trends, approaches and project opportunities on climate

Trends, Approaches and Project Opportunities on Climate Change and Adaptation in Mesoamerica

I n recent years, especially since the dissemination of the fourth report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)1 there

has been a growing awareness by society about the threat posed by climate change to the human and natural systems of Latin America and the Caribbean.2

Part of the international efforts to achieve a greater impact on the design of policies and programs on climate change is the Paris

Agreement, formulated in 2015 and ratified in 2016. This Agreement´s main objective is to keep the increase in temperature below the 2ºC threshold in this century and encourage additional efforts to limit the increase in temperature to 1.5ºC above pre-industrial levels. In this context, the countries of the Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) presented their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) in which they indicate commitments related to climate action.

1 M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson, eds. (2007). Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, New York: Cambridge University Press.

2 Magrin G.O. (2015). Adaptación al cambio climático en América Latina y el Caribe. Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL): European Union.

© 2

018

IUC

N/

Paú

l Ara

gón

Evid

ence

SERIES 4

No. 02

2 EVIDENCE

IUCN promotes a Nature-based Solutions (NBS) approach to face challenges such as climate change, in order to improve food security and economic social development.3 It also advocates and provides technical support so that countries can consider NBS within their policies in their own NDCs.

The countries of Central America and Mexico recognize in their NDCs both actions to reduce climate vulnerability, as well as commitments directly related to ecosystems and their key role in adaptation. These adaptation efforts are reported in national communications that countries send to the UNFCCC. Despite these advances, it is still necessary to have accessible systems that allow us to know the trends, themes, areas of intervention, partners and opportunities for strengthening investments to address climate change in these countries.

For this reason, IUCN initiated a registry and characterization of climate change adaptation programs in five countries. The systematization and analysis of this information is intended to broaden the understanding on the thematic, geographic and priority approaches to adaptation in Mexico (Chiapas), Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Costa Rica and Panama. Through this analysis, it is possible to identify gaps and priority areas, as well as to inform decision makers, cooperation agencies and the general public on the climate change and adaptation efforts in the Mesoamerican Region. The results seek to support the monitoring of progress of the NDCs with the framework of the Paris Accord and the Sustainable Development Goals.

© 2

018

IUC

N/

Paú

l Ara

gón

3 UICN (2016). 2017- 2020 IUCN Programme. Gland, Switzerland. IUCN.

3EVIDENCE

Application of the Methodology

This methodology had two objectives:

• Know the trends, thematic and geographical and investment priorities of the adaptation and climate change projects in Mexico (Chiapas), Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Costa Rica and Panama.

• Identify activities in the projects related to adaptation and in particular those with an Ecosystem-based Adaptation approach (EbA).

Information was collected on national and regional projects that were implemented in Mexico (Chiapas), Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Costa Rica y Panama. For the collection of this information primary sources (project manager and implementor) and secondary sources (bibliography references or website searches) were used. In addition, coordination was carried out with the competent national authorities on climate change for its validation.

For the selection and characterization of the projects, those that were considered met with the following criteria: (I) it contained the words “climate change” or “adaptation”, either in its title of in the general objective; (II) the execution time of the project was of at least one year; (III) in the case of those projects that had ended, that they had not ended beyond a year from the time the information was collected. These criteria allowed the delimitation of the project universe to develop this registry in a more efficient manner.

Later, these projects were classified according to 10 categories (see Table 1) and the information on the projects was completed for each of the 10 categories. Based on this information, the maps were developed and are accessible through the IUCN ArcGIS Map Web Server.4

Table 1. Categories for the Characterization of the Projects

CATEGORIES DESCRIPTION

1 Title and Objective Words “climate change” and /or “adaptation”

2 Main Executers Project managers

3 Implementing Partners Partnerships to implement the projects

4 Status Initiated / In Progress / Ended

5 Technical Monitoring System Yes / No

6 Execution Timeline Starting date / End date / Months of execution

7 Intervention Communities Name of the Communities / Geographical location

8 Budget USD

9 Scale National (one or many communities within a country) / Regional (two or more countries)

10 Activity Themes 1. Food Security

2. Availability of water resources

3. Protection and restoration of ecosystems

4. Improve local capacities for adaptation

4 http://iucn.cr/arcgis/home/

4 EVIDENCE

• Due to the need to limit the universe of analysis, this research is a description of the projects that meet the described criteria, not of all the projects on climate change adaptation that exist in Mesoamerica.

• Includes 5 countries: Mexico (Chiapas), Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Costa Rica and Panama. This is not a regional analysis, since this first phase does not yet include Nicaragua or Belize.

• The information collected, as well as its analysis, are of a descriptive character. It does not imply an evaluation nor an assessment on the field results of each of the registered projects.

© 2

018

IUC

N/

Paú

l Ara

gón

Scope of the information

5EVIDENCE

Preliminary ResultsUntil now, a total of 173 projects have been registered and characterized in the database: 142 national projects (implemented in one or several communities within a country) and 31 regional projects (in two or more countries) (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Climate change and/or adaptation projects per country

Note: The graph shows the total number of national projects. In the cases of regional projects, it shows in which each country participates.

• Implementers As far as the main implementers, NGOs, international organisms

and government agencies are the principal actors that directly execute the projects.

The role of the community associations as main implementers is marginal in relation to the rest of the actors, since it does not reach 5% of the registered projects (see Figure 2).

Figure 2. Percentage of climate change adaptation projects by type of main implementer.

Typ

e o

f E

xecu

tors

Donor

Community Association

Private Sector

Academia/Scientific Sector

Government

International Organizations

NGO

National Projects

Nu

mb

er o

f p

roje

cts

at a

nat

ion

al

and

reg

ion

al le

vel

Regional Projects

70

80

60

50

40

30

Guatemala Honduras Costa Rica El Salvador Mexico-Chiapas

Panama

Countries

20

10

0

0 5 10

% of main executors

15 20 25

0.39

4.7

8.98

14.44

21.89

24.21

25.39

30

40

2632

1316

11

38

30

26 9

22

6 EVIDENCE

• Financing Sources In the case of project financing sources, international or external

organizations represent the largest source of financing for registered projects (see Figure 3).

It is important to consider that these are regionally-grouped results; however, for each country the data varies greatly from one to another.

• Activity Themes Considering the 173 registered projects, the activities carried out in

all the communities were classified according to their direct influence on one or more of the four themes described above (food security, water resources, capacities and ecosystems).

Thus, at the regional level, in 38.8% of cases these activities focus on improving food security, 29.4% on increasing capacities to face climate change, 22.8% on improving ecosystem conditions, 8.6% on improving the availability of water resources and 0.4% on other topics (see Figure 4).

Figure 3. Percentage of climate change adaptation projects by type of financing source.

Food Security

Others

Water Resource Availability

Ecosystems Protection and Restoration

Increasing Capacities to Face Climate Change

38,8

0,4

8,622,8

29,4

Note: Projects financed by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) can have important contributions from international organizations and the private sector. When the NGOs took their own mixed funds to carry out the projects, this was categorized separately.

Fin

anci

al E

nti

ty

Private Sector

National Governments

Academic/Scientific Sector

NGO

International Organizations

10 20 30

% of Financial Entities

40 50 60 70

4.8

5.5

9.7

13.1

66.9

80

Figure 4. Percentage of activities in the communities according to their theme

7EVIDENCE

FoodSecurity

Others

Figure 5. Number of project activities per country per type

Water Resource Availability

Nu

mb

er o

f in

terv

enti

on

s in

eac

h co

un

try

per

act

ivit

y

Ecosystems Restoration and Protection

Capacity buildingto face climate change

700

600

500

400

300

Panama El Salvador Honduras Mexico-Chiapas

Guatemala Costa Rica

Countries

200

100

0

The majority of activities are carried out on the region´s Pacific watershed, and especially within the Mesoamerican Dry Corridor. Despite this, the activities carried out in the communities at each country level vary considerably. In Chiapas-Mexico, interventions in communities for the protection of ecosystems and the strengthening of food security predominate.

In the other countries of the region, activities mainly focus on capacity building to face climate change. There are few interventions focused on improving the availability of water resources in the core areas of the Dry Corridor (see Figures 5 and 6).

© 2

018

IUC

N/

Paú

l Ara

gón

8 EVIDENCE

B) water resource management

Figure 6. Communities with climate change adaptation projects according to their main activity. A) capacity building; B) water resource management; C) ecosystem recuperation and D) food security.

A) capacity building

Pacific Ocean

Pacific Ocean

Symbology

Climate change adaptation projectsType of activity

Caribbean Sea

Caribbean Sea

Strengthening of local capacities - civil society, government entities and others

Protected areas

Dry corridor

Countries

Water resource management and availability

Protected areas

Dry corridor

Countries

Kilometers

Kilometers

Prepared by Marlon Morúa and Fiorella Sánchez


Geographic coordinate systemDegrees, minutes and secondsWGS 84 ellipsoidCartography developed in May, 2019

Symbology



9EVIDENCE

D) food security

C) ecosystem restoration

Pacific Ocean

Pacific Ocean

Caribbean Sea

Caribbean Sea

Food security

Protected areas

Dry corridor

Countries

Protection and restoration of ecosystems

Protected areas

Dry corridor

Countries

Kilometers

Kilometers



Symbology

Symbology





10 EVIDENCE

Nota: El 9,1% del presupuesto de proyectos regionales (12,9 millones USD) no se pudo desglosar a nivel de países ya que su objetivo era fortalecer la gobernanza a nivel de la región mesoamericana y no a nivel de cada país. Tipos de cambio utilizados: 1 USD: 1,1214 Euros: 18,93 Pesos Mexicanos: 24,42 Lempira.

• Monitoring Systems Regarding the existence of technical monitoring systems in these

projects, for 32.4% no information could be obtained and 3.6% stated they didn´t have one, while 64% stated that they did have a technical monitoring system. Analyzing the projects´ period of execution, 2018 was identified as a critical closing year for many of these. This reflects the importance of proposing actions or new projects for their continuity.

• Budget Approximately 502 million USD have been invested in climate

change adaptation projects. However, budget information was obtained for only 70% of the 173 projects surveyed. The regional projects make up 28.1% of the total budget. These projects have mainly focused on Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador. The country with the lowest budget, both in national as well as regional, is Costa Rica, representing less than a quarter of the estimated budget for Honduras and Guatemala (see Figure 7).

Figure 7. Budget of climate change adaptation projects in USD considering the contribution of national and regional projects (%) within the total budget for each country.

US

D (

$)

El SalvadorPanama

180 000 000

M = $1,000,000

Contributions of national projects

Contributions of regional Project for each country

160 000 000

140 000 000

120 000 000

100 000 000

80 000 000

60 000 000

40 000 000

20 000 000

$ 159 M

65,2%

78,1%

0,4%

43,5% 13,7%

44,5%

55,5%

34,8%

21,9%99,6%

56,5% 86,3%

$ 123 M

$ 63 M

$ 48 M $ 59 M

$ 29 M

Guatemala Costa RicaHonduras Mexico-Chiapas

© 2

018

IUC

N/

Paú

l Ara

gón

11EVIDENCE

• The water resources issue is one of the least addressed in the activities of these projects. Considering the link between water resources and climate change, food security and the maintenance of environmental goods and services, it is essential to focus efforts on this issue to achieve a more sustainable adaptation to climate change.

• Capacity building activities are present and constitute a large part of the efforts in Costa Rica, Panama, El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras. This being the basis for the sustainability of adaptation measures, it is considered a priority to further strengthen those activities in these and other countries.

• The results showed that the participation of local groups as main executing actors of the projects is low. Due to the importance of providing sustainability and promoting local empowerment of community actors for the implementation of measures that reduce the effects of climate change, it is recommended to further boost their participation in decision-making.

• Most of the activities and communities where the projects intervened under the characteristics described here, implemented actions on the Pacific watershed, identifying an important gap in the Caribbean region.

• Given the low presence of monitoring systems in the projects analyzed, it is relevant to draw attention to the importance of designing, implementing and making accessible the results of technical monitoring systems. This is key for the follow-up and lessons learned that can be generated to strengthen and replicate these initiatives.

• The largest budget investment was directed toward countries within the core area of the Mesoamerican Dry Corridor and especially to Guatemala and Honduras. However, both in the number of projects and in the budget, an important gap is identified in forested areas and countries, where NBS are key to the adaptation of the Mesoamerican region in the medium and long term.

Conclusions and recommendations

© 2

018

IUC

N/

Paú

l Ara

gón

AuthorsMelissa Marín, Marta Pérez de Madrid, Elías Cruz, Fiorella Sánchez-Monge.

About the AVE projectThe AVE project: Adaptation, Vulnerability & Ecosystems seeks to scale the Ecosystem-based Adaptation (EbA) approach through the strengthening of capacities to address climate change, the articulation of political, legal and institutional frameworks and the gathering of evidence on their multiple benefits to increase resilience and reduce the vulnerability of people and nature. Its implementation is carried out since 2015 in six Mesoamerican countries (Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Costa Rica and Panama) with the support of the Federal Ministry of the Environment, Nature Protection and Nuclear Safety (BMU) of Germany, and executed by the Environmental Law Centre (ELC) and the Regional Office for Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), and in coordination with member organizations and partners such as the Fundación Hondureña de Ambiente y Desarrollo VIDA, the Unidad Ecológica Salvadoreña, the Sociedad de Historia Natural del Soconusco, the Asociación del Corredor Biológico Talamanca Caribe and the Trinational Commission of the Plan Trifinio.

For more information visit: https://www.iucn.org/node/594 - Contact: [email protected]

About IUCNIUCN is a membership Union composed of both government and civil society organisations. It harnesses the experience, resources and reach of its more than 1,300 Member organisations and the input of more than 10,000 experts. IUCN is the global authority on the status of the natural world and the measures needed to safeguard it.

© 2

018

IUC

N/

Paú

l Ara

gón

International Unionfor Conservation of Nature (IUCN)

Regional Office for Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean (ORMACC) San José, Costa [email protected]

www.iucn.org/ormacc

Environmental Law Centre (ELC)Bonn, Germany

[email protected]

www.iucn.org/law

trends, approaches and project opportunities on climate

Documents