides a framework for implementing EbA at a
regional scale, as well as taking a needed multi-sectoral
approach to implementation. The challenge now remains
to implement this strategy in practice, with sufficient
resources to deliver. The strategy does not provide a
budget or defined roles and responsibilities for delivery.
The project has provided direct technical support to the
development of the Regional Climate Change Strategy
of Lima Region, which is still at the formulation stage. The
case of Lima has been more challenging, as this is a much
more dispersed and complex geographical area than Junín,
ranging from coastal to mountain ecosystems (E Fernandez-
Baca 2015, pers. comm.). Both the regional governments
of Junín and Lima are represented on the project steering
committee.
A key partner for planning and implementing EbA at
landscape level in the Nor Yauyos Cochas Landscape
Reserve (NYCLR) has been SERNANP, the national protected
areas agency. As described in Case Study 11, collaboration
with SERNANP has enabled an entry point into planning
processes at community and landscape level, and an
important avenue for making the case for EbA. The Reserve
has provided a well-defined and appropriate scale for
implementing EbA (even if to date activities have been
focused in three communities only), the NYCLR Master
Plan has acted as a guiding framework for prioritizing
and embedding activities, while the staff of SERNANP
at the NYCLR Headquarters have provided an essential
institutional framework, technical expertise and counterpart
for sustainable delivery of EbA.
Climate change and EbA are now integrated into the new
management plan for the NYCL Reserve, which also means
that measures will be scaled-up from the initial three
communities. Further, SERNANP is now collaborating more
closely with the regional governments of Junín and Lima
on the management of middle and lower stretches of the
watershed, given the critical ecosystem services provided by
the upstream Reserve directly to the large rural and urban
populations downstream (G Quiroz 2015, pers. comm.).
This provides an opportunity for including EbA in planning
for a broader area, beyond the Reserve. The project has
promoted and enhanced engagement between different
levels of government on climate change planning. The
regional government of Junín and SERNANP in the Reserve
are now looking to promote visits and exchanges to increase
interest in climate change planning in other protected areas
and communities in the region (W Lopez G Quiroz 2015,
pers. comm.).
In addition, the project has played an important role in
making the case for EbA being part of protected area
planning and management at national level in Peru. As
described in the case study, the approach to planning for
climate change adaptation and adopting EbA measures
within NYCLR has been shared at national and global level
events and through technical working groups. SERNANP is
looking to replicate the experience in other protected areas
in the country.
At local level in Tanta, the project has worked directly with
the community, organized under a Community Assembly
Box 17 | Vision of the Junín Regional Climate
Change Strategy
The Department of Junín will have adapted to the adverse
impacts and will have embraced opportunities imposed
by climate change, thereby creating a base for low carbon
sustainable development with a focus on ecosystem-based
adaptation.33
ERCC Junín, 2014

Case Study 11 | Collaboration with SERNANP implementing EbA in a landscape reserve, Peru
The National Service of Protected Areas of the State (SERNANP) in Peru is a government agency under the Ministry of Environment and
Natural Resources (MINAM) in charge of managing the National System of Protected Areas (SINANPE) and conserving biodiversity, in
coordination with regional and local governments, as well as land owners of private protected areas. SERNANP has been an essential
partner for project delivery in the Nor Yauyos Cochas Landscape Reserve from the outset.
The project has worked with SERNANP from the design phase onwards. SERNANP has provided an entry point to communities,
mayors and local leaders; expertise on the local context; and a framework for planning all project interventions. The Nor Yauyos Cochas
Landscape Reserve Master Plan has provided an overall guiding framework, under which all project interventions have been planned.
The landscape approach of the Reserve has also enabled a natural scale for implementation action, which has meant that an ecosystem
vision has been part of EbA measures right from the design stage. For example, an integrated approach to watershed management is
included in the Plan. Close collaboration between the project and SERNANP has instilled a sense of ownership within SERNANP for the
project´s plans and measures from the outset. The project has also been able to inform existing planning processes and plans.
The Master Plan is currently being updated for 2015-2020.The project has directly supported the updating process.TheVIA results have been
integrated into the revised Plan. Climate change is now recognized as a threat to conservation and the Plan incorporates adaptation strategies
for enabling the continued provision of ecosystem services that increase the resilience of the local population EbA measures prioritized
by the project have also been included in the Master Plan, including measures related to vicuña management, pasture management and
water management. Climate change has been mainstreamed into other sectoral areas, such as tourism and agriculture. Project indicators for
monitoring EbA were developed, based on existing indicators used by SERNANP and were designed to fit in with existing activities and plans
of SERNANP, so as to ensure continuity and to mainstream them into SERNANP´s work.
The successful collaboration with the Mountain EbA project has raised the interest of SERNANP in EbA and mainstreaming climate
change into protected area management at national level in Peru. The Nor Yauyos Cochas Landscape Reserve has provided a nationally
relevant pilot for testing different approaches to mainstreaming climate variability and change. This includes reflecting on issues such
as: integrating climate variability, change and vulnerability in existing planning and management tools; redefining protected area
boundaries to allow for species migration; strengthening human and financial resources; enhancing territorial planning; identifying
alternative sources of livelihoods and sources of financing (Leslie, 2014). The project has contributed to national level trainings on how
to integrate climate change into protected area planning and management.
A Technical Working Group for EbA, climate change and protected areas has been formed within SERNANP at national level, with
government, UNDP, WWF and The Mountain Institute representatives. This also led to the organization of a national level event in
October 2014, hosted by SERNANP, on climate change and protected areas. The event took place in Lima and was broadcast to 10
sub-national level events. The event provided inputs for Peru´s engagement at the IUCN World Parks Congress held in Sydney, Australia
in November 2014 and for a side event hosted by SERNANP during UNFCCC COP 20 in Lima in December 2014 (see section 4.1. above).
The Mountain EbA project has acted as a catalyst for increasing national level dialogue on climate change and protected areas in Peru,
in addition to providing opportunities for taking forth lessons learned to international forums.
SERNANP STAFF MEETING WITH LOCAL
STUDENTS INVOLVED IN PROGRAMME-
SUPPORTED COMMUNITY OUTREACH
ACTIVITIES. © Adriana Kato, UNDP Peru
Source: G Quiroz, E Fernandez-Baca and J Leslie, 2015,
pers. comm.; Reserva Paisajistica Nor Yauyos Cochas, Plan
Maestro 2015-2019. Borrador; Leslie, J (2014) Fortaleciendo
la resiliencia a través de la gestión adaptativa de las ANP.
PowerPoint Presentation

9494 MAKING THE CASE FOR ECOSYSTEM-BASED ADAPTATION: The Global Mountain EbA Programme in Nepal, Peru and Uganda
(Asamblea Comunal), which has community Committees
(Comites de la Comunidad) (W Andia Castelo 2015, pers.
comm.). The Cattle/Livestock Committee has been the
project´s main partner in implementing measures on the
ground. A participatory process was applied in developing
a Management Plan for Rotational Grazing, which specifies,
for example, conservation measures to be implemented,
time periods for rotation and arrangements for livestock
location on communal land. A voluntary interest group has
been set up to pilot pasture and livestock management
on individual family land and provide training for three
days each month. The project is also collaborating with the
mayor´s office, which has co-financed vicuña management
activities, thereby showing commitment to implementing
and sustaining EbA measures.
Management plans for pasture and water resources have
been developed for the communities of both Canchayllo
and Miraflores for managing communal resources. A year
long, step-wise participatory process, coordinated by The
Mountain Institute was used to develop the plans (Instituto
de Montaña 2014). This process included establishing
a shared vision; an analysis of the current condition of
resources; and defining objectives, results and activities. The
plans identify climate change as a key driver of degradation.
While the activities of the EbA project are included, a
range of other measures is also put forward, including with
other partners. Existing natural resource committees are
strengthened and new ones created, e.g. for management
of pastures in Miraflores and for management of pastures,
water and climate in Canchayllo. The project has thereby
also strengthened overall management capacities at
community level. The participatory process of developing
the plans has in itself strengthened local capacities and
increased understanding of how to manage natural
resources in the context of a changing climate (IUCN 2015).
Thecommunitieshavenowalsodedicatedpartoftheirown,
community level participatory budgets for implementing
jointly planned activities under the project (Ibid.).
All management plans at the project sites in Peru have been
ratified at community level through the relevant community
assembly, and included in minutes of the assemblies (W
Andia Castelo K. Podvin 2015, pers. comm.).
EbA has been mainstreamed in Peru at national level policy,
at regional level in Junín, within the NYCLR Master Plan and
in local level management plans. A critical step remains to
apply and implement the identified priorities and strategies
that are supportive of EbA. Opportunities for further policy
change include applying the experience to natural resource
management plans in other communities in NYCLR and to
management plans in other protected areas. The Protected
Area of Huaytapallana, managed by the regional government
of Junín, is a case in point, where collaboration between
regionalgovernmentandSERNANPhasalreadybeguntoscale
up the NYCLR experience. Regional climate change strategies
are being developed in many regions, including Lima, and the
lessons from Junín’s experience are proving valuable.
4.5 Uganda
The Mountain EbA project in Uganda has engaged in making
the case for policy change to accommodate ecosystem-
based approaches to adaptation in a range of ways, at
local, district and national levels. The project sits under
the Ministry of Water and Environment, in its Department
of Environmental Affairs, and this provides a channel for
reporting and dialogue with government. At the national
level, the National Climate Change Policy Committee, with
representativesfromtheMinistriesofWaterandEnvironment,
Energy, Health, Finance, Justice and Agriculture, also acts as
the project steering committee. This has provided an entry
point for direct dialogue with Ministries across sectors, and
an opportunity to engage at governmental level, not only on
issues pertaining to the project, but also to ecosystem-based
adaptation more broadly (M Anino, S Kutegeka, P Nteza A
Rwabutomize 2015, pers. comm.).
The project has also made the case for EbA at national
level by engaging with stakeholders through key sectoral
groups. The Environment, Natural Resources and Water
Sector Working Group includes participants from Ministries,
donors and NGOs (including IUCN), and is chaired by UNDP
on a monthly basis. The working group reviews policies
and carries out annual reviews of projects, based on
which it is able to influence financial commitments within
Government. In 2014, the group visited the Mountain
EbA project and, following this, increased funding to the
Environment and Wetlands Department within the Ministry
of Water and Environment (P Nteza 2015, pers. comm.).
The Parliamentary Committee on Natural Resources also
visited the project site, providing an ideal opportunity to
raise awareness on EbA and promote ecosystem-based
approaches to decision-makers (P Nteza 2015, pers. comm.).
The project further presented the major findings of the
VIA to the 200-member Parliamentary Forum on Climate
Change, enhancing understanding of EbA among members
of parliament (P Nteza 2015, pers. comm.)

Following the initiation of the Mountain EbA project, there
has been a noticeable increase in understanding and support
among policy makers in Uganda regarding EbA. This has also
ledtodirectpolicychange.Asmentionedabove,Ugandawas
the lead country in promoting the Resolution at the UNEA
Assembly on EbA in 2014. In addition, the National Climate
Change Policy was finalized in 2013 with project staff taking
part in the working meetings. This provided an opportunity
to mainstream EbA into this multi-sectoral national policy
for climate-resilient development. (P Nteza 2015, pers.
comm.) Biodiversity and ecosystem services are identified in
the national policy as adaptation priorities, alongside other
priorities relevant for EbA, such as agriculture and livestock,
water, forestry and wetlands. A range of specific adaptation
strategies, already being implemented by the project in
Uganda, are specifically referred to as priorities within the
policy, including: conservation agriculture; conservation and
protection of watersheds and catchment areas; agroforestry
and reforestation; protection and restoration of wetlands;
sustainable land management in hilly and mountainous
ecosystems; and payments for ecosystem services. The
policy thereby provides a comprehensive framework for
implementing several EbA measures in Uganda.
The policy also includes a costed implementation strategy,
which provides an action plan, indicative climate change
programmes, costs, roles and responsibilities. Specific EbA
relevantactivitiesandoutputsareincludedacrosssectorsand
reference is directly made to ecosystem-based adaptation
as a prioritized approach to fisheries management, wetland
management, and overall sustainable land and natural
resource management.
Based on research carried out by the project (Baguma
2014), there is high level of acceptance, with 88.6 percent
of respondents including public servants, local leaders
and community members, agreeing that climate change
is a serious issues requiring intervention and supporting
the National Climate Change Policy. The challenge now
remains to implement this multi-sectoral policy, with several
Ministries in charge of delivery. The research included an
analysis of feasibility of implementing the policy, and found
that financial and technological resources are currently
inadequate for efficient implementation. The Ministry of
Water and Environment was assessed as having insufficient
resources to coordinate delivery across all government
agencies and levels, from national to community.
With support from the project, the Ministry of Water and
Environment is developing guidelines on how to integrate
EbA into national and district level planning and policies.
This is a participatory process that has been undertaken
through training workshops and provision of tools. A
specific training package on implementing EbA in Mt Elgon
has also been developed, which provides step by step
guidance on planning and implementing EbA as a tool at
supporting extension services (Uganda, Ministry of Water
and Environment, 2015a).
The Second National Development Plan (NDP) for Uganda
2015-2020 guides the strategic direction, development
priorities and implementation strategies of the country.
Climate change is identified as a key threat to Uganda´s
overall development, and climate change is put forward as
a key cross-cutting issue to be mainstreamed into planning
and budgeting. Ecosystem-based adaptation is identified
as a priority intervention in the Environment and Natural
Resources sub-sector.
EbA-relevantinterventionsareputforwardwithinothersectors
also, such as catchment management plans that integrate
climate change adaptation measures in the water sector.
Box 18 | National Climate Change Policy
of Uganda
The Government of Uganda will pursue the following
policy priority: […]To effectively address the challenges
posed by climate change impacts on biodiversity and
ecosystems, so as to ensure ecosystem health and
provision of ecosystem services that are crucial to
sustainable and resilient development.
Government of Uganda (2013)
Box 19 | Second National Development Plan
of Uganda
Objective 1. Restore and maintain the integrity and
functionality of degraded fragile ecosystems. Intervention
v. Promote ecosystem based adaptation to climate change
in order to increase the resilience of ecosystems and
communities to the impacts of climate change.
Government of Uganda (2015)

9696 MAKING THE CASE FOR ECOSYSTEM-BASED ADAPTATION: The Global Mountain EbA Programme in Nepal, Peru and Uganda
The objectives, results, strategies and interventions identified
in the NDP need to be integrated into sectoral plans and
policy statements developed at Ministerial level, with specific
interventions and costing.These provide further opportunities
for integrating EbA in actual delivery of government priorities
through costed interventions. However, adequate funding
needs to be identified to deliver such interventions, including
throughPaymentsforEcosystemServices(PES).TheECOTRUST
PES facility piloted by the project provides an interesting
example in this regard (Chapter 5).
TheoperationalizationoftheNationalClimateChangePolicy
remains a challenge, including due to lack of appropriate
institutional and legal frameworks. The need to establish
an appropriate institution for coordinating the National
Climate Change Response is recognized in the NDP, as well
as the need to establish an appropriate legal framework for
Climate Change Policy implementation and compliance.
Bringing about policy change for EbA also depends on the
policy opportunities available within a country at a given
time, depending on how policy development processes
are unfolding, and if policies are being revised or updated,
providing an opportunity for new issues and priorities to
be integrated. The National Environment Management Plan
is currently being formulated, and the project has been
invited to take part in working group discussions (P Nteza
2015 pers. comm.). The NBSAP is also in the process of being
reviewed and the incorporation of EbA is already being
discussed. UNDP has been engaged in the working groups
for the development of the Intended Nationally Determined
Contribution and National Adaptation Plan, providing a
means to feed in opportunities for policy change in support
of EbA (P Nteza 2015, pers. comm.).
4.5.2Locallevelpolicychange
Uganda34
is divided into 111 districts, which are further
divided into counties and municipalities. Counties are
further subdivided into sub-counties, which in turn are
divided into parishes and villages. At district government
level, Natural Resource District Officers, under the Ministry
of Water and Environment, have been assigned as EbA
focal points for the project in the four districts of Bulambuli,
Kapchorwa, Kween and Sironko. These officers were the
entry points for the project into local government. Other
districtofficers,suchasdistrictwaterengineers,werealsokey
for the project. District officials were not initially convinced
of the benefits of EbA, and the project needed to prove
that EbA was a means to increase wealth and bring about
socio-economic development, in line with the priorities
of the National Development Plan. Generating political
leadership for EbA, in particular through resident district
commissioners (the president´s representative at district
level), was critical in paving the way for EbA implementation
and later policy change.The project has signed Memoranda
of Understanding with District Local Governments of
Sironko and Bulambuli, through the Ministry of Water and
Environment, on project activities and mainstreaming EbA.
The Mount Elgon Conservation Forum, established by
IUCN, provides a platform for coordinating efforts across
the ecosystem, through meetings, exchange visits and
information sharing. This has provided a useful platform for
discussing ecosystem-wide issues and developing common
messagestofeedintopolicyprocesses,linkingthegrassroots
and national level policy and decision-making processes on
key emerging issues such as climate change. In addition, the
platforms created by the EbA project and lessons learned
are being used to support the transboundary management
of Mount Elgon, which is being spearheaded by Uganda
Wildlife Authority and LakeVictoria Basin Commission of the
East Africa Community (EAC).
Once initial buy-in had been attained, the project was able to
begin a process of instituting policy change. The project has
also worked at village level in Kapchorwa and Kween, through
elected leaders, including the Chairperson as the focal point.
At village level, Community Environment Action Plans have
been developed in collaboration with district government,
setting environmental targets and activities for implementing
EbA at both communal and household levels.The action plans
also established monitoring and evaluation frameworks, to be
followed-up by communities and local leaders.
At parish level, the policy change process has entailed
developing Parish Climate Change Adaptation Plans, which
provide action plans for implementing EbA measures. The
adaptation plans identify key climate change issues and
vulnerabilities to be addressed, such as flooding, soil erosion
and landslides. They then identify adaptation solutions that
the community wishes to undertake, such as tree planting,
agroforestry, riverbank management and water harvesting.
Parish adaptation committees have been set up to oversee
the implementation of these plans in the districts of Sironko
andBulambuli.Atthesub-countylevel,technicalofficers,such
as community development officers, agricultural extension
officers and water officers have been key project partners
and have been able to mobilise communities into action. A
territorial plan for the management of Mount Elgon has also
been developed, although it lacks funds for implementation.

Following development of the community and parish level
plans, the project has also targeted mainstreaming of EbA into
district planning.Training workshops were held in 2014 for the
districts of Kapchorwa and Bulambuli, with district technical
officers from several sectors (including planning, health,
infrastructure and agriculture), district leaders and women´s
representatives.35
The workshop discussed and brainstormed
how EbA could be included in District Development Plans,
across sectors. This integration was particularly important, as
sectors such as works and health have more funding available,
which could also be channelled to EbA, compared with
sectors such as environment. District Level EbA Action Plans
on EbA were developed, which were then taken on board
by the districts for follow-up and mainstreaming into their
planning activities. The draft Action Plan for Bulambuli, for
example, includes proposed, budgeted actions and partners
to undertake the following types of EbA measures in 2015-
19: good agricultural practices to address food insecurity due
to drought and floods; tree nursery establishment to address
deforestation; improved farming methods and agroforestry
true to control floods; and afforestation and farming to reduce
landslides;vaccinationstoreducepestanddiseasesinlivestock.
District development plans are the main local plans developed
fordeliveringthenationaldevelopmentplan,andaretherefore
crucial planning documents. Mainstreaming EbA at this level
helps ensure broad-reaching, cross-sectoral policy change
that enables delivery of EbA measures at the ecosystem scale.
The Ministry of Water and Environment is in the process of
developing guidelines on how to integrate EbA into district
level planning processes and into district development plans.36
Community and stakeholder consultations will be carried out
at district and sub-county levels to develop district EbA action
plans, which can then be integrated into district development
plans, where appropriate. This shows how the project has had
impact at national level in making the case for policy change,
which in turn can then be trickled down to local, district level
policy change for EbA.
Tools have been presented to the district authorities on
planning for EbA, including the results of theVIA and related
mapping. Overall, the project has strengthened district
level institutional capacities to plan for EbA. The district
technical teams are also involved in monitoring project
activities. Through district development plans, EbA can
be integrated into district level planning and budgeting.
Indeed, the sustainability of delivering EbA will depend, in
part, on available financial resources. It is therefore critical to
identify alternative public financing and other sources for
sustainability, as will be discussed in Chapter 5.
4.6 Future opportunities for making the case
for policy change for EbA
Opportunities remain for making the case for policy change
for EbA to stakeholders with whom the project has engaged
to a limited degree. One level that may be of relevance to
explore is the outreach to regional level institutions, such as
the UN Regional Commissions, the East African Community,
the Andean Community and South Asian Association of
Regional Cooperation. This could provide an opportunity
for dialogue on EbA and an entry point to share the lessons
learned from the programme. Sometimes the higher level
can provide a more neutral platform for dialogue, without
political or financial tensions that are more prominent at
national level. This level of dialogue can also help address
EbA as a transboundary issue, as has been shown in the
case of feeding experiences from the project to the Lake
Victoria Basin Commission of the EAC.
The project has also not engaged in significant degree
with national level politicians and Parliamentarians, with
the exception of some engagement in Uganda. This is an
important group of decision-makers at national level. Finally,
the private sector has not been engaged with directly in a
significant way. These groups were not prioritized in project
design,andfocussofarhasbeentargetedatglobal,national,
regional and local levels. These identified gaps could be
relevant for scaling-up and scaling-out the programme’s
experiences on making the case for EbA policy change in
the future, both within the project countries and beyond.
CATHERINE NABUTSALE, CHAIRPERSON OF THE PROGRAMME-
SUPPORTED SANGAASANA WOMEN’S COLLECTIVE. © Andrea
Egan, UNDP

Global level policy guidance on EbA has a direct impact
on how certain types of national plans, such as NAPs,
INDCs and NBSAPs are developed. Such guidance
can provide needed policy support in designing and
drafting national policies that mainstream EbA.
The programme has applied a range of approaches for
making the case for EbA to global policy audiences,
thereby increasing acceptance of EbA discourse at the
global policy level. Programme partners, supported by
the Government of Germany, have engaged in dialogues;
presented experiences and lessons learned on planning
and implementing EbA; provided technical advice; and
carried out policy advocacy at global level, including
through events at the UNFCCC and CBD meetings.
Local level experiences in planning and implementing
EbA can be used to make the case for needed policy
changes for EbA at global level. The role of Uganda in
building on its Mountain EbA project experience in making
the case for an EbA resolution at the UNEA shows how EbA
practice and policy can be bridged from local to global level.
The case for policy change for EbA at national level
can be made with regards to policies such as National
Development Plans, National Climate Change Policies,
environment and conservation strategies, sectoral
plans and policies. Overarching national development
plans that acknowledge the importance of ecosystems
for human well-being and adaptation, can be further
elaborated in sectoral and local level budgeted plans and
strategies. National climate change policies and strategies
should integrate EbA as one of the adaptation options.
The National Development Plans and Climate Change
Policies of Nepal, Peru and Uganda provide supportive
frameworks for planning and implementing EbA measures
nationally. The programme provided technical guidance
and policy review inputs for integrating EbA into the Forest
Policy in Nepal, the INDC in Peru and the National Climate
Change Strategy in Uganda. The Peru INDC refers to the
Mountain EbA Programme specifically in the context of
results and practical experiences provided by key projects,
which have informed the INDC adaptation proposal.
Ongoing sharing of lessons learned on EbA,
organizing site visits to show the benefits of EbA on
the ground and engaging in policy dialogues can help
lift EbA onto the national policy agenda. The projects
have successfully generated increased interest in EbA at
country level by piloting this approach. This has increased
understanding of and buy-in for EbA amongst policy
makers and has contributed, for example, to the process
of establishing a High Level Committee on EbA in Nepal
and the high-level profiling of protected areas and climate
change by Peru during UNFCCC COP 20.
Operationalization of policies and the implementation
of identified priorities and strategies, including with
regards to EbA, is dependent on adequate financial
resources, and technical and institutional capacities.
EbA is relevant across sectors, and policy change is still
needed in all project countries for integrating EbA into
sectoral planning and budgeting.
EbA is relevant across scales. Given that a recommended
scale for planning and implementing EbA is the
landscape or ecosystem (Chapter 2), making the
case for policy change for EbA at regional and local
level is especially relevant. District level agencies are
critical, especially where measures are implemented
across landscapes or outside clearly defined boundaries
such as those of protected areas. Implementing EbA at
e.g. watershed scale will require planning and oversight
beyond community level, and across sectors, making
district or regional level a relevant scale. Local level
budgeting is often also decided at municipal or district
level. In addition to collaboration with line agencies
such as agriculture, forestry or water, it is relevant to
consider broader land use planning and engagement of
infrastructure and works sectors to avoid maladaptation37
and explore opportunities for hybrid grey-green
infrastructure solutions, for example.
Protected areas have been found to be an ideal scale
for planning and implementing landscape level EbA.
Protected areas often have existing management
plans and governance structures that can be tapped
into when planning EbA, and into which EbA can
be mainstreamed. The project experience from NYCLR
of working jointly with SERNANP and from Panchase of
working with the Panchase Protected Forest in planning
and implementing EbA measures has been a powerful way
to make the case for EbA to local protected area managers

and communities. This has provided an entry point for
making the case for national level policy change which can
integrate climate change and EbA measures into protected
area management across Nepal and Peru.
At local level, existing natural resource management
groups have been important entry points for
making the case for EbA and how to integrate it into
local natural resource management plans, such as
Community Forest Work Plans in Nepal.
Delivering needed policy change for EbA requires
collaboration across policy scales. The role of different
levels of policy and planning in achieving EbA is
summarized in Table 19. For example, in Peru, the National
Climate Change Strategy has provided a framework for
developing Regional Climate Change Strategies and
has also helped guide SERNANP´s work. The NYCLR
Management Plan has, in turn, influenced how local level
natural resource management plans have been developed.
On the other hand, a bottom-up process has also taken
place, where the NYCLR experience in integrating EbA and
climate change is being scaled-out to other communities
and protected areas in the region and scaled up to national
level. Maintaining flows of dialogue, technical support and
sharing of experiences can, in the medium- to long-term,
help achieve needed policy changes for EbA across sectors
and scales in a given country.
Table 19 | Opportunities for policy change for EbA at various policy and planning levels
Policy
level
Global level
policies and
plans
National level
policies
District and/
or regional
plans
Protected area
management
plans
Local natural
resource management
plans
Examples
of policies
UNFCCC
decisions
CBD decisions
NWP
National development
plans
Climate change
policies and strategies
Sectoral policies: water,
agriculture, forests,
infrastructure, DRR,
environment, etc.
Environment plans
Climate change plans
Development plans
Water management
plans
Forest management
plans
Pasture management
plans
How
relevant for
EbA
Define EbA;
provide
guidelines and
tools; influence
adaptation
funding;
defines national
reporting e.g.
NAP and NBSAP
National priorities and
visions for adaptation;
influences national
and sectoral budgets
for adaptation; sets
institutional priorities
for adaptation; ensures
political buy-in
Can provide an
appropriate scale
for EbA (landscape,
watershed); multi-
sectoral approach
to EbA; Upstream-
downstream linkages;
local budgeting for
EbA; technical support
for implementation
and monitoring of EbA;
political buy-in
Guiding frameworks
for EbA planning
at landscape scale;
governance and
capacity to work
at landscape
scale; ownership;
sustainability;
monitoring of EbA
Detailed planning and
implementation of EbA
measures; management
plans; sustainability
across political changes;
ownership; monitoring of
EbA; political buy-in
Key
stakeholders
to engage
UNFCCC: SBSTA,
NWP; CBD;
Donors
Ministers;
Technical officers;
Parlamentarians;
Cross-sectoral
working groups
Line agencies; Extension
workers; District officials
and leaders
Protected area
managers and staff;
National protected
area agencies
Natural resource
management groups;
Local leaders; Community
assemblies; Community
members
Additional,
cross-scale
bodies
Project coordination mechanisms and bodies: platforms for dialogue and coordination on roles and responsibilities for
implementing EbA across sectors and levels; cross- scale institutions and agencies, such as: research institutes

VICUÑAS ARE REIGNED IN TEMPORARILY TO GET VACCINATED WITH
ANTI-PARASITE MEDICINE IN TANTA, PERU.

Public financing, community economic incentives
and identifying new EbA measures that produce
new or enhanced ecosystem goods and services
can all contribute to financing EbA. In Peru, the
inclusion of EbA in public investment guidelines
for biodiversity and ecosystems promises
far-reaching impact by mainstreaming EbA
into government investments. In Uganda, EbA
measures were used to bundle watershed and
carbon services into credits, demonstrating
that Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) is a
relevant model for EbA financing. EbA measures
that produce new ecosystem goods and services,
such as provision of plant products in Nepal
or fibre from vicuña in Peru, can provide an
alternative source of financing and enhance
sustainability of implemented measures.
CHAPTER 5:
MAKING THE CASE
FOR FINANCING EBA
© Carlos Diaz Huertas, Tres Mitades

This chapter will present the piloted approaches, some of
the lessons learned and proposed future opportunities for
financing EbA based on the programme´s experiences.
5.1 National and local level public finance for EbA
The enabling policy frameworks, strategies and plans for
EbA in Nepal, Peru and Uganda were discussed in Chapter
4. While there was a relatively good framework in place
in all countries, implementation of policies remained
dependent on supportive legal frameworks, sufficient
capacities and financial resources. Funding for adaptation
remains one of the main gaps in transferring societally
set goals into actually implemented adaptation (UNEP
2014). Climate change policies need to be translated into
budget allocations and expenditures, thereby making
climate change part of the national budgeting process
(Adelante et al. 2015). Climate change adaptation was
included in the national development plans of Peru
(Bicentenary Plan 2011-2021), Nepal (Thirteenth Three-
year Plan) and Uganda (Second National Development
Plan 2015-2020), the main documents guiding national
priorities for planning, budgeting and implementation.
The Peru National Climate Change Strategy (2014)
provides a framework from which costed sectoral and
regional climate change plans are to be developed.
In Uganda, the National Climate Change Policy is
costed, but operationalization has been hampered by
lack of institutional capacity and resources to actually
implement the costed plan (Baguma 2014). The Nepal
National Climate Change Policy (2011) puts forward the
establishment of a national Climate Change Fund for
implementing climate change programmes, but this
Fund remains to be operationalized.
One of the easiest ways to prioritise budgets for climate
change is through increasing allocations for climate change
actions within Ministries (Miller 2013). It is also important
to reduce interventions, which are contributing to non-
climatic pressures on ecosystems. For example, current
investment in road construction in Nepal has a direct
negative impact on ecosystem service provision and the
implementation of EbA measures in Panchase (Box 6,
Chapter 2). Further, climate change impacts are felt at the
local level, requiring additional resources to be transferred
from national to local government in order to counteract
these impacts. In Nepal, a specific decision has been taken
to channel up to 80 percent of climate change funding to
the local level (Gurung et al. 2015).
5.1.1PublicfinanceforEbAinPeru
The project carried out research in Peru on public finance
for climate change and EbA specifically (Soncco 2014). Since
2012, Peru has been implementing a process of Results-
MOUNT ELGON IN UGANDA IS HIGHLY PRONE TO LANDSLIDES PARTLY AS A RESULT OF DEFORESTATION ON ITS COFFEE-
PRODUCING SLOPES. © BBC

103CHAPTER 5: MAKING THE CASE FOR FINANCING EBA
based Budget Programmes (PPR-Programas Presupuestales
por Resultados), which are 2-3 year programmes at
ministerial or sectoral level. Results-based budgeting directly
links continued public expenditure to previous products and
results. This makes it easier to identify public expenditure
on climate change adaptation. The research carried out
(Soncco 2014) showed a gradual increase in government
expenditure on projects that are relevant for climate change
adaptation, up by 18 percent between 2009 and 2012. The
majority of projects were in riverbank protection and forestry.
The research also found that the majority of these projects
were carried out by municipal governments. This may be
due to the fact that impacts of climate change are felt most
strongly at this level, and that riverbank protection is seen as
an efficient method for dealing with some changing weather
patterns, in line with climate change predictions, that have
been experienced to date.
On the other hand, forestry has traditionally been a high
investment area for regional and municipal governments,
regardless of anticipated climate change impacts. From an
EbA perspective, municipal and regional governments are
often in charge of managing ecosystems (Chapter 4). PPRs
provide a future opportunity for collaborating on financing
for EbA. The Ministry of the Environment and Natural
Resources (MINAM) is already collaborating with regional
governments on including climate change in existing
regional budgetary planning. Engaging with regional and
district governments on budgeting can be a particularly
relevant avenue for making the case for financing for EbA
from public finance sources.
In Peru, the project has collaborated with national and
local governments on making the case for EbA finance. The
project collaborated closely with the Ministry of Finance
and Economy (MEF) and MINAM in the development of
policy guidelines for public investment in biodiversity and
ecosystems, as described in Case Study 12. These new
guidelines, which have EbA integrated into them, provide an
opportunity for mainstreaming EbA in public investments.
This makes EbA relevant for public investments across
sectors and at multiple scales from municipal to regional
and national level. It also enables public investment to shift
from traditional, grey infrastructure to EbA-type measures.
In addition to engaging in the policy guideline
development process and providing technical guidance,
the project has made the case for financing for EbA
by showing benefits on the ground. The interest of
the Tomas community and municipal government in
developing a Public Investment Proposal for EbA is
based on the experience and the benefits provided by
the EbA measures implemented by the project in the
neighbouring community of Tanta. At national level,
hard data on economic benefits and cost-effectiveness
of EbA provided by the CBA analysis (Chapter 3) has
been important in making the case for EbA to the
MEF. Mainstreaming EbA into government policies
and budgeting processes at national level can have a
potentially far-reaching impact on EbA finance in the
long-run and enable the integration of EbA into national,
regional and local planning and implementation
processes.
SERNANP STAFF WORKING CLOSELY WITH THE PERU MOUNTAIN EBA TEAM AND LOCAL COMMUNITIES IN THE NYCL RESERVE TO
PROMOTE EBA.© Hector Bonilla, UNDP Peru

Case Study 12 | Public Investment in Ecosystem-based Adaptation in Peru
The Mountain EbA project collaborated with the Ministry of Economy and Finance and the Ministry of the Environment and Natural
Resources on development of policy guidelines for public investment in biodiversity and ecosystems. The guidelines provided
an opportunity for making the case to MEF and MINAM for increasing public investment in EbA. The project played a key role in
incorporating EbA in the guidelines through participating in ad hoc working group meetings, and providing technical guidance and
text suggestions on ecosystem-based adaptation measures.
The Policy Guidelines for Public Investment in Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services 2015-2021 were approved by Ministerial Resolution
of MINAM in August, 2015. The objective of the guidelines is to promote public investment in conservation and sustainable use
of biological diversity and ecosystems, so as to achieve social well-being. They provide a guiding framework for formulating and
implementing public investment projects at local, regional and national level. Climate change is considered a cross-cutting issue under
the guidelines. EbA is identified as a policy guideline under the specific objective of conserving and restoring biodiversity.
EbA actions are further identified as an expected result of the guidelines.
Traditionally, public investment in Peru has focused on grey infrastructure, such as building roads or schools. The guidelines now open a
path for investing public finance in projects such as watershed management and species conservation. The National System for Public
Investment (Sistema Nacional de Inversion Publica SNIP) is the main source of finance for public investments in Peru. Proposals for
Public Investment Projects (PIP-Proyectos de Inversion Publica) are developed by project managers in a range of public sector offices in
national government agencies as well as regional and local governments. The guidelines thereby open a country-wide, cross-sectoral
opportunity for developing EbA proposals for public investment in Peru.
CANCHAYLLO VILLAGERS OPENING THE INTAKE AT THE BEGINNING OF THE NEW CANAL © Carlos Diaz Huerta, Tres Mitades
Box 20 | Policy guidelines for public investment in biodiversity and ecosystems
Policy guideline 1.4.“Implement ecosystem-based adaptation actions to ensure the sustainable provision of ecosystem goods
and services, as a means to reduce current and future vulnerability to climate change of human populations.”
Resolucion Ministerial N° 199-2015-MINAM

UNDP has been more broadly engaged in the coordination and development of the guidelines through the BIOFIN initiative40
and hopes to continue this active engagement as the guidelines are applied in practice. This engagement includes supporting
development of pilot proposals and projects to test the guidelines. The Mountain EbA project has worked with the municipality of
Tomas in the Nor Yauyos Cochas Landscape Reserve on developing a PIP proposal on water regulation to control soil erosion, based
on its pilot project in the neighboring community of Tanta. The project has supported an initial baseline and assessment for Tomas.
The project team, including the national protected area agency, SERNANP, has worked closely with both the municipality and the
Mayor of Tomas, who will submit the PIP proposal and be the implementer of the project, making the case for EbA by building on
the experience of Tanta. A local technical expert of the Mountain EbA project has been voted President of the community of Tomas,
thereby providing a direct entry point at community level for making the case for EbA. A community visit from Tomas to the project site
in Tanta was carried out so that community members could take part in a technical capacity building workshop of the Mountain EbA
project.
At national level, the project has maintained regular engagement with the MEF to make the case for EbA as a strategic public
investment, and to ensure interest in the EbA PIP proposals that are being developed. The project has presented initial results of the
cost-benefit analysis work to the MEF (Chapter 3). A case study based on the CBA results from Tanta will be developed together with
the MEF, providing an example of the economic benefits of undertaking investment in EbA. This hard data can increase municipal,
regional and national level interest in developing EbA-related PIPs. The aim is to include the CBA results in training materials on how
to apply the policy guidelines in practice, which would then be used in training project managers at different government levels in
developing PIP proposals related to biodiversity and ecosystems.
The Mountain EbA project identified an important policy opportunity to make the case for EbA finance through engaging in
the development of Peru’s policy guidelines for public investment in biodiversity and ecosystems. It is hoped that this successful
integration of EbA into a guideline which applies to public investments at all levels will have a far-reaching impact on increasing the
number of EbA actions on the ground. These guidelines also enable the sustained mainstreaming of EbA into government planning
and investment in Peru.
Sources: J Leslie E Fernandez-Baca 2015, pers. comm.; Resolucion Ministerial N° 199-2015-MINAM
FOSTER DAMIAN, CANCHAYLLO COMMUNITY PRESIDENT, OFFICIALLY OPENING THE CANAL. © Carlos Diaz Huerta, Tres Mitades

5.1.2PublicfinanceforEbAinUganda
The Mountain EbA project carried out a study on public
financing for EbA in Uganda (Uganda, Ministry of Water
and Environment, 2015b). The study identified that Sectoral
Budget Framework Papers, which outline sector expenditure
priorities, and Ministerial Policy Statements, which link
strategic priorities with proposed budgetary allocations,
provide opportunities for integrating EbA in national
budgeting processes. Research by Tumushabe et al. (2013),
found that about half of the current climate change-related
programmes in Uganda are run by the Ministry of Water
and Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture, Animal
Industry and Fisheries. Climate change-related expenditure is
expected to increase. The Water and Environment Ministerial
Policy Statement for the Financial Year 2014-2015 includes
a Sector Outcome 3 on Improved Weather, Climate and
Climate Change Management; Protection and Restoration of
Environment and Natural Resources ecosystems. This includes a
range of budgeted, EbA-relevant measures, such as wetlands
management plans, buffer zones for rivers, catchment
management plans and weather station establishment.41
One of the challenges, however, has been that budgeted
measures are not always implemented in practice. In
addition, public financing for climate change remains limited
due to lack of resources, weak regulatory instruments and
institutional capacity to deliver (Baguma 2014).
The research carried out by the Mountain EbA project found
that integration of EbA at local level is best done through
integration into District Development Plans, the overall
planning tool at district level, which includes all budgeted
activities (Ibid.). A national decentralization process enables
district authorities to make decisions regarding utilization of
funds, in line with national policies and priorities, using such
financing instruments as Local Government Development
Programmes and unconditional grants. In practice, however,
limited funds are made available for EbA-relevant activities.
For example, funding for wetland management for the
financial year 2012-13 for Bulambuli district was around
$1,900 and for Kween district around $1,940.42
The project´s engagement in working with District
Development Plans, described in Chapter 4, therefore
aims to have direct impact on district level budgeting.
During the District Development Planning Workshop, it
was recognized that funding available at district level for
Water and Environment is extremely low, currently with
a conditional grant only for wetlands.43
Therefore, it will
be essential to identify EbA opportunities in other, better
funded sectors, such as works and production. To date, the
District Government of Kapchorwa has co-financed the
Mountain EbA project by financing access to water from the
Sanzara Gravity Flow Scheme to a third village not covered
by project funding. This was done through District funds
under the Northern Uganda Social Action Fund, which is a
project built on a loan from the World Bank. The majority of
funds available at district level come through donors (IUCN
Uganda 2012b).
The experience from Uganda shows that opportunities
for making the case for EbA financing exist at sectoral and
district level through plans and budget frameworks. While
PART OF THE GRAVITY FLOW SCHEME IN SANZARA, UGANDA.
© IUCN Uganda

some public budget relevant for EbA has already been
identified, implementation remains hampered by lack
of available resources and capacity. Making the case for
financing for EbA to new sectors, such as infrastructure, that
are better funded and implemented and may be interested
in, for example, hybrid grey-green infrastructure, is one way
to increase public finance for EbA.
5.1.3PublicfinanceforEbAinNepal
A study carried out by the project on policy and public
finance opportunities and challenges for EbA in Nepal
(Gurung et al. 2015) identified the National Planning
Commission (NPC); the Ministry of Finance; the Ministry
of Forest and Soil Conservation; Ministry of Technology,
Science and Environment; and Ministry of Agriculture
Development (MoAD) as the major government institutions
implementing climate change adaptation projects in Nepal.
A Climate Change Budget Code was formulated by the
NPC to facilitate tracking of climate expenditure. The Code
has been implemented in the National Budget since the
fiscal year 2012/2013. This also provides an opportunity for
dedicating expenditure, from both donor and public sources,
to adaptation and specifically ecosystem-based approaches.
The study identified that investment in climate change has
traditionally relied on bilateral and multilateral donor funding;
however the Government of Nepal has been gradually
increasing financial resources allocated to tackling climate
change. During its budget speech in 2014, the Ministry of
Financeallocated$930,000(Rs.930million)forimplementation
of national and local level climate change adaptation
programmesinfiscalyear2014/2015fortheMinistryofScience,
Technology and Environment (including both donor and
public financing sources). An ongoing challenge for delivering
climate change projects and implementing increased budgets
in Nepal is the lack of technical capacities and shortage of
human resources to oversee the increasing number of projects
and finance (Gurung et al. 2015).
5.2 Community level schemes for financing EbA
Various approaches to making the case for EbA using
economic incentive schemes at community level have
been piloted in Uganda. These schemes have tested: using
external funding to initiate a credit system (NAHI); a reward/
compensation mechanism for undertaking EbA measures
(CECF); and a Payments for Ecosystem Services-type model
(ECOTRUST). All these models have in common that they
aimed to become schemes that would, in the long run, run
bythemselvesthroughthegenerationofeitherlocalfinance
(through interest rates), external private finance (carbon
markets) or external public finance (PES payments by
public service providers) to support delivery of adaptation
strategies and implementation of EbA measures. In addition,
the project has explored the use of market opportunities
for products generated through EbA measures as a market-
based source of ongoing financing for EbA.
5.2.1NAHIandCECFincentiveschemesinMtElgon,Uganda
IUCN piloted two community incentive schemes in the
Mount Elgon districts of Kapchorwa and Kween. The Nature
Harness Initiatives (NAHI) incentive scheme, supported
by project funds, was targeted specifically at the Sanzara
community, as a means of raising community interest and
making the case for ‘no regrets’ measures and EbA (Case
Study 13). Incentives were paid for implemented‘no regrets’
measures outlined in household-level land use plans. The
Community Environment Conservation Fund (CECF) was
adopted at a much broader scale, covering the catchments
of Sipi, Kaptokoi and Ngenge (Case Study 14). It provided
credit for community members, which could be used
for any purpose. However, receiving the credit was tied
to completion of EbA measures outlined in Community
Environment Action Plans.
Both models served the purpose of securing community
buy-in through providing economic incentives early on in
the implementation of measures, before the full scale of EbA
benefitscouldbeseen.InthecaseofSanzara,thiswasbecause
localized measures were only beginning to be implemented,
while in the case of the river catchments, achieving benefits
at such scale would require time. The incentive schemes
tied in closely to broader project activities. Participatory
assessments, and in the case of the CECF the VIA, informed
development of local adaptation plans at household and
community level and were used to inform which measures
were supported by the incentive schemes. Capacity building
and technical support was needed in implementing the
identified EbA measures and carrying out monitoring. While
community empowerment was an important goal of the
incentive schemes, engagement of district government was
important both in ensuring compliance as well as integrating
the fund model into district level planning.
Theschemesprovidedfinancialincentivesforimplementing
EbA and helped make the case for EbA to communities and
local government. The NAHI initiative ran its course once
a broader, catchment scale approach to EbA was adopted
and the CECF model was seen as more appropriate at that
scale, with potential for a longer life.

Case Study 13 | NAHI Incentive scheme for‘no regrets’measures in Sanzara, Uganda
From: IUCN Uganda (2012) Restoration of the River Sipi Micro-Catchment as an Ecosystem-Based Solution to Build Social and Ecological Resilience of the Sanzara
Community to Climate Change Impacts. [Online] IUCN. Available from: http://www.ebaflagship.org/downloads/ppt/Appendix_1-IUCN_site_information.pdf .
Additional information from interviews with Sophie Kutegeka, June and September 2015.
IUCN partnered with Nature Harness Initiatives (NAHI) to develop a participatory incentive mechanism for landowners in Sanzara
Parish to adopt ecosystem-based adaptation interventions, as a means to enhance social and ecological resilience. This small-scale
incentive scheme was specifically designed for the needs of a parish with high levels of poverty and limited experience in planning
and implementing development and ecosystem management projects. An important goal of the scheme was to trigger community
interest in EbA and motivate people to undertake early‘no regrets’measures. Along with the measures implemented in Sanzara (Case
Study 4, Chapter 2), the scheme aimed to increase appreciation for the value of ecosystem services. Nature Harness provided capacity
building and technical support for the communities throughout the pilot incentive scheme process, which was important given lack of
experience in the community to plan and implement projects.
Farmers who were interested in applying for the incentive scheme developed an individual land use plan integrating restoration
and enhancement of ecosystem goods and services. Measures supported by the scheme were identified based on the participatory
assessment (Case Study 1) and included climate-smart, no-regret interventions such as planting trees as riverbank protection and digging
trenches to retain water and control soil erosion. Baselines and indicators were agreed as a means to measure change.
The incentive scheme ran for one year, from 2012-13; 120 farmers participated in an area covering 130 acres of land. Performance-
based instalments were paid in two parts: the first, once trees had been planted and trenches dug; and a second instalment six months
later, based on whether seedlings had survived and trenches had been maintained. Payments varied in amounts from around $8 to
$300 (in US dollars), based on the number of trees planted, the species used, and survival rate; as well as the size of trenches dug.
Monitoring was originally based on self-monitoring by community members, including by ranking farmers who had performed best.
However, it was found that more neutral monitoring was needed, and evaluations were carried out by NAHI and the local district
government. In case of non-compliance, payments were not provided. Many farmers failed to comply with the targets set in their land
use plans and therefore did not receive their payments.
Funds for the incentive scheme were provided by the Mountain EbA project, and administered by the local government. The role of the
local government in administering funds and carrying out evaluations was found to be important in increasing government buy-in and
interest in the initiative. The scheme ended after a year, as a broader, catchment-scale approach and scheme was adopted (see below).
Some of the funds farmers received were reinvested into other EbA measures implemented at the site.
Overall, the experience of the incentive scheme was positive. Alongside other measures (Case Study 4), it played an important role
in engaging Sanzara Parish in the EbA project and making the case for adopting broader, landscape scale EbA approaches. Sanzara
became a model community to which other communities from the broader River Sipi catchment, including those involved in the later
CECF incentive scheme described below, would come to learn about EbA.
COMMUNITY NURSERY IN SANZARA,
UGANDA. © IUCN Uganda

Case Study 14 | Community Environment Conservation Fund (CECF) in the catchments of Sipi, Kaptokoi
and Ngenge, Uganda
The Mountain EbA project in Uganda used the Community Environment Conservation Fund (CECF) as an incentive mechanism to
catalyse community action for ecosystem-based adaptation in the river catchments of Sipi, Kaptokoi and Ngenge. The CECF, a model
developed by IUCN, works by providing money for the establishment of a credit fund to communities who have collectively agreed to
implement a Community Environment Action Plan (CEAP). EbA measures, in line with the CEAP, were undertaken and monitored by the
communities as the basis on which access was granted to credit. This loan finance, while its access is conditional, can be used for any
purpose (e.g. school fees, medical expenses, investments).
The CECF was developed to speed up implementation of EbA actions on the ground, scale up adoption of EbA measures to a
catchment scale, create ownership and promote sustainability after the project ends. CEAP Plans were developed at community
level and respond to climate vulnerabilities and risks identified in the participatory assessments and the VIA, such as flooding of
rivers. EbA measures such as tree planting, river bank rehabilitation and soil and water conservation were put forward with clear
milestones. Simpler Household Environment Action Plans (HEAPs) included planned actions at household level. CECF Memoranda of
Understanding were signed between communities, local government and IUCN as commitment to progress and implementation of
the CEAPs.
All community members have access to the provided credit, but initial receipt of credit is conditional on submission of the CEAP or
HEAP, and further extension of credit is dependent on proof of progress in implementing such a plan. Farmers wishing to apply for
loans must present their HEAP to the community and the fund management committee (made up of community members and local
government). A community meeting is held monthly to review credit requests, monitor progress, enforce agreed plans and facilitate
farmers making loan repayments. Decisions are made jointly on who receives credit and for what purpose. Requested loans range from
LAYING THE PIPES DOWN IN SANZARA FOR THE GRAVITY FLOW SCHEME, BRINGING WATER FROM THE RIVER TO IRRIGATE FIELDS
AND PROVIDE STEADY WATER SUPPLY TO THE COMMUNITY. © IUCN Uganda

approximately $15 to $300 each. The loans are to be paid back within 3 months maximum and have an interest rate of 3 to 5 percent.
Specific conditions of loans in a given community are agreed by the communities themselves. Community members play the lead role
in managing the fund.
Community members were initially trained to carry out monitoring; however, it was found that community monitors could be
compromised because they were monitoring one another. The district local government got involved in monitoring, and second
instalments became dependent on performance and monitoring reports provided by district government to IUCN.
Loans have been provided from 2013 onwards. IUCN provided initial funding for the CECF, through instalments paid in three phases
to each participating community. A first instalment was paid following the development and agreement of a CEAP. The following
payments were paid after monitoring visits by local government and achievement of set milestones. All instalments by IUCN have now
been disbursed.
The CECF model works strategically through empowering local structures to perform their roles and responsibilities, hence promoting
transparency, accountability and ownership. Delays in paying back loans have repercussions on the entire community, as this would
further delay receipt of the following instalments contributing to the fund. This has led to high compliance rates for loan paybacks. In
terms of achieving CEAP targets, non-compliance has, in some communities, led to longer delays in getting instalments paid for the
CECF of a given community.
District government has played an important role in monitoring the CECF fund and achievement of targets set out in the CEAP. District
government has also been in charge of disbursing fund instalments to communities at community meetings. Involvement of district
staff in administration of the fund has been critical in creating ownership and buy-in by local government for the fund itself, as well as
for the broader EbA measures being implemented. This enables better integration of the fund into local planning processes, facilitating
the adoption and potential scaling-up of the scheme in the future.
Challenges in implementing the fund have included initial difficulties in getting local leaders on board in seeing the value-added of
EbA and understanding climate change impacts. Engaging leaders in the participatory assessments (Chapter 2) was essential in this
regard. It took some time to garner government buy-in, as CECF funds were directly channelled to communities to manage them. This
was a new model for local government, but they bought in once they were given a clear role in the process. A lesson learned is that in
future applications of the CECF, a percentage of the interest rate gained could be channelled back into monitoring expenses by local
government. Currently, interest gained is fully reinvested into providing new credit through the CECF.
Some communities have more fully embraced the CECF model than others, who have remained focused on the credit function of the
CECF rather than seeing the broader benefits provided in terms of EbA. However, the model itself has been conducive to increased
discussion and understanding of EbA. The community meetings where the fund is managed bring people together to discuss not only
the fund, but also the CEAP and HEAP, achievement rates, successes and challenges of catchment-scale natural resource management
and potential climate impacts. Overall, the CECF model has acted as a catalyst for EbA action in the catchments of Sipi, Kaptokoi and
Ngenge.
Sources: Interviews with Sophie Kutegeka, June and Spetember 2015; Ecosystem Based Adaptation in Mountain Ecosystems, IUCN COMPONENT PROGRESS REPORT Jul
2013-Jun 2014; IUCN ANNUAL REPORT 2013 Mt Elgon, Uganda; IUCN Esaro (2013) Practical guidelines for establishing a Community Environment Conservation Fund as
a tool to catalyse social and ecological resilience. Nairobi: IUCN.

5.2.2ECOTRUSTpaymentsforecosystemservices
inMountElgon,Uganda
TEEB, 2009 UNDP Uganda is implementing a PES facility
through the Environmental Conservation Trust of Uganda
(ECOTRUST), an environmental non-governmental
organization specialized in conservation finance. The
scheme works through bundling of ecosystem services and
providing payments to farm households for EbA measures
that provide watershed services and carbon sequestration
services. The scheme aims to incentivize the adoption
of EbA measures. As with the NAHI and CECF schemes
described above, the ECOTRUST PES facility is also part of
a broader set of supporting activities. The VIA informed the
choice of 12 parishes vulnerable to climate change, which
were chosen as participants in the PES pilot scheme. Parish
Adaptation Plans were developed in collaboration with
district government to prioritise adaptation activities at
parish level, after which household level and use plans were
developed. Capacity building was provided on adaptation
planning, implementing EbA measures and monitoring.
The model is innovative in that it provides payments to
farmers directly based on credits, sold to buyers in other
countries through voluntary markets, for the ecosystem
services provided by the implemented EbA measures
(carbon sequestration and watershed services). The project
supported the set-up of the PES facility and initial activities.
The goal is for the PES facility to become self-financing,
by continuing the generation of carbon and watershed
credits that are sold on international or potentially national
markets. The market for such bundled credits is emerging,
and it remains to be seen how the credits will sell in the
future. ECOTRUST has also explored the interest of the
government-owned public service provider National Water
and Sewerage Corporation of Uganda in contributing to
PES payments. The aim is to also scale up this pilot to a
watershed scale.
The Minister of Water and Environment officially launched
the scheme and the national government has expressed
interest in the potential of PES incentives in enhancing
adaptive capacities and livelihoods.
Box 21 | Definition of payments for
ecosystem services (PES)
PES can be defined as voluntary transactions where a well-
defined ecosystem service (ES) (or land-use likely to secure
that service) is‘bought’by at least one ES buyer from at
least one ES provider, if and only if the ES provider secures
ES provision (conditionality).The term covers payments
for sustainable management of water resources and/or
agricultural land, biodiversity conservation and storage
and/or sequestration of carbon in biomass.
IN UGANDA, TRENCHES WERE DUG IN FIELDS TO HELP CONSERVE WATER AND IMPROVE SOIL MOISTURE. © Edmund Barrow, IUCN

Case Study 15 | ECOTRUST Payments for Ecosystem Services for EbA in Uganda
The Mountain EbA project has contracted the Environmental ConservationTrust (ECOTRUST) of Uganda to pilot an incentive-based
mechanism for ecosystem-based adaptation activities which generate both watershed and carbon sequestration services.The Payment
for Ecosystem Services (PES) facility aims to contribute to adaptation by providing an incentive for farm households to adopt specific EbA
measures, which in turn are hoped to enhance provision of ecosystem services and adaptive capacities.The mechanism is currently being
piloted with farmers on individual household land in 12 Parishes in the Districts of Bulambuli and Sironko. Parishes were prioritized based on
the findings of theVIA.
Planning and implementing EbA activities
Project activities began in September 2014. An initial 113 farmers were recruited through community meetings to participate in the pilot
phase of the PES facility. Capacity building workshops were held on adaptation planning, community mobilization, farmer training and
monitoring. Adaptation interventions are chosen based on Parish Adaptation Plans, which identify climate change issues relevant for the
parish, prioritise adaptation options and provide budgets for these options. ECOTRUST has supported the participatory development of these
Plans with communities and local government. ECOTRUST has favoured adaptation activities that require some external support and upfront
investment, as well as activities that are measurable – for example, the length and width of a trench can be easily measured.The table below
describes the EbA activities included under the PES facility.
Following the initial prioritization of adaptation activities at parish level, land use plans are developed with farmers at household level. A farmer
sets his or her own management and livelihood objectives, which are reviewed by ECOTRUST or local government extension workers, who
provide technical advice and specifications. Following joint agreement, simple plans are developed, often pictorial maps of a farmer´s land,
identifying where measures will be undertaken, which measures are prioritised and what the objectives (in terms of growth and earnings) are,
in a given time period.
To date, some soil and water conservation measures have been implemented in the project sites, but in a scattered manner.The project has
worked with 12 different farmer groups to jointly implement soil and water conservation measures, thereby hoping to achieve a greater scale
of impact and ensure that benefits from measures such as terracing, which require larger tracts of land, are attained.
Table 20 | EbA activities included in the ECOTRUST PES facility
Adaptation activity Expected ecosystem service Payment/reward mechanism
Tree planting Carbon and watershed services Based on amount of CO2
sequestered
Soil and water conservation: Countours and
terracing; channels and trenches; planting
grassbands; strip mulching
Watershed services to reduce
runoff, soil erosion and siltation
Based on acreage put under
improved management
Riverbank management Watershed management
Table 21 | Example of a payment scheme for watershed and carbon services
Year Percentage of payment Milestone (detailed milestones defined in Land Use Plans)
1 20% Adoption of improved land use plan
2 20% Adherence to land use plan
3 10% Continued adherence to land use plan
6 10% Continued adherence to land use plan
8 20% Average Diameter Breast Height (DBH) of trees of 10cm
10 20% Average DBH of 20cm

PES design
The PES facility provides upfront funding to farmers to initiate adaptation activities and uses the market to increase cash flow and invest in the
expanding number of participating farmers. Performance-based payments administered by ECOTRUST cover both watershed and carbon
services generated by the adaptation measures. Bundled credits of carbon which include watershed functions are sold on the international
carbon market, to buyers such as Myclimate, through ECOTRUST´sTrees for Global Benefits programme, which adheres to the PlanVivo
standard.44
Credits are sold ex ante through theTrees for Global Benefits programme, meaning that they are financed before a farmer enters into
contractual agreement with ECOTRUST.The price received for the sale of carbon credits as offsets at a given time ($6 per ton of CO₂ for the first
pilot) is the basis for the payment defined in the agreement with a given farmer.The price the farmer receives remains constant throughout
the contract, although the instalments and payments can vary based on the performance and results achieved by the given farmer.The
generation and trading of the PES credit sold in tons of CO₂ offsets is divided so that the farmer gets 60 percent of the sales, while the
remaining sum covers administrative, monitoring and verification costs.
The payment a given farmer receives is based on the amount of carbon sequestered on their land (calculated according to land area, number
and type of trees). For soil and water conservation measures, this is paid by the acre of land under management.The price is based on a
carbon proxy, marking up the price received by a farmer in an area of land where soil and water conservation measures are adopted alongside
tree planting, by e.g. $2 per ton of CO₂.The first five years’payments are for both watershed and carbon services, and final payments for carbon
sequestration (see table below).The price received by farmers varies, based both on when they start the contract (and the price of carbon at
that time) as well as their set targets in the land use plan and rate of achievement.The first payments were disbursed in September 2015.
The programme provided an initial grant of $75,000 to ECOTRUST, which has been used as seed capital to create the PES fund and support
initial activities. Ongoing cash flow to the fund is expected from the continued selling of carbon and watershed credits on the international
market. In addition, ECOTRUST is negotiating with the government-owned public service provider, NationalWater and Sewerage Corporation
of Uganda, to make a contribution for the ecosystem services provided by the adaptation activities. ECOTRUST is also exploring integrating
TREE PLANTING IS A MAJOR ACTIVITY UNDER THE ECOTRUST PES SCHEME. © Monicah Kyeyune, UNDP Uganda

a model on commodity value chains for Arabica coffee into the PES facility, which has been piloted on the other side of Mount Elgon. A
UK-based platform purchases coffee from farmers, marking up the price of every kilogram of coffee that includes a watershed approach in its
production and can be traced back to this origin.
In addition to the PES facility, a small grants scheme of $70,000 has also been put in place to support interventions identified in the Parish
Climate Change Adaptation Plans, which cannot be implemented under the PES scheme.This has included supporting interventions such as
a micro-irrigation project, water harvesting tanks and extending existing gravity flow schemes.
Monitoring
A monitoring plan has been developed for the PES facility. Main indicators being monitored are the technical specifications provided by
ECOTRUST for tree planting and soil and water conservation, and the agreed management practices set out in the land use plans. Monitoring
is undertaken over a period of five years for soil and water conservation measures and 10 years for tree planting. Progress on soil and water
conservation measures, for example, contour trenches, is measured in the first year, and then in following years the target is the maintenance
of these trenches. For tree planting, for the first year a 50 percent survival rate of saplings is expected, then 100 percent by the second year,
moving onto diameter breast height targets in later years.
Initially, ECOTRUST piloted the use of community monitoring. Groups of farmers were trained to undertake monitoring of each another.
However, it was noted that the monitoring results generated were not reliable, as it was unrealistic to expect a farmer to be“penalizing a
neighbour”. ECOTRUST remained interested in building capacity to monitor at local level, so they decided to partner each farmer with an
ECOTRUST staff member for monitoring visits. Results are monitored annually by these staff members together with farmers for soil and water
conservation measures. For tree planting, this is done in accordance with the timeline for the agreed payment schedule.
Indicator milestones are set based on conservative estimates, so as to make them achievable for farmers. If targets are not achieved, farmers
receive a letter explaining the corrective actions they need to take, and clarifying that payment will only be processed once these actions have
been undertaken. In practice, this is likely to lead to payments being paid later than originally scheduled, once corrective actions have been
undertaken.
Conclusions and next steps
The PES facility was officially launched in March 2015 by the Minister ofWater and Environment, Hon. Ephraim Kamuntu.The Minister
emphasized the contribution of the fund to many of the investment priorities identified in the National Development Plan of Uganda, such as
skills development, water and sanitation; and facilitating availability and access to critical production inputs, especially in agriculture.The PES
facility is hoped to generate additional alternative resources, divert funds to sustainable production patterns and increase the involvement
of the private sector in environmental protection.“We hope that these [PES] incentives will provide ground for introducing innovations that
could lead to changes in current land use and enable farmers to gradually shift towards actions that will enhance their adaptive capacity and
livelihoods,”the Minister said.
A second pilot phase has seen the overall number of participating farmers increase to 263. So far, the project has been able to support all
those farmers interested in participating. Shortage of land and the small individual plots of land available for farming is one reason why farmers
have been hesitant to adopt tree planting, while relatively high labour input for digging contour bunds has been a reason for not adopting soil
and water conservation measures.The long time required to see the results of tree planting has been another disincentive. However, interest
in the facility is gradually growing and is expected to keep increasing as the first payments are disbursed.
The PES facility has made the case for EbA by providing an incentive for farmers to adopt EbA.Through implementation, the benefits of the
adaptation measures will be shown to farmers, and it is hoped that this practice will prove the benefits of planning and implementing adaptation
measures in the medium- to long-term. It is hoped that the continued sale of watershed and carbon credits will enable the number of farmers
participating in the scheme to continue to grow, helping the scheme to become self-financing. Further, the goal is for initial pilots to be scaled up
to a broader catchment level.Together with the implementation of the broader Parish Adaptation Plans, such an approach would increase the
resilience of livelihoods and the ecosystems on which they depend to climate change impacts.
Sources: Interviews with Pauline Nantongo Kalunda, Executive Director, ECOTRUST and Paul Nteza; ECOTRUST (2015) Developing an Incentive Scheme for the Ecosystem
Based Adaptation Project: July2014-March 2015 Progress Report. Unpublished; UNDP (2015) Uganda’s first Payment for Environmental Services Fund launched. [Online]
UNDP. Available from: http://www.ug.undp.org/content/uganda/en/home/presscenter/articles/2015/03/27/uganda-s-first-payment-for-environmental-services-fund-
launched-.html

5.2.3PotentialforPESandEbA
As showcased by the PES facility piloted by the project in
Uganda, PES provides a relevant financing source for EbA.
According to a study carried out by the project in Nepal
(Khanal et al. 2013), around a dozen PES schemes have
been piloted by various organisations in Nepal, focused
on watershed services and drinking water and irrigation
in particular. The majority are private deals between
buyers and sellers, although some have used intermediary
organizations such as carbon services. The schemes have
generated conservation awareness and some financing.
However, none of the schemes have been sustainable.
Challenges have included low compliance with contractual
obligations, a limited number of buyers for services, free
availability of services and poor conservation awareness. A
PES Policy is currently being drafted in Nepal, which would
provide needed governmental support and regulation to
PES schemes in the country. IUCN Nepal also carried out a
feasibility study on a PES scheme for a performance based
restoration scheme to improve management effectiveness
and enhance adaptive capacities through forestry and
agroforestry (Khanal et al. 2013). The scheme has yet to
be implemented in practice, although there have been
ongoing discussions with government on potential for
piloting such a scheme.
Project sites in Peru are located in the higher reaches of
watersheds. The project activities of restoring pastures,
wetlands and water management will enhance the
provision of key ecosystem services, especially water mid-
and downstream – notably not just within the Reserve
itself, but to a vast area downstream, including the city of
Lima. The watersheds provide water for hydroelectricity,
agriculture, tourism, fishing and domestic use to millions of
people in the regions of Lima and Junín. Project partners
are interested in the potential of PES, although no measures
THE WETLANDS IN THE NOR YAUYOS COCHAS LANDSCAPE RESERVE ARE PROVIDING CLEAN WATER TO MILLIONS OF PEOPLE
LIVING DOWNSTREAM, INCLUDING THE CAPITAL OF LIMA. © PERU Mountain EbA
VILCA WATERFALL AND WETLANDS IN NOR YAUYOS COCHAS
LANDSCAPE RESERVE. © Tine Rossing, UNDP

have yet been taken to explore feasibility of PES at the sites
(W Andia Castelo, E Fernandez-Baca A Gomez 2015, pers.
comm.). There is a law in Peru on Payment for Ecosystem
Services (Ley de Mecanismos de Retribucion por Servicios
Ecosistemicos), which provides public regulation and
guidance for PES schemes in the country. Several studies
have been carried out on the feasibility of PES in different
watersheds, including the Rio Cañete watershed in the
NYCLR area (MINAM, CIAT, CARE yWWF, 2011). Peru has prior
experience of PES schemes, including for water services in
watersheds, carbon sequestration through reforestation,
and for tourism and conservation services (Veen 2007).
PES is intended to change the economics of ecosystem
managementandcansupportbiodiversity-friendlypractices
that benefit society as a whole (TEEB 2009). Existing models
such as payment for sustainable management of water
resources and/or agriculture, biodiversity conservation, and
storage of carbon through forest or wetland management
are relevant for EbA measures, which can also provide these
types of services.
PESschemescanmakethecaseforadditionalEbAfinancing,
act as incentives for local communities to undertake EbA
measures, increase understanding for ecosystem values
and provide sustainability beyond project financing. They
can also attract private investment for EbA and increase
funding in e.g. hybrid grey-green adaptation approaches
and reforestation. The effectiveness and feasibility of
PES, including with regards to compliance, is closely tied
to regulatory frameworks and their enforcement (TEEB
2009). The PES law of Peru provides a promising initiative
in this regard. A range of actors needs to be involved and
awareness needs to be raised on the multiple benefits of
EbA and why environmental services have economic value.
PES for EbA should be part of broader adaptation planning,
enabling the development of joint adaptation strategies
between communities and local governments, as well
as enabling provision of needed capacity building and
technical support to implementation and monitoring of
PES schemes by governments and technical organisations.
5.2.4MarketopportunitiesforEbA
Another way the programme has aimed to generate
finance for EbA is through exploring market opportunities
for the sale of indigenous plants harvested or cultivated
through implementing EbA measures. In Nepal, the
project has carried out specific studies on the value
chains of products of plants, namely Allo (nettle,
Girardinia diversifolia), Chiraito (Swertia chirayita), Kurilo
(asparagus, Asparagus racemosus), Orchids and Timur
(prickly ash, Zanthoxylum armatum).45
The studies identify
constraints and opportunities for trade in such products
in Panchase, identifying key actors; supply and demand;
and upgrading opportunities in production and markets.
The studies helped make the case and guide the design
of piloted Amriso and Timur cultivation as EbA measures
in Panchase. However, these market opportunities need
to be developed into adequate business plans as to be
operationalized in practice (UNDP 2015).
Harvesting of vicuña wool in Peru is also an income-
generating venture, and a market feasibility assessment
is being carried out. In Uganda, market opportunities for
agricultural products produced as part of EbA measures
implemented by the project in Mount Elgon have not
been explored, and this has limited the income generation
potential to small-scale local production (R Gafabusa 2015,
pers. comm.). Identifying EbA measures that produce new
or enhanced ecosystem goods can provide an alternative
source of private financing for‘green climate-friendly goods’
and enhance sustainability of implemented measures.
VALUE CHAIN STUDY FOR TIMUR (PRICKLY ASH, ZANTHOXYLUM
ARMATUM) PREPARED BY PROGRAMME. © Andrea Egan, UNDP

Public financing for EbA can be allocated through
national budgets across sectors and at multiple scales,
ranging from local to regional and national level
budgets. EbA-relevant sectors have traditionally included
water, agriculture and environment sector budgets.
However, making the case for EbA financing in other
sectors, such as infrastructure (moving from grey to green),
is also relevant, especially given that the environmental
sector is often underfunded.
The local district government or regional level is
particularly relevant for implementing EbA at a landscape
or ecosystem scale. Therefore, planning and budgeting for
EbA at this scale is also an important entry point for EbA
financing. Integrating EbA into , for example, cross-sectoral
district development planning and budgeting provides an
opportunity for EbA financing.
The project´s engagement in development of Peru’s
policy guidelines for public investment in biodiversity
and ecosystems showed that providing technical
guidance to the policy process and showcasing
benefits of EbA on the ground were both important
in making the case for EbA finance. While communities
were interested in seeing EbA results on the ground, hard
data provided by cost-benefit analysis was particularly
important in making the case for EbA to government
role-players.
As shown by the Peru PIP proposal process,
mainstreaming EbA into government policies and
budgeting processes at national level can have a far-
reaching impact on EbA finance in the long run, and
enable the integration of EbA into national, regional
and local planning and implementation processes.
Community economic incentive schemes were
important in making the case for EbA at local level to
communities and local government, especially before
the benefits of EbA measures could be shown, either
due to the early stage of implementation or the time
needed to achieve catchment scale impact. Such schemes
enhanced community commitment to implementing and
maintaining mid- to long-term EbA measures.
Incentive schemes for EbA should form part of
a broader approach to adaptation planning and
implementation. Supported EbA measures need to form
part of broader adaptation strategies, so as to contribute to
longer term benefits and ensure sustainability of adopted
measures, with or without incentive schemes. Local
government officials and staff can play an important role in
providing, for example, technical support and oversight of
compliance with EbA targets.
Payments for Ecosystem Services provide a relevant
model for EbA financing. Such payments can provide
additional financing for adopted measures, increase
understanding of the value of ecosystem services and
act as an incentive for implementing EbA at, for example,
a catchment scale. EbA can provide such ecosystem
services as water provision, carbon storage and biodiversity
conservation, which can be applicable for PES payments.
The ECOTRUST PES facility in Uganda provided
learning on how EbA measures can be used to bundle
watershed and carbon services into credits for sale. The
development of Parish Climate Change Adaptation plans
with local government contributed to the sustainability
of the EbA measures supported by the incentive scheme,
and integrated these into broader adaptation strategies.
National government has already expressed its support
to the PES facility. The facility has the potential to become
self-sustaining through the continued generation of credits
by implementing catchment-scale EbA measures in line
with local adaptation strategies.
Identifying EbA measures that produce new or
enhanced ecosystem goods and services, such as
indigenous plant products in Nepal or vicuña wool in
Peru, can provide an alternative source of financing
and enhance the sustainability of implemented
measures.
There is significant potential to make the case for
financing for EbA through public finance, incentive
schemes and PES. Additional piloting, testing and
capturing of lessons learned is needed. This learning can
build on relevant existing schemes such as PES, environmental
incentive schemes or national climate budgeting.

IN NEPAL, 10,000 TREE SEEDLINGS WERE PLANTED BY PROGRAMME-
SUPPORTED ECO-CLUBS AND COMMUNITY FOREST USER GROUPS.

The Mountain EbA Programme tested EbA in
practice, seeking both to generate new learning
about ecosystem-based approaches to adaptation,
and to promote the use of such approaches.
The programme generated lessons learned in
planning, implementing and monitoring EbA, and
in making the case for needed policy and finance
changes that support its implementation.These
lessons can be scaled up and scaled out to bring
enhanced climate change resilience to vulnerable
ecosystems and communities in other places
around the world.
CHAPTER 6:
SCALING UP AND
SCALING OUT:
OPPORTUNITIES
AND CHALLENGES
© UNDP Nepal

6.1 Summary of lessons learned about
making the case for EbA
The innovative nature of the programme and the fact
that it was implemented in mountain ecosystems in three
different countries, facilitated by the International Climate
Initiative and implemented through a collaboration
between UNEP, UNDP and IUCN (in addition to key players
such as TMI, UNEP-WCMC, national governments and
NGOs), provided a unique opportunity for learning on
EbA and bridging the divides between science, policy
and practice. The programme played an important role
in making the case for EbA to a broad range of potential
beneficiaries, stakeholders and proponents. This included
individual farmers, communities, local government officers
and planners, national policy makers and global audiences.
The process of making the case for EbA was ongoing
throughout the programme, and was essential for the
various steps of planning and implementing EbA across
scales. At the outset, the case had to be made to farmers,
communities and local leaders as to why EbA represented
a worthwhile investment of human and financial
resources. Demonstration of tangible, immediate socio-
economic benefits was needed to secure their buy-in.
District governments were also interested in seeing the
contribution EbA could make to broader development
goals. Enabling irrigation of crops through the gravity flow
scheme in Uganda, or the clear economic returns provided
by conservation agriculture and plant products in Nepal,
provided needed benefits from early ‘no regrets’ measures.
Community incentive schemes in Uganda also provided an
approach for incentivizing early action, before full benefits
of EbA could be seen. Participatory assessments played an
important part in increasing understanding of what EbA
is and what benefits it can provide, and helped to identify
early measures that would provide benefits on the ground.
A landscape or ecosystem scale was adopted at project
sites following the VIAs. This scale enabled the design of
EbA measures that were framed with future climate change
scenarios in mind. Tackling adaptation challenges at this
scale would enhance provisioning ecosystem services
related to water, crops and vegetation, as well as regulatory
services related to water and soil. This landscape approach
makes it more likely that multiple benefits will be provided
in the medium- to long-term. The VIAs proved particularly
useful in making the case for EbA to regional and local level
planners, such as the Regional Government of Junín and the
NorYauyos Cochas Landscape Reserve-SERNANP in Peru, by
showing what climate change impacts are likely to affect
their landscapes and how EbA measures can be used to
reduce vulnerabilities.
Overall, protected areas were found to provide relevant
governance structures and plans for planning and
implementingEbAatalandscapescale.Theprojectexperiences
in Peru’s Nor Yauyos Cochas Landscape Reserve and Nepal’s
Panchase Protected Forest provided entry points for making
the case at national level for policy change, which would
enable the integration of climate change and EbA measures
into protected area management across both countries.
The cost-benefit analyses carried out in Nepal, Peru
and Uganda demonstrated the viability of EbA options
compared to inaction or to other adaptation measures.
The CBAs are providing needed hard data to make the
economic case for EbA to both public and private investors.
This will be especially relevant in making the case for EbA
financing, for example to local government or Ministries
of Finance. It is challenging to gather the data needed for
showing and quantifying the multiple benefits of EbA,
especially with regards to climate change adaptation and
ecosystem functions, as this takes times and often requires
multifaceted scientific expertise. The lack of such data can
lead to undervaluing EbA benefits in CBA. This lack of data
has also been a challenge for the monitoring of EbA benefits
by the programme more generally.
The programme has had exceptionally broad reach in terms
of making the case for policy change for EbA, ranging from
working with communities to revise and develop new
natural resource management plans for pastures or water,
to engaging with United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-
moon. The programme has worked to bridge local practice
with global policy, for example by sharing site and country
level experiences on planning and implementing EbA
through global policy platforms under the UNFCCC and
CBD. The case of Uganda applying its in-country experience
from the Mountain EbA Programme to pass the EbA
Resolution in the United Nations Environment Assembly
was a specific example of this. Making the case for policy
change for EbA at global level has entailed ongoing sharing
of lessons learned, ongoing dialogue, technical advice
and policy advocacy by all programme partners through
a range of global platforms. The programme has, through
these means, increased understanding and acceptance of
EbA discourse at global policy level.
Nepal, Peru and Uganda all had supportive national
frameworks in terms of including EbA-relevant priorities or

121CHAPTER 6: SCALING UP AND SCALING OUT: OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES
measures in their National Development Plans and Climate
Change Policies. The projects and their staff were engaged
directly in policy processes through attending working
groups and providing technical guidance on EbA, in the
case of Uganda in the formulation of the National Climate
Change Policy, in Nepal in the development of the Forest
Policy, and in Peru of the INDC. The Peru INDC even refers to
the Mountain EbA Programme specifically in the context of
results and practical experiences provided by key projects,
which have informed the INDC adaptation proposal. In
addition, ongoing engagement with policy makers through
sharing of lessons learned, policy dialogues or site visits
enabled the projects to raise EbA onto the national policy
agenda of all countries, as exemplified by the High Level
Technical Expert Committee on EbA being formed in Nepal.
The operationalization of EbA-supportive policies remains
dependent on adequate technical and institutional
capacities, as well as on financial resources. Sectoral and
local development plans and budgets become important
entry points for making the needed policy changes for
delivering EbA on the ground. In Uganda, the Mountain EbA
project has initiated collaboration with local governments
on including EbA into district or municipal development.
Local level natural resource plans are relevant for integrating
EbA into community-level planning processes and ensuring
the adoption of EbA measures on the ground. Dialogue,
technical support and sharing lessons learned across policy
scales all remain important to ensure that the needed policy
changes for EbA have been made across scales and sectors.
PES schemes were found to be relevant for EbA, providing
means to compensate farmers to undertake EbA measures
on a long-term basis, in the context of providing wider
water, carbon and biodiversity conservation services.
The ECOTRUST PES facility in Uganda showed how, in
Mount Elgon, carbon and watershed services were able
to be bundled into carbon credits for sale on international
markets, providing a potential source of ongoing financing,
and raising government interest. Goods produced by EbA
measures, such as vicuña fibre in Peru or broom grass
productsinNepal,showedtheincome-generatingpotential
of EbA measures and their contribution to livelihoods. Many
of these lessons learned can be of relevance for other sites
and countries, as will be discussed below.
6.2 Replicating lessons learned on
making the case for EbA
The concept of vertical ‘scaling up’ can be used to refer to
scaling up from local or community-level to higher levels
of decision-making, while horizontal ‘scaling out’ refers to
expanding over a larger geographical area or to a larger
number of beneficiaries (Rossing et al. 2012). Challenges to
upscaling include the context-specific nature of adaptation
interventions, while at the same time local case studies
are often used as sources to inform planning and policies.
Policy-practice dialogues can facilitate uptake of case
studies for up-scaling, while multi-stakeholder platforms
can provide useful means of out-scaling. Institutions and
larger governance structures become critical for scaling
up adaptation measures into policy. Capacity building
becomes an essential bridge between practice and policy,
although this often requires substantial financial and human
resources to be delivered.
The Mountain EbA Programme has already carried out some
out-scaling. In Uganda, initial beneficiary communities were
broadened to cover more villages, following the adoption
of the catchment and landscape level approach to delivery
after the VIA. Furthermore, it is hoped that the results of the
cost- benefit analysis can make the case for expanding EbA
practices to other districts in Mount Elgon and even beyond
to the Rwenzori mountain ecosystem. In Peru, the UNDP
pilot in Tanta is being replicated in the nearby community
DEMONSTRATION IN HOW TO PLANT SEEDLINGS IN A MORE
CLIMATE-RESILIENT MANNER. © IUCN Uganda

of Tomas, where animal husbandry management and
sustainable community grassland management measures,
to help adapt to anticipated climate change impacts, have
been initiated.
A key objective of the Mountain EbA Programme was to
enhance learning across the various project mountain
ecosystem sites in Nepal, Peru and Uganda. On certain issues,
therehasbeensharedlearning,eitherbetweentwoparticular
sites, or across all sites. Cases in point include the lessons
learned on the need for a step-wise approach in carrying out
participatory assessments initially to make the case for EbA to
communities, followed by VIAs, which were more relevant for
local and regional decision-makers. Socio-economic benefits
were critical in ensuring buy-in from local communities,
while environmental benefits and adaptive functions are
often visible only in the longer-term. Appropriate planning
and capacity building processes are needed to increase
understanding of EbA, promote ownership and commitment
toEbA.Localandregionalgovernmentsareimportantplayers
for planning and budgeting for implementing EbA measures,
while protected areas can provide needed governance
structures and plans for adopting a landscape approach. The
need to engage a range of policy levels, from community to
national level was also noted. These lessons learned are likely
to be applicable to EbA measures in general, and can provide
guidance for EbA in all types of ecosystems.
Some of the lessons learned through the programme,
however, may be more applicable to mountain or hilly
ecosystems specifically. For example, the micro-watershed or
watershed, taking into consideration upstream-downstream
linkages, was seen as the ideal scale for planning and
implementing EbA at the project sites in Nepal, Peru and
Uganda. This is likely to be less relevant in certain marine,
coastal or dryland ecosystems, unless a very broad scale
approach to planning and implementation is adopted.
The Peru case studies are believed to be of relevance for
scaling out to other high-Andean mountain ecosystems,
given that the ecosystem types are rather similar, and the
same can be said of the experiences from Panchase for
other foothill areas in Nepal. Attention would still need to be
paid to socio-economic dynamics and other distinguishing
features. In many cases, the experiences at site level were so
context-specific that the similarity of the ecosystems (i.e. all
being mountain ecosystems) was not relevant. For example,
the issue of limited land availability in Mount Elgon, Uganda
has undermined EbA measures, where shortage of land
has led to reluctance in dedicating it to measures such
as tree planting (see Chapter 2 for more details). This has
not been an issue in Panchase in Nepal and NYCLR in
Peru, where there is communal land ownership and lower
population density, and especially in Peru, where vast tracts
of land are available for implementing broader scale EbA
measures. Further, Nepal and Peru have had to adopt EbA
measures that are not labour-intensive, given the high rate
of outmigration, while Mount Elgon faces overpopulation
and related degradation of resources.
In terms of scaling up, the experience of working with the
Nor Yauyos Cochas Landscape Reserve in Peru has provided
an ideal framework for planning and implementing EbA
by providing existing guidelines and an institutional
framework, as well as ensuring sustainability for EbA
measures. Indeed, the experience from NYCLR is now
being scaled up by SERNANP to national level dialogue,
and there are opportunities to scale out to other protected
areas in Peru. A similar process has taken place in Panchase
Protected Forest in Nepal. The protected forest model is
less established and still lacks guidelines. This situation has,
however, provided a means for the project to scale up the
experiencefromPanchaseandsupporttheestablishmentof
protected forest guidelines at the national level. In Uganda,
the lack of an existing landscape level planning system
made it more challenging initially to adopt an ecosystem
scale for implementating EbA measures. Acting at this scale
required developing new plans together with communities
and local governments.
On the other hand, the experience from Uganda of feeding
experiences from the project into the transboundary
management process of Mount Elgon between Uganda
and Kenya, through the Lake Victoria Basin Commission of
East Africa Commission, provides an interesting example
of the relevance of EbA to transboundary natural resource
management. The different scales for engaging with policy-
making on EbA, as described in Table 19, are likely to be
relevant for other countries working on making the case for
policy change for EbA. The project has also succeeded in
scaling up very specific local experiences to national and
even global levels. For example, Uganda used its practical
experience with EbA in Mount Elgon for making the case
for global level policy change through the UNEA Resolution
(Chapter 5).
Capacity for scaling out and scaling up is a critical issue.
For example, in Uganda, despite local government
interest in scaling out EbA measures, financial and human
resource constraints are likely to hamper this. In Peru, the

123CHAPTER 6: SCALING UP AND SCALING OUT: OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES
institutional set-up and capacity of SERNANP provides
the likelihood for continued implementation of EbA at
project sites, as well as opportunities for scaling out and up,
although challenges remain in applying EbA in production
landscapes and with large scale private sector role-players
such as hydroelectric companies. Peru’s Public Investment
Guidelines for Biodiversity and Ecosystems also provide
a unique opportunity for increasing public financing and
enabling implementation of EbA at local, regional, sectoral
and national scales across Peru.
The bridging of practice-policy on EbA, from local and
national levels to global level policy processes such as the
CBD and the UNFCCC, remains relevant as learning on EbA
continues to evolve.
6.3. Opportunities for further work
The programme identified several areas for further work
needed on EbA. Delivering EbA in practice can often mean
adopting compromise approaches such as ’no regrets’
measures in the beginning, or grey-green approaches that
combineEbAwithmoreengineeredadaptationapproaches.
Further research is needed on how best to design and
implement such measures, while avoiding maladaption and
ensuring the continued provision of ecosystem goods and
services in changing climatic conditions.
The programme piloted vulnerability and impact
assessment tools tailored for EbA, which are still being tested
and refined within other sites within the project countries.
These provide a good base for further developing VIAs for
EbA, which would adopt a phased or gradual, participatory
approach at a predefined scale. The cost-benefit analyses
provided several important lessons, which can be taken on
board for carrying out future analyses for EbA.
The development of indicators and ME frameworks for
EbA was initiated late in the national-level projects, and
is only being finalized towards the end. The complexity
of measuring ecosystem change, adaptive capacity
and climate change within one project or programme
proved challenging. Indicators need to be measurable
and manageable within existing capacities in order to be
sustainable. The extensive work carried out by the project
in developing EbA indicators is likely to be of use for future
EbA projects and programmes.
In terms of making the case for policy change, several entry
pointswereidentified.Furtherworkisneededincollaborating
with district and regional governments in integrating EbA
measures, where appropriate, into district level planning and
budgeting. This includes further work on identifying cross-
sectoral opportunities for EbA in such areas as infrastructure
and public works, and cooperating more closely with
relevant sector Ministries. New policy opportunities will
arise, and the National Adaptation Plans being developed
in many countries provide policy development processes in
which there are excellent opportunities to make the case for
EbA. The programme did not explore the opportunities for
policy change with regional intergovernmental bodies, or
with the private sector. Also, there is scope for exploring EbA
collaboration with parliamentarians.
Several potential opportunities for EbA finance were
identified, including with regards to market opportunities
and PES. There is much scope for further work in this
important area of finance mechanisms for EbA, which in
many cases will determine the sustainability of adopted
EbA measures in the long run. Further, other sources of
finance such as REDD+ schemes or tax incentives for grey-
green approaches are yet to be explored.
The Mountain EbA Programme has been a unique flagship
programme delivered through a valuable partnership, and
has significantly enhanced understanding of EbA practice,
in addition to bridging science-policy-practice learning
from local to global levels. This learning will be important
for future projects, programmes, planning and financing
processes that engage in the design and implementation
of ecosystem-based approaches for adaptation to climate
change. The Mountain EbA Programme’s learning will help
make the case for this approach to adaptation, which can
provide multiple environmental, social and economic
benefits to both ecosystems and the livelihoods that
depend on them in an inexorably changing climate.

IN UGANDA, THE MOUNTAIN EBA PROGRAMME WAS IMPLEMENTED
IN THE MOUNT ELGON REGION, WHERE THE ELEVATION RANGES
FROM 398 TO 4,231 METRES ABOVE SEA LEVEL.

References
Adelante Le, H (2015) Methodological Guidebook: Climate Public Expenditure and Institutional Review (CPEIR), UNDP, Bangkok.
Adhikari, A, Khanal, R, Baral, S Basnyat, B (2014) Integrated on-farm soil nutrient management: Building Resilience of Agriculture Ecosystem in Panchase
Area: Use of organic soil nutrients (compost dung, and animal urine) to maintain and enhance soil health and farm productivity, IUCN, Kathmandu.
Autoridad Nacional del Agua (2012) Política y Estrategia Nacional de Recursos Hídricos del Perú, Autoridad Nacional del Agua, Lima.
Andrade, A, Córdoba, R, Dave, R, Girot, P, Herrera, FB, Munroe, R, Oglethorpe, J, Paaby, P, Pramova, E,Watson, E, Vergara,W (2011)
Draft Principles and Guidelines for Integrating Ecosystem-based Approaches to Adaptation in Project and Policy Design: a discussion document, IUCN- CEM, CATIE,
Turrialba, Costa Rica.
Aturinda-Kyeyune, M Egan, A (2015) Saving time, saving trees. Protecting Uganda’s mountain forests in a changing climate using fuel-efficient stoves,
UNDP. Available from: https://undp.exposure.co/saving-time-saving-trees [12 October, 2015].
Baguma, D (2014) Policy Brief: Mainstreaming Ecosystem-based Adaptation into Financing and Policy Processes, The Republic of Uganda Ministry ofWater and
Environment, Kampala.
Baral,S,Adhikari,A,Khanal,RBasnyat,B(2014)ForestResourcesConservation:BuildingResilienceofForestEcosysteminthePanchaseArea,IUCN,Kathmandu.
BARDAN (2013a)Value Chain Designing of Allo of Panchase Protected Forest Area, Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation, Government of Nepal, Kathmandu.
BARDAN(2013b)ValueChainDesigningofChiraitoofPanchaseProtectedForestArea,MinistryofForestandSoilConservation,GovernmentofNepal,Kathmandu.
BARDAN (2013c) Value Chain Designing of Kurilo of Panchase Protected Forest Area, Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation, Government of Nepal, Kathmandu.
BARDAN(2013d)ValueChainDesigningofOrchidsofPanchaseProtectedForestArea,MinistryofForestandSoilConservation,GovernmentofNepal,Kathmandu
BARDAN (2013e) Value Chain Designing of Timur of Panchase Protected Forest Area, Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation, Government of Nepal, Kathmandu.
Barrow, E, Raza, A, Khanal, R Adhikari, A (2015) EbA and Additionality – an example of Restored Community Ponds in Panchase, Nepal, forthcoming
publication, IUCN, Nepal.
Centro Nacional de Planeamiento Estratégico (2011) Plan Bicentenario: El Perú hacia el 2021, Aprobado por el Acuerdo Nacional Marzo 2011.
Chong, J (2014)‘Ecosystem-based approaches to climate change adaptation: progress and challenges’, International Environmental Agreements, vol. 14, pp.
391-405.
Dixit, A, Karki, M Shukla, A (2015) Vulnerability and Impacts Assessment for Adaptation Planning in Panchase Mountain Ecological Region, Nepal,
Government of Nepal, United Nations Environment Programme, United Nations Development Programme, International Union for Conservation of Nature,
German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety and Institute for Social and EnvironmentalTransition-Nepal,
Kathmandu.
Doswald, N, Munroe, R, Roe, D, Giuliani, A, Castelli, I, Stephens, J, Möller, I, Spencer,T,Vira, B Reid, H (2014)‘Effectiveness of ecosystem-
based approaches for adaptation: review of the evidence-base’, Climate and Development, vol. 6, pp.185-201.
Dourojeanni, P, Fernandez-Baca, E, Giada, S, Leslie, J, Podvin K Zapata, F (2015) Vulnerability Assessments for Ecosystem based Adaptation:
Lessons from the Nor Yauyos Cochas Landscape Reserve in Peru, Unpublished.
Dourojeanni, D, Giada, S, and Leclerc, M (2014) Vulnerability and Impact Assessment of the Climate Change in the Nor Yauyos Cochas Landscape Reserve
and its Buffer Zone. Technical Summary. Mountain EbA Programme in Peru.
Dourojeanni, P (2014) Field visit notes 11.12.2014, UNDP. Internal document. Unpublished.
Egan, A Aturinda-Kyeyune, M (2015a) Beehive for a Better Life: Beekeeping in the mountains of Uganda helps to create sustainable livelihoods, UNDP.
Available from: https://undp.exposure.co/beehives-for-a-better-life [12 October, 2015].

127REFERENCES
Egan, A Aturinda-Kyeyune, M (2015b) Brick by Brick: An environmentally friendly building technology in Uganda is preventing forest loss and empowering
women, UNDP. Available from: https://undp.exposure.co/brick-by-brick [12 October, 2015].
Egan, A, Rossing,T Chhenjum Sherpa, N (2015a) Restoring land, nurturing young leaders: Youth participation in Ecosystem-based Adaptation in the
Mountains of Nepal, UNDP. Available from: https://undp.exposure.co/restoring-land-nurturing-young-leaders [12 October, 2015].
Egan, A, Rossing,T Chhenjum Sherpa, N (2015b) Medicinal plants and poverty reduction in a changing climate: Restoring ecosystems and building
climate-resilient communities in the mountains of Nepal, UNDP. Available from: https://undp.exposure.co/medicinal-plants-and-poverty-reduction-in-a-
changing-climate [12 October, 2015].
Fernandez-Baca, E, Giada, S, Leslie, J, Cordero, D Zapata, F (2014) Challenges and Opportunities for Adaptation to Climate Change at the Nor Yauyos
Cochas Landscape Reserve, Peru, UNDP, UNEP, IUCN andTMI, Lima.
Girot, P (CARE), Ehrhart, C (CARE) Oglethorpe, J (WWF) (2012) Integrating Community and Ecosystem-Based Approaches in Climate Change Adaptation
Responses, Ecosystem Livelihoods Adaptation Network. Available from: http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/a_eba_integratedapproach_15_04_12_0.
pdf [October 10, 2015]
Global technical and learning workshop of the Mountain EbA Programme. Lunahuana, Peru 28-30 May, 2015. Summary.
Gobierno Regional de Junín (2014) Estrategia Regional de Cambio Climático de Junín, Gobierno Regional de Junín, Huancayo, Peru.
Government of Nepal, EbA Nepal Project and UNDP (2015). Report on Preparation of Watershed Management Plan for Panchase Area, Kaski, Parbat and
Syangja. Prepared by Development Support Consult for the Ecosystem Based Adaptation in Mountain Ecosystems (EbA) Nepal Project. Government of Nepal,
United Nations Environment Programme, United Nations Development Programme, International Union for Conservation of Nature, and the German Federal
Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety. Kathmandu, Nepal.
Gurung, H (2015) Exploring Opportunities in Mainstreaming Ecosystem-based Approaches in National Policies; Scoping Paper, UNDP, Unpublished.
Gurung, H Rai, PY (2015) Integrating Ecosystem-based Adaptation in Nepal´s National Policies and Strategies: Opportunities and Challenges, Analysis Paper,
UNDP, Unpublished.
Gwali, S (2014) Ecosystem Based Adaptation to Climate Change (EBA) Project, Mid Term Review Report, UNDP, Unpublished.
Heltberg, R, Siegel PB, Jorgensen SL (2009)‘Addressing HumanVulnerability to Climate Change:Toward a‘No Regrets’Approach’, Global Environmental
Change, vol. 19(1), pp. 89-99.
Ikkala, N (2011a) Ecosystem-based Adaptation Approaches to Adaptation in National Policy, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
Ikkala, N (2011b) Ecosystem-based Adaptation in Mountain Ecosystems: Challenges and Opportunities in Nepal, Peru and Uganda, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
Instituto de Montaña (IM) (2013) Diseño preliminar de la medida robusta de adaptación al cambio climático en la Comunidad Campesina de Canchayllo -
Reserva Paisajística Nor-Yauyos Cochas: “Rehabilitación de humedales y gestión comunal de praderas nativas”, Resumen ejecutivo, Instituto de Montaña, Lima.
Instituto de Montaña (IM) (2014) Diseño preliminar de la medida robusta de adaptación al cambio climático en la Comunidad Campesina de Miraflores -
Reserva Paisajística Nor-Yauyos Cochas: Rehabilitación de humedales y gestión comunal de praderas nativas. Resumen ejecutivo, Instituto de Montaña, Lima.
Instituto de Montaña (2015a) Plan de Manejo de Pastos y Agua de la Comunidad Campesina de Miraflores, Instituto de Montaña, Unpublished.
Instituto de Montaña (2015b) Plan de Manejo de pastos y Agua de la Comunidad Campesina de Canchayllo, Instituto de Montaña, Unpublished.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2007) Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the
Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, CoreWritingTeam, Pachauri, R.K and Reisinger, A. (eds.), IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland.
IUCN (2015) Planes de manejo de pastos y agua de Canchayllo y Miraflores son construidos de forma participativa [Online] Available from: http://www.iucn.org/
es/noticias/?21716/Manejo-pastos-y-agua-Peru Retrieved 12th October, 2015.
IUCN Uganda (2012a) Restoration of the River Sipi Micro-Catchment as an Ecosystem-Based Solution to Build Social and Ecological Resilience of the Sanzara
Community to Climate Change Impacts, IUCN. Available from: http://www.ebaflagship.org/downloads/ppt/Appendix_1-IUCN_site_information.pdf [12
October, 2015].

IUCN Uganda (2012b) Communities in Uganda to adapt to drought through a gravity flow scheme, IUCN. Available from: http://iucn.org/es/noticias/
noticias_por_fecha/?9606/Communities-in-Uganda-to-adapt-to-drought-through-a-gravity-flow-scheme [12 October, 2015].
Ives, JD, Messerli, B Spiess, E (1997) Mountains of the world: a global priority. In B. Messerli J.D. Ives, eds. Mountains of the world: a global priority, pp.
1-15. NewYork, USA and Carnforth, UK, Parthenon Publishing Group.
Kanel, K (2015) Cost-benefit analysis of EbA interventions: Case studies from Panchase Project Area, UNDP, Draft, unpublished.
Karami-Dekens, J Kutegeka, S (2012) CRiSTAL helps farmers adapt to drought on the slopes of Mount Elgon, Uganda, IISD and IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
Khanal, R, Adhikari, A, Baral, S Basnyat, B (2014) Restoring Community Ponds: Green Infrastructure to Combat Climate Change Impact in the Panchase
Area, IUCN, Kathmandu.
Khanal, R, Baral, S, Adhikari, A, Malla,YB Basnyat, B (2013) Localized Payment for Ecosystem Service Implementation Mechanism, IUCN, Kathmandu.
KohlerT Maselli D (eds) (2009). Mountains and Climate Change: From Understanding to Action, Geographica Bernensia with the support of the Swiss
Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC), and an international team of contributors, Bern.
Leary, NA (1999)‘A framework for benefit-cost analysis of adaptation to climate change and climate variability’, Mitigation and adaptation strategies for global
change, vol. 4(3-4), pp. 307-318.
Ley N°30215, Ley de Mecanismos de Retribución por Servicios Ecosistémicos. El Peruano, domingo 29 de junio de 2014.
Mensah, A et al. (2014) Making the Case for Ecosystem-based Adaptation: Building Resilience to Climate Change, UNON, Nairobi.
MINAM (2015) Lineamientos de Política de Inversión Pública en Materia de Diversidad Biológica y Servicios Ecosistémicos 2015-2021. Resolución Ministerial
N°199-2015-MINAM. Lima, Perú.
MINAM (2014a) Estrategia Nacional ante el Cambio Climático, Borrador de la ENCC, Minesterio del Ambiente, Lima, Perú.
MINAM (2014b) Estrategia Nacional de Diversidad Biológica al 2021 y Plan de Acción 2014-2018, Decreto Supremo N° 009-2014-MINAM, Lima, Perú.
MINAM (2011) Plan Nacional de Acción Ambiental PLANAA-Perú 2011-2021. 2da. Edición, Decreto Supremo Nº 014-2011-MINAM de 14 de julio de 2011,
Lima, Perú.
MINAM (2009) Política Nacional del Ambiente, Decreto Supremo Nº 012-2009-MINAM de 23 de Mayo de 2009, Lima, Perú.
MillenniumEcosystemAssessment(2005)Summaryfordecisionmakers.InEcosystemsandHumanWell-being:Synthesis,1-24.IslandPress,Washington,D.C.
Miller, M (2013) Making Sense of Climate Finance: Linking public finance and national climate change policy in the Asia-Pacific region, UNDP, Bangkok.
MINAG (2012) Plan Nacional de Gestión del Riesgo y Adaptación a los Efectos Adversos del Cambio Climático en el Sector Agrario 2012-2021, Resolución
Ministerial Nº 0265-2012-AG, Lima.
Munang, R (2012) TechnicalWorkshop Report on Ecosystem Based Adaptation (EBA) in Mountain areas: Additionality, Cost Effectiveness and Resilience. 11th
– 13th June, 2012, Berlin.
Munroe, R, Hicks, C, Doswald, N, Bubb, P, Epple, C,Woroniecki, S, Bodin, B, Osti, M (2015) Guidance on Integrating Ecosystem Considerations into
Climate Change Vulnerability and Impact Assessments to Inform Ecosystem-based Adaptation, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK.
Munroe, R, Mant, R, Hicks, H, Kapos,V,Woroniecki, S, Soi, N, Crane, S,Vestergaard, O, Kay, R (2014) How can ecosystem-based adaptation to
climate change be integrated into national adaptation planning?, UNEP, Nairobi.
NaFORRI (2012) Baseline Information for the Ecosystem-based Adaptation in Mount Elgon Ecosystem Project, Republic of Uganda Ministry ofWater and
Environment, Kampala.
NaFORRI (2013) Ecosystem Based Adaptation in Mountain Elgon Ecosystem: Vulnerability Impact Assessment (VIA) for the Mt Elgon Ecosystem, Republic of
Uganda Ministry ofWater and Environment, Kampala.

129REFERENCES
Nassopoulos, H, Dumas, P, Hallegatte, S (2012) ‘Adaptation to an uncertain climate change: cost benefit analysis and robust decision making for dam
dimensioning,’Climatic Change, vol 114(3-4), pp. 497-508.
Naumann, S, McKenna, D, Munang, R, Andrews, J,Thiaw, I, Alverson, K, Mumba, M, Kavagi, L, Han, Z (2013) The Social Dimension of Ecosystem-
based Adaptation. UNEP Policy Series-Ecosystem Management, UNEP, Nairobi.
Nepal, Ministry of Environment (2011) Climate Change Policy, Government of Nepal, (unofficial translation), Kathmandu.
Nepal, Ministry of Environment (2010) National Adaptation Programme of Action (NAPA) to Climate Change, Ministry of Environment, Kathmandu.
Nepal, Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation (2014) National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan 2014-2020, Ministry of Forests and Soil
Conservation, Kathmandu.
Nepal, National Planning Commission (2013) An Approach Paper to the Thirteenth National Plan (FY 2013/14 – 2015/2016), (unofficial translation),
National Planning Commission, Kathmandu.
Nepal, G (2013) OPINION: How far has climate change been mainstreamed in development policy in Nepal?, CDKN Asia. Available from: http://cdkn.
org/2013/09/opinion-how-far-has-climate-change-been-mainstreamed-in-development-policy-in-nepal/ [12 October, 2015].
Peru (2015) Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (iNDC) from the Republic of Peru. Available from: http://www4.unfccc.int/submissions/INDC/
Published%20Documents/Peru/1/iNDC%20Perú%20english.pdf [12 October, 2015].
Picon, JC (2015a) Guardians of Tradition: the District of Miraflores rescues the live culture in their farming techniques to adapt to climate change, UNDP. Available
from https://undp.exposure.co/guardians-of-tradition [12 October, 2015].
Picon, JC (2015b) Highland Rodeo: Nowadays the chaccu, an ancestral tradition of herding vicuñas, is an important yardstick of success in ecosystem-based
adaptation to climate change (EbA), UNDP. Available from https://undp.exposure.co/highland-rodeo [12 October, 2015].
Podvin, K, Cordero, D Gomez, A (2014)‘Climate Change Adaptation in the Peruvian Andes: implementing no-regret measures in the NorYauyos-Cochas
Landscape Reserve’in Safe Havens: Protected Areas for Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation, eds. Murti, R Buyck, C, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
Pramova E, Locatelli, B, Brockhaus, M Fohlmeister, S (2012) ‘Ecosystem services in the National Adaptation Programmes of Action’, Climate Policy, vol.
12 pp.393-409.
Ramon,VR Gil and ConsorcioVIA-RPNYC (2013) Informe Final: Evaluación del Impacto y Vulnerabilidad del Cambio Climático de la Reserva Paisajística Nor
Yauyos Cochas y áreas de amortiguamiento. Unpublished.
Ries, F (2015) The EbA in Mountain Ecosystems Programme – what are the expectations of IKI? Presentation by Programme Office IKI on behalf of BMUB, at the
3rd
Global Learning andTechnicalWorkshop of the Global EbA Mountain Programme, 29.06.2015, Lunahuana, Peru.
Rossing,T, Chhenjum Sherpa, N Egan, A (2015a) Challenging gender roles and crossing castes: Promoting women´s livelihoods through broom grass
cultivation in the Nepal Himalaya, UNDP. Available from: https://undp.exposure.co/challenging-gender-roles-and-crossing-castes [12 October, 2015].
Rossing,T, Chhenjum Sherpa, N Egan, A (2015b) Restoring the flow of life in a changing climate. Improving ecosystem resilience in the mountains of
Nepal, UNDP. Available from: https://undp.exposure.co/restoring-the-flow-of-life-in-a-changing-climate [12 October, 2015].
Rizvi, A, Barrow, E, Zapata, F, Cordero, D, Podvin, K, Kutegeka, S, Gafabusa, R, Khanal, R Adhikari, A (2014) Ecosystem based Adaptation:
Building on No Regret Adaptation Measures,Technical Paper for the 20th session of the Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC and the 10th session of the
Conference of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol, Lima, 1-12 December 2014.
Rossing,T. (2015 - forthcoming) Learning Brief: Tracking and Measuring Impact of EbA Projects, UNDP (forthcoming).
Rossing,T, Chhenjum Sherpa, N Egan, A (2015) Restoring the Flow of Life in a Changing Climate: Improving ecosystem resilience in the mountains of
Nepal, UNDP. Available from: https://undp.exposure.co/restoring-the-flow-of-life-in-a-changing-climate [12 October, 2015].
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2009) Connecting Biodiversity and Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation: Report of the
Second Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on Biodiversity and Climate Change, CBDTechnical Series No. 41, Montreal, Canada.

Siegel,PBJorgensenSL(2011)‘No-RegretsApproachtoIncreasedResilienceandClimateChangeJustice:TowardaRisk-AdjustedSocialProtectionFloor’,Paper
preparedforConferenceon‘SocialProtectionforSocialJustice’InstituteforDevelopmentStudies(IDS),UniversityofSussex,Brighton,UK.April13-15,2011.
Shah, R, Adhikari, A Khanal, R (2012) Scoping of Piloting Ecosystem Based Adaptation in Panchase: A Report, IUCN, Kathmandu.
Sierra-Correa, PC Cantera Kintz JR (2015)‘Ecosystem-based adaptation for improving coastal planning for sea-level rise: a systematic review for
mangrove coasts’, Marine Policy, vol. 51, pp. 385-393.
Soncco, C (2014) Hoja de ruta para la incorporación del enfoque de Adaptación basada en Ecosistemas (EbA) dentro de las políticas públicas y los mecanismos de
financiamiento público, UNDP, Unpublished.
TEEB (2009)The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity for National and International Policy Makers- Summary: Responding to the Value of Nature, TEEB.
Available at: http://www.teebweb.org/publication/teeb-for-policy-makers-summary-responding-to-the-value-of-nature/ [19 October 2015]
Tiwari, S Silawal-Giri, B (2015) Report of the Mid Term Review Ecosystem Based Adaptation (EBA) in Mountain Ecosystems in Nepal, Unpublished.
Tse-ring, K, Sharma, E, Chettri, N, Shrestha, A (eds.) (2010) Climate Change Vulnerability of Mountain Ecosystems in the Eastern Himalayas, ICIMOD,
Kathmandu.
Tumushabe G, MuhumuzaT, Natamba E, Bird N,Welham B Jones L. (2013) Uganda National Climate change finance analysis; Sharing policy for
development, ODI, Kampala.
Uganda, Ministry ofWater and Environment (2013) Uganda National Climate Change Policy, Ministry ofWater and Environment, Kampala.
Uganda, Ministry ofWater and Environment (2015a) Manual for Implementing EbA in Mount Elgon Ecosystem of Uganda, The Republic of Uganda
Ministry ofWater and Environment, Kampala.
Uganda, Ministry ofWater and Environment (2015b) Public Policy and Financing Framework for the Ecosystem Based Adaptation in the Mt Elgon
Ecosystem, The Republic of Uganda Ministry ofWater and Environment, Kampala.
Uganda (2015) Second National Development Plan (NDPII) 2015/16 – 2019/20, The Republic of Uganda, Kampala.
UNDP Nepal Field Office (2015) Monitoring Report on Ecosystem Based Adaptation in Parbat, Kaski and Syangja, UNDP, Kathmandu, Unpublished.
UNEP (2014) The Adaptation Gap Report 2014, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Nairobi.
UNEP, UNDP IUCN (2014) Ecosystem-based Adaptation: Adapting to climate change in mountain ecosystems, a flagship programme of UNEP, UNDP and IUCN,
Programme Leaflet, UNON, Nairobi.
UNFCCC (2013) Report on the technical workshop on ecosystem-based approaches to climate change adaptation to climate change, Note by Secretariat. FCCC/
SBSTA/2013/2.
Veen, M. (2007) Oportunidades para Pago por Servicios Ambientales en la Amazonía Peruana. Diagnóstico rápido. SNV; Armas et al. (2009) Pagos por Servicios
Ambientales para la Conservación de Bosques en la Amazonia Peruana. SERNANP.
Vignola R, McDanielsTL, Scholz RW (2013) ‘Governance structures for ecosystem-based adaptation: using policy-network analysis to identify key
organizations for bridging information across scales and policy areas’, Environmental Science Policy, vol. 31, pp.71-84.
Wamsler, C, Luederitz, C, Brink, E (2014)‘Local levers for change: mainstreaming ecosystem-based adaptation into municipal planning to foster
sustainability transitions’, Global Environmental Change, vol. 29, pp. 189-201.
Wise, RM, Fazey, I, Smith, MS, Park, SE, Eakin, HC,Van Garderen, EA Campbell, B (2014)‘Reconceptualising adaptation to climate change as part
of pathways of change and response’, Global Environmental Change, vol. 28, pp. 325-336.

131ANNEX 1: INTERVIEWS
Annex 1: Interviews
The following interviews were carried out between 27 May and 2 June 2015 during the 3rd Global Learning and Technical Workshop for the Global Mountain EbA
Programme held in Lunahuana (Peru) and the 2nd Global Workshop on Sharing Learning on Using Cost Benefit Analysis for Making the Case for Ecosystem-Based
Adaptation held in Lima.
The following interviews were carried out via teleconference:
Name Position Organization Country Date
James Leslie Technical Advisor on Ecosystems and Climate Change UNDP Peru 07.09.2015
Pauline Nantongo Kalunda Executive Director ECOTRUST Uganda 03.09.2015
Name Position Organization Country
Keith Alverson Head of the Climate Change Adaptation andTerrestrial
Ecosystems Branch
UNEP Global
Woodro Andia Castelo Field Coordinator, Mountain EBA Project UNDP Peru
Maureen Anino Senior Programme Officer Ministry ofWater and Environment Uganda
Laura Avellaneda Coordinator in Climate Risk Management Ministry of the Environment Peru
Edmund Barrow Head, Ecosystem Management Programme IUCN Global
Eduardo Durand Director General of Climate Change,
Desertification and Hydrological Resources
Ministry of the Environment Peru
Cordula Epple Senior Programme Officer, Climate Change and Biodiversity UNEPWCMC Global
Edith Fernández-Baca National Coordinator, Mountain EBA Project Peru
Richard Gafabusa Field Coordinator IUCN Uganda
Aneli Gomez Field Coordinator Instituto de Montaña Peru
Rajendra Khanal Programme Coordinator IUCN Nepal
Sophie Kutegeka Head of Uganda office (Acting) IUCN Uganda
Walter Lopez Regional Director of Natural Resources and the Environment Regional Government of Junín Peru
Paul Mafabi Director of Environment Affairs Ministry ofWater and Environment Uganda
Musonda Mumba Programme Officer
Ecosystem Based Adaptation Flagship Programme Coordinator
UNEP Global
Paul Nteza National Coordinator, Mountain EBA Project UNDP Uganda
PragyajanYalamber Rai National Coordinator, Mountain EBA Project UNDP Nepal
Ali Raza Rizvi Programme Manager, Ecosystem Based Adaptation IUCN Global
Felix Ries Climate Expert (Adaptation) International Climate Initiative Germany
Angella Rwabutomize Senior Economist Ministry of Finance, Planning and
Economic Development
Uganda
AntonioTejada Moncada Director, Natural Resources and the Environment Regional Government of Lima Peru

Endnotes
1
Project activities largely concluded in 2015, when their results were analysed for this report. A six-month no-cost extension was granted into 2016 for
administrative matters.
2
Further details on the Panchase Protected Forest are available at http://www.forestrynepal.org/article/695/5665 Retrieved 12th October, 2015.
3
Protected Area CategoryV is:“A protected area where the interaction of people and nature over time has produced an area of distinct character with
significant ecological, biological, cultural and scenic value: and where safeguarding the integrity of this interaction is vital to protecting and sustaining the
area and its associated nature conservation and other values”.
http://www.iucn.org/about/work/programmes/gpap_home/gpap_quality/gpap_pacategories/gpap_category5/
Retrieved 12th October 2015.
4
Protected Area Category II: ”Large natural or near natural areas set aside to protect large-scale ecological processes, along with the complement of species
and ecosystems characteristic of the area, which also provide a foundation for environmentally and culturally compatible spiritual, scientific, educational,
recreational and visitor opportunities.”
http://www.iucn.org/about/work/programmes/gpap_home/gpap_quality/gpap_pacategories/gpap_pacategory2/
Retrieved 12th October, 2015.
5
Population density was calculated as (population) ÷ (area in km²) = population per km²
6
This is the initial definition provided by the Second Ad HocTechnical Expert Group on Biodiversity and Climate Change. See Secretariat of the Convention on
Biological Diversity (2009), p. 41.
7
Various definitions for‘no regrets’measures have been provided, including:“No-regrets actions are actions by households, communities, and local/national/
international institutions that can be justified from economic, and social, and environmental perspectives whether natural hazard events or climate change
(or other hazards) take place or not. No-regrets actions increase resilience, which is the ability of a system to deal with different types of hazards in a timely,
efficient, and equitable manner. Increasing resilience is the basis for sustainable growth in a world of multiple hazards”(see Heltberg, Siegel, Jorgensen,
2009 Siegel and Jorgensen, 2011).The IUCN Paper ‘Ecosystem based Adaptation: Building on No Regret Adaptation Measures’, (Rizvi et al. 2014), further
discusses different definitions and how the concept has been used by the Mountain EbA Programme.
8
CRiSTAL is a project-planning tool that helps users design activities that support climate adaptation at the community level. A full overview of CRiSTAL is
provided at https://www.iisd.org/cristaltool/ Retrieved 12th October, 2015.
9
CVCA, developed by CARE, is a community-level analysis tool that integrates climate change into a wider participatory vulnerability assessment. It can be
accessed at http://careclimatechange.org/tool-kits/cvca/ Retrieved 12th October, 2015.
10
The PROFOR toolkit provides a framework, fieldwork methods and analytic tools to understand and communicate the contribution of forests to the incomes
of rural households.
http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/profor_iucn_toolkit_overview.pdf
11
A gravity flow scheme is a technology for gravity-fed water supply.“A gravity-fed supply from a small upland river, stream or spring, impounded within a
protected catchment, is an example of a sustainable water supply technology requiring no treatment. An additional benefit is that, using the force of gravity,
water can be transported by pipework to tapstands placed near to homes, reducing the work involved in carrying water.The usual components of a gravity-
fed scheme are the source (stream, spring, catchment, dam or intake), main pipeline, storage and break-pressure tanks, distribution pipelines and tapstands.”
WaterAid. 2013. Technical Brief: Gravity-fed Schemes. Available online at www.wateraid.org/technologies. Retrieved 12th October, 2015.
12
Presentation by Rob Munroe, “VIAs – why do we want them?”, 5th February 2015, Global Steering Committee Meeting, Berlin.
13
Global technical and learning workshop of the Mountain EbA Programme. Lunahuana, Peru 28-30 May, 2015. Summary.
14
The programme´s experience on the use of indicators is discussed in the following internal, unpublished documents: Dourojeanni, P (2013) Taller para
le identificación de indicadores de impacto para las medidas adoptada por el Proyecto EbA montana en la RPNYC, 10 y 11 de diciembre 2013, Memoria

133ENDNOTES
Descriptiva; Global Learning TechnicalWorkshop, 27th April-1st May 2014, Pokhara, Nepal.Workshop report; Rossing,T (2014) Uganda Mountain EbA Pilot
Project – Impact Indicators to Measure Changes in Adaptive Capacity; Munroe, R (2014) Impact and context indicators for adaptation intervention impact on
ecosystem functioning for 3 ecosystem services, July 2014Workshop results and UNEP-WCMC comments.
15
For more information on adaptation decision making under uncertainty see, for example: A. Patwardhan, R.N., et al. (2014) Foundations for decision
making. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, andVulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution ofWorking Group II to the
Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, C.B.,V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea,T.E. Bilir, M.
Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi,Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L.White (eds.)]. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and NewYork, NY, USA, pp. 195-228. Also see Jones, L. et al. (2014) Planning for an Uncertain Future: Promoting
adaptation to climate change through Flexible and Forward-looking Decision Making. London: ODI.
16
According to the FAO (2010:7), women comprise an average of 43 percent of the agricultural labour force of developing countries.The female share of the
agricultural labour force ranges from about 20 percent in Latin America to almost 50 percent in Eastern and Southeastern Asia and sub-Saharan Africa.
There is a general trend for an increase in female labour share of agricultural labour force in most regions, although there is variation both between and
within countries (see FAO (2010) State of Food and Agriculture 2010-2011: Women and Agriculture. Rome: FAO, p. 7-10). Research on the‘feminisation’of
agriculture and natural resource management, undertaken by ICIMOD and supported by IFAD, illustrates this trend, whereby in some mountain regions
in India women undertake 4.6 to 5.7 times the agricultural work men carry out. In Nepal, the range is skewed even more with women carrying out 6.3 to
6.6 times the agricultural work that men carry out (cited in Nellemann, C.,Verma, R., and Hislop, L. (eds). 2011. Women at the frontline of climate change:
Gender risks and hopes. A Rapid Response Assessment. United Nations Environment Programme, GRID-Arendal, p. 25).
17
Monetary amounts are in US dollars.
18
BARDAN (2013). Biodiversity Associates for Research, Development and Action.The studies for Nepal are available from:
http://www.np.undp.org/content/nepal/en/home/operations/projects/environment_and_energy/eba/publications/
Retrieved 12th October, 2015.The study for Peru was being finalized at the time of going to press.
19
In Nepal, the protected forest model is new, and therefore regulations are yet to be developed and enforced.
20
TheTSA approach is available from:
http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/librarypage/environment-energy/environmental_finance/targeted-scenario-analysis.html
21
Babatunde Abidoye personal communication with MEF representatives, during GlobalWorkshop on Sharing Learning on Using Cost Benefit Analysis for
Making the Case for Ecosystem-based Adaptation, Bratislava, Slovakia, 28 February-1 March 2014.
22
For the purpose of this analysis, the business as usual exercise was carried out for ease of comparison with the EbA scenario only. It is understood that an
optimizing agent will not continue to operate in a loss, if the discounted present value is negative within each period. However, the EbA project by itself is
profitable with the return higher than the economic cost of capital.
23
For futher information, please see http://www.policysupport.org/waterworld
24
This follows the practice of the Government of Peru on the use of 4 percent discount rate for the evaluation of climate change mitigation projects, the
prescription of the UN Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) and other countries globally.
25
This is the usual discount rate used by the Government of Peru, for non-climate change mitigation projects.
26
The sum of the values in the figures is the NPV in this case. For ease of presentation, the annual discounted value is presented.
27
https://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/cop/cop-12/information/cop-12-inf-40-en.pdf
28
FCCC/SBSTA/2011/INF.8
29
For more information on UNEA, please visit http://www.unep.org/unea/about.asp
30
2063 in Nepali calendar is the year 2006 in theWestern/Gregorian calendar

31
Terms of Reference of the EbA High LevelTechnical Committee
32
Regional Government of Junín (2014).
33
Unofficial translation. Original Spanish version: El departamento de Junín se habrá adaptado a los efectos adversos y habrá aprovechado las oportunidades que
impone el cambio climático, sentando las bases para un desarrollo sostenible bajo en carbono con un enfoque de adaptación basado en ecosistemas
34
This section is written based on interviews with Maureen Anino, Richard Gafabuse, Sophie Kutegeka and Paul Nteza, carried out in May/June 2015 (see
Annex 1).
35
Workshop to train district technical officers on integration on EBA integration, 2nd-4th December 2014, Workshop Report.
36
Ministry ofWater and Environment (2015) Concept Paper for the development of the EBA Action Plans for Sub-counties adjacent to Mount Elgon Ecosystem in
the districts of Kapchorwa, Soronko, Kween and Bulambuli districts. Draft.
37
Maladaptation, as defined by the IPCC: “any changes in natural or human systems that inadvertently increase vulnerability to climatic stimuli; an adaptation
that does not succeed in reducing vulnerability but increases it instead.” IPCC, 2001 (Third Assessment Report, Glossary).
38
Projects defined as relevant for climate change adaptation were: i) protection and restoration of watersheds to ensure provision of ecosystem services; ii)
reforestation and forestry; iii) riverbank protection; iv) conservation and restoration of diverse ecosystems; v) conservation and restoration of wetlands.The
projects are not necessarily framed directly in the context of climate change, but, for the purpose of this analysis, were regarded as being climate smart
conservation and natural resource management options.
39
Resolución Ministerial N° 199-2015-MINAM
40
http://www.biodiversityfinance.net/
41
Ministerial Policy Statement,Water and Environment Sector, FinancialYear 2014-15.
42
Amounts are in US dollars. USh. 4,950,000 and USh. 5,000,000, respectively.
43
Workshop to train District Level Officers on EBA Integration, 2nd-4th December, 2014.Workshop Report.
44
http://www.planvivo.org/project-network/trees-for-global-benefits-uganda/
45
The studies can be accessed through the following link:
http://www.np.undp.org/content/nepal/en/home/operations/projects/environment_and_energy/eba/publications/

UNDP (2015) Mt EbA report FINAL2 web vs (041215)

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked (8)

Similar to UNDP (2015) Mt EbA report FINAL2 web vs (041215) (20)

UNDP (2015) Mt EbA report FINAL2 web vs (041215)