Climate change impact in coastal areas of the Rio de la Plata River

Actions for prevention and adaptation

Methodological approach

The participatory approach in the construction of knowledge

Local stakeholder training through their participation in the project

CasoDaño sufrido por las viviendas (u$s)

Una vez cada dos años

Una vez cada diez años

Valor esperado

Sin cambio climático 605.426 726.512 490.395Con cambio climático 726.512 968.682 617.535Daño incremental 121.085 242.171 127.140Incremento porcentual del daño 20% 33% 26%

Municipal level, preparing a technical diagnosis and identified the main areas at risk using multi criteria

analysis

Community level, risk perception, adaptation practices and validating the technical information.

Different scale of cities and access to local authorities is the opportunity to test different approaches within the project

Small cities in URU: size of study area is smaller, less stakeholders involved, easier and more direct communication but less autonomy from higher government levels.

Big cities in ARG: bigger in size, less direct communication (vertical organization) but greater autonomy for decision making process.

• URU: Undergoing an institutional re-design, which includes a more holistic approaches and work at multiple levels. Changes contemplate the active participation of citizens in the drafting of plans.

• ARG: The process is at an earlier stage. There has not been important changes in the institutional structure or the legal framework to support CC adaptation cross – cutting areas and sectors.

Different CCA national approaches and stages

DR and CC planning is still seen as a responsibility of the environmental offices only, plans and actions from different offices (drainage and public space maintenance, housing, etc) that might increase vulnerability and risk followed without regarding CC adaptation.

Norms and plans in all levels lack of strategies and

action regarding CC adaptation.

Institutional barriers opportunities for CBA

DR and CC management structures within local governments: are not integrated into local development planning. Lack of technical capacities, there is still a traditional emergency response approach. Lack of financial resources assign to deal with DR , much less to start planning for CCA.

Opportunity for raising awareness over the links between urban and infrastructure planning, emergency management, housing, etc., and over the role played by different stakeholders.

Institutional barriers opportunities for CBA

Institutional barriers opportunities for CBA

Difficulties to learn from failures: old land use regulations, urban plans and poverty reduction policies. It seems not easy to accept that the current risks in cities are consequence in part of institutional wrong decisions, or lack of decisions, and is attribute them to the informal use of land or the informal and spontaneous adaptations actions of the community.

Opportunity to improve and renew urban planning and poverty alleviation policies from a community base and more integrated approach.

Tensions between scientific information and the information needed for local management : types of information generated not what local managers need, language used is also inappropriate, difficult to share information between different disciplines and stakeholders.

Community can force the generation of clear and practical information and can multiply the ways of spreading it, opening different options to enable more effective actions in cities.

Institutional barriers opportunities for CBA

Sensibility regarding the information of the future and not certain climate data. Politicians do not inform over probable flood risk areas. Real – state pressure, and unresolved current needs limits the decision making process and in consequence the local government response.

The damaged community involvement can drive decision maker actions and awareness the rest of the community for starting adaptation.

Institutional barriers opportunities for CBA

Thank you