Ecosystems protecting
infrastructure and communities
Lessons learned and guidelines for implementation
Editors: Fabiola Monty, Radhika Murti, Sriyanie Miththapala andCamille Buyck

Year 2015

Year 2017
Global Ecosystem Management Programme

SLFAbout IUCNIUCN is a membership Union uniquely composed of both government and civil society organisations.
It provides public, private and non-governmental organisations with the knowledge and tools thatenable human progress, economic development and nature conservation to take place together.
Created in 1948, IUCN is now the world’s largest and most diverse environmental network, harnessing the knowledge, resources and reach of more than 1,300 Member organisations and some 10,000
experts. It is a leading provider of conservation data, assessments and analysis. Its broad membership enables IUCN to fill the role of incubator and trusted repository of best practices, tools andinternational standards.
IUCN provides a neutral space in which diverse stakeholders including governments, NGOs, scientists, businesses, local communities, indigenous peoples organisations and others can work together
to forge and implement solutions to environmental challenges and achieve sustainable development.
Working with many partners and supporters, IUCN implements a large and diverse portfolio of conservation projects worldwide. Combining the latest science with the traditional knowledge of local
communities, these projects work to reverse habitat loss, restore ecosystems and improve people’s
well-being.

www.iucn.org
https://twitter.com/IUCN/Ecosystems protecting
infrastructure and communities
Lessons learned and guidelines for implementation
Editors: Fabiola Monty, Radhika Murti, Sriyanie Miththapala andCamille Buyck

The designation of geographical entities in this book, and the presentation of the material, do not imply theexpression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)
concerning the legal status of any country, territory, or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitationof its frontiers or boundaries.
The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of IUCN.
This publication has been produced with funding from the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature
Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety (BMUB) through the International Climate Initiative (IKI).

Published by:		

IUCN, Gland, Switzerland

Copyright:© 2017 IUCN, International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources
Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes
is authorized without prior written permission from the copyright holder provided thesource is fully acknowledged.
Reproduction of this publication for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibitedwithout prior written permission of the copyright holder.

Citation:Monty, F., Murti, R., Miththapala, S. and Buyck, C. (eds). 2017. Ecosystems protecting
infrastructure and communities: lessons learned and guidelines for implementation.
Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. x + 108pp.

Contributors:		

Sylvain Zabré, Karen Podvin, Alejandro Casteller, Erika Cortés, Alexia Stokes, Yan
Zhang, Karen Sudmeier-Rieux, Anu Adhikari, Sanjaya Devkota, El H. Ballé Seye,
Supranee Kampongsun and Jim Enright.

ISBN:			978-2-8317-1867-5 (print)
978-2-8317-1872-9 (PDF)

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH..2017.14.en

Cover photos:

Time-lapse of mangrove restoration site in Thailand in 2015 (Top) and 2017 (Bottom) ©
Mangrove Action Project

Back cover photo:

Exchange visit in Senegal between project beneficiaries from Burkina Faso andSenegal © IUCN/ Camille Buyck

Designed by:		

Chadi Abi (www.chadiabi.com)

Printed by: 		

ABP Global Printing Solutions (www.abp-project.ch)

Available from:IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature)
Rue Mauverney 28
1196 Gland
Switzerland
Tel +41 22 999 0000
Fax +41 22 999 0002
www.iucn.org/resources/publications

Acknowledgements:

We would like to thank all the partners and actors involved in the EPIC project who
contributed largely to its successful implementation. Our colleagues from the Global
Ecosystem Management Programme have provided important technical input
throughout the duration of this project particularly Edmund Barrow and Ali Raza Rizvi.
Special thank you to Angela Andrade and Marisol Estrella for the peer reviews andfeedback that contributed to improve this document. Thanks to Caroline Snow for
proofreading the document. Any remaining errors are the sole responsibility of theauthors.

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ...............................................................................................................

v

Chapter 1: Introduction ..........................................................................................................

1

1.1 Setting the Scene ..................................................................................................

2

1.2 Disasters, Climate change and ecosystem-based approaches ............................

4

1.3 Ecosystems Protecting Infrastructure and Communities ......................................

9

Chapter 2: Case studies ........................................................................................................

15

2.1 Burkina Faso ..........................................................................................................

18

2.1.1 Background and Context in Burkina Faso ....................................................

19

2.1.2 Operational approach in Burkina Faso ..........................................................

21

2.1.3 Results and challenges in Burkina Faso .......................................................

24

2.1.4 Lessons learned in Burkina Faso ..................................................................

26

2.2 Chile .......................................................................................................................

27

2.2.1 Background and Context in Chile .................................................................

28

2.2.2 Operational approach in Chile .......................................................................

29

2.2.3 Results and challenges in Chile ....................................................................

31

2.2.4 Lessons learned in Chile ...............................................................................

32

2.3 China ......................................................................................................................

34

2.3.1 Background and Context in China ................................................................

35

2.3.2 Operational approach in China .....................................................................

37

2.3.3 Results and challenges in China ...................................................................

39

2.3.4 Lessons learned in China ..............................................................................

40

2.4 Nepal ......................................................................................................................

41

2.4.1 Background and Context in Nepal ................................................................

42

2.4.2 Operational approach in Nepal .....................................................................

44

2.4.3 Results and challenges in Nepal ...................................................................

45

2.4.4 Lessons learned in Nepal ..............................................................................

47

iii

Ecosystems protecting infrastructure and communities: lessons learned and guidelines for implementation

2.5 Senegal .............................................................................................................................

48

2.5.1 Background and Context in Senegal .......................................................................

49

2.5.2 Operational approach in Senegal ............................................................................

50

2.5.3 Results and challenges in Senegal ..........................................................................

52

2.5.4 Lessons learned in Senegal .....................................................................................

54

2.6 Thailand ............................................................................................................................

55

2.6.1 Background and Context in Thailand ......................................................................

56

2.6.2 Operational approach in Thailand ............................................................................

59

2.6.3 Results and challenges in Thailand .........................................................................

60

2.6.4 Lessons learned in Thailand ....................................................................................

62

Chapter 3: Lessons learned .............................................................................................................

64

3.1 EPIC achievements and ingredients of success ..............................................................

65

3.1.1 Building resilience and reducing vulnerability ..........................................................

65

3.1.2 Mitigation of hazards and impacts of climate change .............................................

65

3.1.3 Generating science-based knowledge ....................................................................

66

3.1.4 Building capacities of local people ..........................................................................

66

3.1.5 Strengthening institutional capacities ......................................................................

66

3.1.6 Policy influence ........................................................................................................

67

3.2 Towards the effective implementation of Eco-DRR/CCA: lessons learned andrecommendations ...................................................................................................................

67

3.2.1 Lessons learned and recommendations for effective Eco-DRR/CCA science:
documenting effectiveness .....................................................................................

69

3.2.2 Lessons learned and recommendations for effective Eco-DRR/CCA practice:making our actions sustainable ..............................................................................

69

3.2.3 Lessons learned and recommendations for effective Eco-DRR/CCA policy
influence: making the case for Eco-DRR/CCA ........................................................

70

3.3 Towards the integration of Eco-DRR and EbA ...........................................................

70

Chapter 4: Guidance ........................................................................................................................

72

Reference .........................................................................................................................................

86

Annex 1: Mapping Questionnaires for EPIC based on the DRR-EbA learning framework ...............

94

Annex 2: Multi-stakeholders involved with EPIC in Burkina Faso ..................................................

102

Annex 3: Multi-stakeholders involved with EPIC in Chile ................................................................ 103
Annex 4: Multi-stakeholders involved with EPIC in China ................................................................ 104
Annex 5: Multi-stakeholders involved with EPIC in Nepal ............................................................... 105
Annex 6: Multi-stakeholders involved with EPIC in Senegal ............................................................ 106
Annex 7: Multi-stakeholders involved with EPIC in Thailand ........................................................... 107iv

© Jerome Nespoulos

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Ecosystems Protecting Infrastructure andto invest in ecosystem-based disasterCommunities (EPIC) is a global initiativerisk reduction, to have more effective

implemented from 2012 to 2017 toclimate change adaptation in the targeted

promote the use of ecosystem-basedsites. This flagship project is funded

approaches and protect communities

by the German Federal Ministry for thefrom disasters and the negative impacts

Environment, Nature Conservation, Buildingof climate change. It also aimed to haveand Nuclear Safety (BMUB) through theecosystem-based disaster risk reduction

International Climate Initiative (IKI). It wasrecognised in key global frameworks such

implemented at global and national levels

as the Convention on Biological Diversity

with pilot sites in six countries from three(CBD) and the United Nations Framework

regions – China, Nepal and Thailand inConvention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

Asia, Burkina Faso and Senegal in Africa as

The project demonstrated the needwell as Chile in South America.
v

Ecosystems protecting infrastructure and communities: lessons learned and guidelines for implementation

Ecosystem-based Disaster Risk Reduction(Eco-DRR) can be defined as the sustainable
management, conservation and restorationof ecosystems to reduce disaster risk,
with the aim of achieving sustainable andresilient development. While aiming toprimarily address disaster risk reduction, it
is recognised that Eco-DRR can contributeto climate change adaptation (CCA). Despite
increasing recognition of the importanceof ecosystem-based approaches for bothdisaster risk reduction and climate change
adaptation, implementation remains mostly
underdeveloped worldwide. With increasing
disaster challenges and climate change
threats, there is a sense of urgency to scaleup such approaches, given that ecosystemand the services that they provide can not only
mitigate the impacts of natural hazards andclimate change but they can also contributeto sustainable livelihoods and thus build
resilience.

implementation of ecosystem-based measuresfor disaster risk reduction and climate change
adaptation. Following the major policy
advances that support implementation of suchapproaches and the demand for technicalguidance to support actions on the ground,the diversity of EPIC case studies- covering
different types of ecosystems, hazards,
countries, regions and ecosystem-based
approaches-provide important lessons learned
for further actions.
The publication provides a detailed descriptionof the project’s operational approach anddraws lessons from the case studies toinform and guide best practices to implement
integrated ecosystem-based disaster risk
reduction and ecosystem-based adaptation(EbA). It is intended for practitioners worldwide
planning to initiate and/or scale-up ecosystembased measures for long-term resilience. It is
expected that these practitioners may range
from NGOs and government bodies within
the communities of practice of conservation,
humanitarian aid and disaster risk reduction,
sustainable development and climate change
adaptation.

Recent global policy developments now
provide important entry points to not only
scale-up these approaches but also toensure greater coherence through integrated
approaches for conservation, disaster risk
reduction and climate change adaptation. The
theme of the 2017 Global Platform for Disaster
Risk Reduction, “From commitment to action”
sets the tone for the priorities in the Eco-DRR
agenda. There are however several questions
that act as barriers to the uptake of Eco-DRR
actions on the ground: How do such initiatives
look like? How are they implemented? Arethey effective? What works or not? Thispublication presents details on Ecosystems
Protecting Infrastructure and Communities(EPIC), a pioneer global initiative which
promoted the implementation of ecosystembased approaches for disaster risk reduction
and climate change adaptation through fivecase studies in six countries. At the timethat EPIC was developed, it responded to
the need to build experiences and to address
the knowledge gaps with regards to the

Chapter 1 introduces developments in the
Eco-DRR agenda over the past decade andthe relevance of EPIC in taking it forward
by informing how action can be mobilised
to do more such work. There have beenmajor developments on the policy front thatnow provide opportunities to integrate EcoDRR and EbA and also to scale up suchwork. EPIC’s overarching goal is to ensurethat “ecosystem services are recognised,promoted and conserved as an integral partof disaster risk reduction policy, planning andprogramming in the six target countries and in
key global processes such as implementationof The Hyogo Framework of Action of UNISDR,
and climate change adaption framework of
the UNFCCC”. With a secondary objective ofshowing the relevance of Eco-DRR for climatechange adaptation, the project provides timelyvilearning opportunities to support coherent
actions.

at different levels from grassroots to national
levels.

The project used a strategy that simultaneously
combines: 1) the generation of science-basedknowledge, 2) implementation of ecosystembased measures and 3) policy advocacy. It also
used a multistakeholder approach engaging
research institutions, government agencies
and NGOS from different sectors and worked

Chapter 2 covers the implementation of
EPIC in each targeted country. It discusses
the individual approach used, achievements,
challenges and lessons learned in
implementing this flagship initiative on EcoDRR/CCA:Country

Project sites

Hazards
addressed

EcosystemKey message
based approach

BurkinaFaso

6 villages inNorthern Region

Droughts and Sustainable land
floodsmanagement

Chile

Biosphere
Avalanches,
Reserve Nevados landslides,de Chillán –rock falls
Laguna del Laja(Ñuble and Biobío)

Forestmanagement

In the Valle de las Trancas, healthy
forest ecosystems can play a crucialrole in protecting infrastructure andcommunities from avalanche andlandslide hazards.

China

Salween River
Valley (Yunnan
Province)

Landslides

Eco-engineering

An increase in plant diversity and proper
mixtures of crop and tree species inecological engineering projects could
improve protection against shallow
landslides and erosion, especially insouthwest China.

Nepal

3 villagesin Western
Development
Region of Nepal

Landslide
Eco-engineeringand sediment
runoffEPIC Nepal has demonstrated
successfully that eco-safe roads — anecosystem-based approach to disasterrisk reduction — are cost-effective andlocally adapted, with great potential
for reducing risk while increasing theresilience of communities living inlandslide-prone areas.

Senegal

6 villages in Fatick Droughts and Sustainable land
Regionsalinisation
management

Participatory and iterative approaches
ensure continued commitment from
communities.

Thailand2 villages in
the Krabi River
Estuary (Krabi
province)

Storm surges Mangroveand coastal
restoration
floodsvii

Involvement of communities in identifying
solutions to hazard risks, planning,
implementation and monitoring leads
to better community ownership of theinterventions.

Community-based Ecological Mangrove
Restoration (CBEMR) is an effective
method for successfully restoring
abandoned aquaculture ponds back to ahealthy, biodiverse mangrove bio-shield,
which will help protect communities,
infrastructure and agricultural lands fromtropical storms and erosion hazards.

Ecosystems protecting infrastructure and communities: lessons learned and guidelines for implementation

Chapter 3 analyses the successes
and challenges of EPIC and articulateslessons learned from the project as well asrecommendations to implement integrated
Eco-DRR and EbA initiatives using asimultaneous science-practice-policy
operational framework. EPIC’s experiencedemonstrates that effective implementation
requires working on three main aspects,
namely science, policy and practice:close collaborations and exchanges during
workshops and field visits can also facilitate
policy influence even when the benefits
from field-based interventions take time tomanifest.
In summary important ingredients of successto build resilience, generate science-basedknowledge, strengthen capacities of local people
and institutions and influence policy include:

1. Science: Science has a key role to playin documenting Eco-DRR/CCA evidence,either as leverage points to influence
policy as showcased in some of the casestudies, particularly Nepal, or to inform
evidence-based field interventions. It istherefore important to set up the basics
for strong science from the early stages
in an initiative, and to also engage withthe scientific community to create interestin contributing to knowledge creation onscientific evidence and good practices.
2. Practice: An important component of EcoDRR/CCA initiatives is their participatory
nature. To ensure community mobilisation,
adoption of and interest to continue thefield-based interventions, these need tobe relevant for the local communities. It isalso important to empower local people
through capacity building and to engage
them in project design, implementation andmonitoring.
3. Policy: Making the case for ecosystembased approaches is probably the mostimportant aspect to scale-up such work.
They do not only need to be mainstreamed
into different policies but also into different
sectors. In the case of EPIC, there arelessons learned mainly with regards
to mainstreaming ecosystem-based
approaches into different policies including
disaster risk reduction and climate change
adaptation. Constant engagements throughseveral meetings and training events withlocal and national policy-makers have been
instrumental to influence policy. These•• Working at different levels from local
to global level and engaging different
stakeholders•• Implementation of a participatory approachand giving a voice to local people fromthe start of the project, by involving themin the design of the activities (throughconsultation meetings and Vulnerability andCapacity Assessment workshops) as wellas implementation and monitoring•• Integrating livelihood improvement
strategies with ecosystem-based
interventions•• Including peer-to-peer learning
opportunities between local people throughexchange visits•• Early and constant collaboration withresearch institutions•• Building on existing relationships with local
networks and institutions•• Organising frequent events training
workshops and field visits to increase
capacity•• Linking capacity building with policy
advocacy
CHAPTER 4 compiles the lessons learned
from EPIC and builds on existing guidelines for
EbA implementation to propose a step-by-stepguidance to implement integrated Eco-DRR
and EbA initiatives:
While the fiver year-long EPIC initiative
provides preliminary insights on policy
development, research gaps andimplementation of Eco-DRR, it is hoped thatviii

the information contained in this publication
can inform future such initiatives for scaling-up
and promoting Eco-DRR. As we move forwardwith more coherent actions, the informationexchange with the technical guidance can be
two-way: 1) it can be used to develop andimplement new projects and 2) It can be kept

dynamic and relevant by being informed byother and new experiences. A mechanism thatcan be supported by global networks such as
the Partnership for Environment and Disaster
Risk Reduction (PEDRR) and the Friends of
EbA (FEBA).

ix

© Marcelo Vildósola

Chapter 1
The Ecosystem-based Disaster Risk Reduction
Agenda and relevance of EPIC in taking it forward
Fabiola Monty and Radhika Murti

Ecosystems protecting infrastructure and communities: lessons learned and guidelines for implementation

1.1 Setting the scene
The 2000s saw a growing interest in theimportance of ecosystems for human wellbeing.
The ecosystem approach defined as a “strategy
for the integrated management of land, waterand living resources that promote conservationand sustainable use in an equitable way”
and its principles were endorsed during thefifth Conference of the Parties (COP) to theConvention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in2000. However, it was not until 2004 thatthe attention started to be focused on therelationship between ecosystems and disasterrisk reduction, catalysed by the tsunami inSoutheast Asia. This growing interest however
remained expressed in research and knowledge
products. With the conservation, disasterrisk reduction and adaptation communities
operating separately, there were multiple
gaps to be filled to start building synergies
between these areas of work. At the time thatthe concept for the Ecosystems Protecting
Infrastructure and Communities (EPIC) initiative
was developed in 2010, there were few official
linkages between the different global policy
frameworks, namely the CBD, the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC) and the Hyogo Framework
for Action (HFA), the global blueprint for disasterrisk reduction from 2005 to 2015. In practice,there were also few or no experiences in theimplementation of ecosystem-based measuresfor disaster risk reduction and climate change
adaptation and significant knowledge gaps
on the effectiveness of such approaches. The
need to build experiences and to address theknowledge gaps combined with new funding
opportunities initiated several global field-based
pilot projects worldwide such as EPIC. These
initiatives started to build a knowledge base andlessons for the implementation of ecosystembased approaches, and contributed to a shift inpractice and on the policy scene.

and Disaster Risk Reduction (PEDRR), has
contributed to several advances in global
policies with opportunities for greater
coherence. During the UNFCCC COP 19
in 2013, it was evident that Disaster Risk
Reduction (DRR) including Ecosystem-based
Disaster Risk Reduction (Eco-DRR) had attained
a more prominent place in the climate change
agenda with increasing effort to identify andcapitalise on the links and commonalities
between DRR and Climate Change Adaptation(CCA), with ecosystem management being a key
one. This places EPIC as a timely initiative toserve as one of the first demonstrative pilots on
how to operationalise ecosystem management
for adaptation (long-term) and DRR (short- to
medium-term).
In the past few years, there have been major
policy advances (Figure 1) that not only provide
opportunities to scale-up ecosystem-based
approaches for disaster risk reduction but
they also facilitate the uptake of integrated
approaches for conservation, DRR, CCA andmore recently climate change mitigation. A key
milestone for the disaster risk reduction field
was the adoption of the Sendai Frameworkfor Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030, thesuccessor to the Hyogo Framework for Action
2005-2015. The Sendai framework was thefirst agreement of the post-2015 development
agenda and places a stronger emphasis on theimportance of ecosystems. It also proposesa more rigorous monitoring framework that isaligned with the global monitoring framework of
the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG).
As we now move towards the implementationof these key policies and the scaling-up of
ecosystem-based measures for disaster risk
reduction and climate change adaptation, it isparticularly important to showcase and capture
lessons learned from initiatives like EPIC to be
included in broader and integrated strategies
to build resilience. Drawing from EPIC’s casestudies, this publication focuses on presenting

Collaborative advocacy work between different
organisations, for example through networks
such as the Partnership for Environment2

Figure 1. Major international agreements and policy developments of relevance to ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction (Adaptedfrom Renaud et al., 2016)©IUCN/Doris Cordero3

Ecosystems protecting infrastructure and communities: lessons learned and guidelines for implementation

preliminary lessons learned and guidance on
how to implement ecosystem-based disasterrisk reduction for long-term climate change
adaptation. It is hoped that it will provide
insights on how action can be mobilised toreplicate and scale-up such work.

worldwide with extreme weather events,‘natural’ disasters and failure of mitigation andadaptation to climate change being among the
top global risks to societies and economies interms of likelihood and possible impacts (Figure
4; World Economic Forum, 2017).

1.2 Disasters, climate change andecosystem-based approaches

While efforts to address disaster challenges
have been primarily focused on disastermanagement, the recent global developmenton the policy scene is now calling for greater
emphasis on disaster risk reduction, namely theprevention of disasters and new disaster risks(UNISDR, 2017).

Increasing disaster risks and losses
The occurrence of disasters has been generally
on the rise for the past three decades (Figure 2).
While the number of reported disasters showeda slight drop from 2015 to 2016, economic
losses due to disasters are almost twice as
great in 2016 as compared to 2015 (Figure 3).

Role of ecosystems in disaster risk
reduction
It is now recognised that the state of theenvironment and the occurrence and extent
of impacts of disasters are related. In an ideal
situation where ecosystems are maintainedin a healthy state, they are able to provide
multiple benefits for human well-being, namely
ecosystem services. Such services can be

With climate change and the predictions
that it will create new risks, disaster losses
are likely to persist and increase. The 2017global risk assessment is a clear reminder thatenvironmental risks are a priority challenge

Figure 2. Trend in reported number of disaster events per natural hazard type worldwide, 1975-2015 (compiled from data from CRED
EM-DAT-database, 2016)

4

Figure 3. Number of reported disasters in 2015 and 2016 and total economic losses due to disasters in the same years (compiled fromdata from CRED EM-DAT-database, 2017)

Figure 4. Top 10 identified global risks in terms of likelihood and impacts for 2017 (Source: World Economic Forum, 2017)5

Ecosystems protecting infrastructure and communities: lessons learned and guidelines for implementation

Box 1.1 Basic definitions
Hazard: A process, phenomenon or human activity that may cause loss of life, injury or other
health impacts, property damage, social and economic disruption or environmental degradation.
Exposure: The situation of people, infrastructure, housing, production capacities and othertangible human assets located in hazard-prone areas
Vulnerability: The conditions determined by physical, social, economic and environmental
factors or processes which increase the susceptibility of an individual, a community, assets or
systems to the impacts of hazards.
Resilience: The ability of a system, community or society exposed to hazards to resist, absorb,
accommodate to and recover from the effects of a hazard in a timely and efficient manner,
including through the preservation and restoration of its essential basic structures and functions.
Underlying disaster risk drivers: Processes or conditions, often development-related that
influence the level of disaster risk by increasing levels of exposure and vulnerability or reducing
capacity.
Disaster Risk: The potential loss of life, injury, destroyed or damaged assets which could occur
to a system, society or a community in a specific period of time, determined probabilistically as afunction of hazards, exposure, vulnerability and capacity.
Disaster: A serious disruption of the functioning of a community or a society involving
widespread human, material, economic or environmental losses and impacts which exceeds theability of the affected community or society to cope using its own resources.
Disaster risk reduction: the concept of reducing disaster risks through systematic efforts
to analyze and manage the causal factors of disasters, including through reduced exposure
to hazards, lessened vulnerability of people and property, wise management of land and theenvironment, and improved preparedness for adverse events.
Source: UNISDR, 2009; United Nations, 2016

harnessed to help people prepare for, copewith and recover from disasters (Figure 5). For
example, ecosystems such as mangroves, coral
reefs and sand dunes can provide physicalprotection from the direct impacts of natural
hazards and they can also reduce underlying
vulnerabilities of communities through provisionof subsistence, livelihood options and safety
nets (Estrella and Saalismaa, 2013).

degradation also contributes to disaster risk byincreasing socio-economic vulnerability with
reduced availability of goods and services that
support livelihoods and other human needs(Sudmeier-Rieux, 2013). With ecosystemdegradation proceeding at unprecedented andalarming rates worldwide (Steffen et al., 2015),
there is a sense of urgency to address thismajor driver of disaster risk, and depending on
how we manage ecosystems, we can be getting
closer or farther away from the solutions forlong-term resilience (Figure 6).

With ecosystem degradation, however,for example land clearing and vegetation
loss, physical exposure to hazards, such as
landslides, flooding, storm surges and drought,
can be significantly increased thus aggravating
their impacts on communities. Ecosystem

In the past decade, PEDRR has led thedevelopment of the concept of Ecosystembased Disaster Risk Reduction (Eco-DRR)

6

Figure 5. Multiple benefits provided by ecosystems (Adapted from PEDRR (2015) Training materials (unpublished))

Figure 6. Theoretical model on linkages between state of ecosystems and either resilience or vulnerability (Adapted from Monty et al.,
2016)

7

Ecosystems protecting infrastructure and communities: lessons learned and guidelines for implementation

defined as “Sustainable management,
conservation and restoration of ecosystems to
reduce disaster risk, with the aim of achieving
sustainable and resilient development” (Estrella
and Saalismaa, 2013). The concept promotes
the use of ecosystem management approaches
such as integrated coastal zone management
and area based conservation for reducing
the physical exposure to a potential disaster
faced by a community as well as underlying
risks (such as poverty) that may exacerbate
vulnerabilities of that community to a potential
disaster.

is defined as “the use of biodiversity andecosystem services as part of an overall
adaptation strategy to help people adapt to theadverse effects of climate change” (CBD, 2009)
and “…may include sustainable management,
conservation and restoration of ecosystems,
as part of an overall adaptation strategy thattakes into account the multiple social, economic
and cultural co-benefits for local communities”(CBD, 2010). The pre-existing EbA definition
provided the basis for the now widely accepted
definition of Eco-DRR (Renaud et al., 2016) andthus it is not surprising that comparison of both
approaches highlights more similarities thandifferences between the two concepts (Doswald
and Estrella, 2015). The main differences
between Eco-DRR and EbA are related to 1)
their main goal and objectives, 2) the actors
involved, 3) the policy fora involved and 4)
the type of hazards that they address (Table1) but there are now also increasing points of
convergence in these different areas.

Linkages between Eco-DRR and
Ecosystem-based Adaptation
It is generally agreed that there is an overlap
between Ecosystem-based Adaptation(EbA) and Eco-DRR initiatives. In termsof implementation, both approaches are
based on the preservation, sustainable use
and restoration of ecosystem services. EbA

Table 1. Main differences between Eco-DRR and EbA (Source: Doswald and Estrella, 2015)
Eco-DRR

EbA

1) Goal and objectives• Addresses disaster risk reduction(DRR)• Aims to reduce disaster risk andincrease protection and resilienceagainst hazards• Addresses climate change adaptation(CCA)• Aims to reduce vulnerability andincrease resilience to climate change

2) Actors involved• Environmental agencies/
ministries, conservation NGO but
also humanitarian and disastermanagement actors at local andnational levels, as well as climatechange focal points• Environmental agencies/ministries,
conservation NGOs, climate change
national focal points; usually does notengage with humanitarian or disastermanagement actors3) Policy advocacy• Targets climate change adaptation
strategies, environmental policies,
and other sectoral policies( e.g.
water, agriculture)• Engages with the environmental
ministries/agencies and theconservation community, but still witha tendency to operate in separate
policy tracks, depending on whether
the project is more oriented towards
DRR or CCA

4) Hazards• Manages both climate and nonclimate related hazards including
earthquakes, volcanoes, avalanches,tsunamis• Manages only climate-related natural
hazards and long-term impacts ofclimate change.

8While EbA strategies target only climatechange adaptation (CCA), it is generally agreed
that Eco-DRR can also support long-term
adaptation given that climate change is also adriver of disaster risk (Estrella and Saalismaa,
2013; Renaud et al., 2016). In practice, several
initiatives can be described interchangeably
as either Eco-DRR or EbA. In a compilation ofrecent developments in the field of Eco-DRR
and EbA, Renaud et al. (2016) highlighted
that ecosystem-based approaches play arole in achieving both DRR and CCA anddefined projects that cover both Eco-DRR
and EbA (Eco-DRR/CCA) as: “the sustainable
management, conservation, and restoration of
ecosystems to reduce disaster risk and adapt
to the consequences of climate change, withthe aim of achieving sustainable and resilient
development”.

This framework and particularly the criteria
developed further showcase the similarities
with Eco-DRR. It must also be noted that EbA
and Eco-DRR both fall under the Nature-based
solutions (NbS) umbrella concept. IUCN defines
NbS as “actions to protect, sustainably manage
and restore natural or modified ecosystems,
which address societal challenges effectively
and adaptively, while simultaneously providing
human well-being and biodiversity benefits”(Cohen-Shacham et al., 2016).
This highlights two important converging
aspects of EbA and Eco-DRR: 1) they differ
from “business as usual” conservation in thesense that they are anthropocentric and focusedon providing societal benefits and 2) while
addressing societal challenges like climatechange and disasters, they can also provide
multiple benefits beyond risk reduction andadaptation (Renaud et al., 2016).

While there are accepted definitions for both
EbA and Eco-DRR and comparisons between
the two concepts, it is useful to be able toidentify what can be called EbA and EcoDRR and how these can be implemented.
The Friends of EbA network (FEBA) recently
developed a framework for defining what
qualifies as EbA (2017) and it identified threeelements and five criteria to help identify EbA
measures (Table 2).

1.3 Ecosystems Protecting
Infrastructure andCommunities
EPIC promoted the implementation of EcoDRR through five case studies in Burkina
Faso and Senegal, Chile, China, Nepal andTable 2. Elements and criteria that define EbA measures (Source: FEBA, 2017)
Element A

EbA helps people adapt to climate change

Criterion 1

Reduces social and environmental vulnerabilities

Criterion 2

Generates societal benefits in the context of climate change adaptation

Element B

EbA makes active use of biodiversity and ecosystem services

Criterion 3

Restores, maintains or improves ecosystem health

Element C

EbA is part of an overall adaptation strategy

Criterion 4

Is supported by policies at multiple levels

Criterion 5

Supports equitable governance and enhances capacities

9Ecosystems protecting infrastructure and communities: lessons learned and guidelines for implementation

Thailand (Figure 7; Table 3). The choice of thesecountries was guided by several factors: IUCN
in-country presence; building on past work; andexisting partnerships, particularly in Thailand,
Burkina Faso, Nepal and Senegal. For Chile andChina, they were priority sites for partners andstakeholders involved. Each case study focusedon the use of at least one or a combination of
ecosystem-based approaches to catalyse andpromote improved management of ecosystems– and harness multiple ecosystem services –to protect vulnerable communities from risks
associated with climate change and natural
hazards. EPIC’s overarching goal is to ensurethat “ecosystem services are recognised,promoted and conserved as an integral partof disaster risk reduction policy, planning andprogramming in the six target countries and in
key global processes such as implementationof The Hyogo Framework of Action of UNISDR,
and climate change adaption framework of
the UNFCCC”. It is important to note that the

EPIC funding was provided through the EbA
window of the IKI funds. Therefore, a secondary
objective of EPIC was to show the relevanceof Eco-DRR to EbA. It is thus accurate to label
EPIC more as a hybrid Eco-DRR/CCA project
than just Eco-DRR.
The project was implemented by IUCN regionaland country offices, together with key external
partners (Table 3; See also chapter 2 and annex
2-7 for more details on different stakeholders
involved).

Project implementation framework
In order to achieve its ambitious goal within
five years, the project focused on three main
aspects, namely science, policy and practices
on the ground (Figure 8) by:•• Documenting scientific evidence andtraditional knowledge – using a common
research framework with research partners

Figure 7. EPIC project sites

10Table 3. EPIC case studies, focus and main partners in the six counties of implementation
Country

Focus

Main partner

Case study 1 : Strengthening Local Climate Change Adaptation Strategies in West Africa
SenegalStrengthening local resilience to floods
and impacts of land salinisation

Regional Committee on Climate change(COMRECC)

Burkina Faso

Strengthening local resilience to floods
and drought

Association pour la Promotion des Œuvres
Sociales (APROS)

Case study 2 : Demonstrating Ecological Mangrove Restoration
ThailandCommunity-based ecological mangrove
restoration against coastal hazards

Mangrove Action Project, Thailand

Case study 3 : Demonstrating the use of ecosystem services for landslide stabilisation and erosion
reduction along rural roadsides, or “eco-safe roads”
Nepal

Investigating the use of eco-engineering
for the stabilisation of steep slopes

University of Lausanne, Switzerland

Case study 4 : Eco-engineering for stabilisation of steep slopes in Southern China
China

Investigating the use of eco-engineering
for the stabilisation of steep slopes

French National Institute for Agricultural
Research (INRA)

Case study 5 : Quantifying and Improving the Protective Capacity of Forests against Snow Avalanches
Chile

Promoting the use of forest for avalancherisk management

Snow and Avalanche Research Institute,
Switzerland

Collecting scientific evidence from the field

SCIENCE

GlobalWorking with
communities,building goodpractices

PRACTICE

National(government,
NGOs, researchorganisations,private sector)

Local

Figure 8. The strategy used by EPIC combining science, practice and policy

11

Multi
Stakeholder
Dialogues

POLICY

Policy influenceand capacity
building on
Eco-DRR

Ecosystems protecting infrastructure and communities: lessons learned and guidelines for implementationand ensuring that local solutions (mainly
based on traditional and cultural practices)were prioritised as interventions.
•• Building capacities to understandvulnerabilities and take action by using
best practices – facilitating community
led actions as well as leadership to
explore, document and promote asystematic approach for using ecosystemmanagement interventions for risk
reduction from disasters.
•• Promoting effective policies for integrated
approaches to disaster risk reduction,
climate change adaptation and environment
management – identification of and actively
targeting national and sub-national policy
opportunities for mainstreaming Eco-DRR,

as well as creating policies and acts toaddress gaps.
These three aspects are applied simultaneously
bringing together a wide range of actors andstakeholders from the local, sub-national,
national and global levels to establish acommon agenda of reducing society’s risks
to disasters through different sets of activities(Table 4). It must be noted, however, that there
were several variations in the implementationof activities across the countries with different
levels of success in the implementation of
the science-policy-practice interface but
this is covered in more detail in the following
chapters.

Table 4. Level of engagements and activities implemented as part of EPIC in the targeted countries
Engagement
level

ScienceCommunityüSub-national

National

ü

PolicyüüPractice

Activities

Approachü• Vulnerability capacity
assessment• Participatory tools; Multistakeholder interviews; Deskbased literature• Development andvalidation of actionplans• Consultation meetings• Training of communities• Field-based demonstrations• Field interventions• Ecosystem-based
approaches; Livelihood
diversification• Monitoring• Action learning approach• Research• Field data collection andmodelling• Risk profiling• Desk-based literature review;
Field data collection andmapping analysis• Capacity building andawareness-raising• PEDRR training materials andworkshops• Policy influence• Advocacy and collaboration
with local government officials• Capacity building andawareness-raising• PEDRR training materials andworkshops• Policy influence• Advocacy and collaboration
with national government
officials

12

Global engagement•• 2014: CBD COP 12 Decision XII/20 andPromise of Sydney document from the
IUCN World Parks Congress in 2014highlighted the critical need to actively
employ conservation measures in DRR•• 2014-2015: Advocacy with EPIC countries’
governments for inclusion of Eco-DRR
principles in new global framework fordisaster risk reduction•• 2015: Adoption of the Sendai frameworkthat recognises sustainable managementof ecosystems as a way to build disaster
resilience

In parallel to implementation of the six caseson the ground, EPIC provided the opportunity
to influence global policy mechanisms. As
lessons learned started emerging from theprocess of implementation as well as fromtesting the concept of Eco-DRR, relevant
global policy frameworks were informed of thepotential of Eco-DRR in enhancing community
resilience and in promoting environmentallyfriendly approaches to DRR and sustainable
development. Through a combination of
approaches – advocacy, capacity building andawareness-raising workshops, disseminationof knowledge products and publications,the project was able to support global policy
coherence particularly from its second year of
implementation. Key achievements include thefollowing:

Monitoring, evaluation and learning
A DRR-EbA learning framework has beendeveloped by IUCN as a mechanism to gather
information on Eco-DRR and EbA as a part of aprocess to generate evidence-based knowledge
for “nature-based solutions”. Intended tohelp mainstream risk reduction elements andapproaches in EbA related work – and viceversa – the overall purpose of this framework
is to enable practitioners to document thevalue addition and effectiveness of Eco-DRR•• 2012: Adoption of a resolution on the needfor the conservation community to prioritise
engagements in disaster risk reduction by
way of Eco-DRR during the IUCN World
Conservation Congress© IUCN/ Fabiola Monty13

Ecosystems protecting infrastructure and communities: lessons learned and guidelines for implementation

initiatives for human resilience enhancement.
This Framework builds on, and is related to
IUCN’s EbA Learning Framework, which has
been developed to promote EbA approaches
that result in sustainable management
practices, and coherent scientific and policy
messages. Developed under EPIC, the DRREbA framework unpacks core questions
integrating DRR/CCA aspects as well as key
questions for project implementation analysis(Annex 1). The framework was used in 2015,
after 3 years of implementation to conduct a
mid-term review of EPIC. This mid-term review

focused on 1) assessing the main project’s
impacts on the three components, and 2)
identifying factors of success and challenges
in implementing such Eco-DRR/CCA project.
Dedicated questionnaires were developed so
as to gather partners’ views on the project andlessons from the implementation of the casestudies. In 2016 and 2017, a project evaluation
was conducted and used a logical framework
to assess progress, performance, achievements
and lessons learned towards EPIC’s overarching
project goal.

14© Claire Pedrot

Chapter 2
Implementation of EPIC: country case studies

15

Ecosystems protecting infrastructure and communities: lessons learned and guidelines for implementation

Though EPIC case studies have common
characteristics, they also show a high range ofdiversity (Table 5). They cover a wide range of
ecosystems including mountainous ecosystems,
coastal areas and drylands. They address arange of hazards from landslides in Nepal todroughts in Burkina Faso and avalanches inChile and also have a multi-hazard approach,whereby one intervention addresses more than

one hazard, such as in Chile. They also illustratethat Eco-DRR/CCA approaches can cover arange and combination of ecosystem-based
approaches depending on the hazards thatneeds to be addressed. For all the case studies,the focus of the interventions with regards todisaster risk reduction is mitigation of hazards
impacts and reduction of vulnerability.

16

17

6 villages
in Fatick
Region2 villages
in the Krabi
River Estuary(Krabiprovince)

Thailand

SalweenRiver Valley(YunnanProvince)

China

SenegalBiosphere
Reserve
Nevadosde Chillán –Laguna delLaja (Ñuble
and Biobío)

Chile

3 villagesin Western
Development
Region ofNepal

6 villages
in Northern
RegionBurkina
Faso

Nepal

Project sites

Country

Agriculture

Mountain

Agriculture,
livestock
rearing andfisheries

Fishing,aquaculture
andsubsistence
harvesting of
NTFP

Agroecosystems;
Mangroves

Mangrove

Agriculture
and livestock

Plantation
forestry,
agriculture
and tourism

Forests

Mountain

Agriculture,
livestock and
trade

Livelihood (s)Dryland;Agroecosystems

Ecosystems

Table 5. Summary of EPIC country case studies

To strengthen local adaptation strategies toclimate change

Mangrove
To use the Community Based EcologicalMangrove Restoration (CBEMR) method to restore restoration
abandoned aquaculture ponds to productive
mangroves, which will aid coastal protection andsupport resource based livelihoods, especiallyfisheries.

Droughts
andsalinisation

Stormsurges andcoastalfloodsSustainable land
management

Bio-engineering
To build resilience to landslide risk through thedemonstration of ‘eco-safe’ roads. This comprises
up-scaling the use of ecosystem services along
rural roads for landslide stabilisation.

Landslideandsediment
runoffCommunity based EcologicalMangrove Restoration

Restoration of vegetation
through assisted naturalregeneration, soil stabilisation
through traditional techniques

Restoration of slopes andbio-engineering for landstabilisation

Stabilising slopes with nativeand mixed species vegetation
to protect farming slopes andcommunities

Eco-engineering

To identify native plant species playing a keyrole in stabilising and to establish relevant
planting mixtures of these species in the target
hillside landscapes (eco-engineering to combat
landslides)

Identification, protection andsustainable use of native
forests as protective barriersin the Chilean Andes

Forestmanagement

To quantify and optimise the value of mountainecosystems in the reduction of risk associatedwith snow avalanches and other natural
disturbances, such as rockfalls and debris flows.

Avalanches,
landslides,
rock falls

Landslides

Restoration of vegetation
cover through assisted
natural regeneration andimprovement of water tables
using traditional techniques

Sustainable land
management

Field interventions

Ecosystem-based
approach

To diversify and strengthen the actors andtheir strategies involved in the prevention andadaptation to climate change impacts (drought
and floods) on livelihoods and natural resources.

Goal of country project

Droughts
and floods

Hazards
addressed

Ecosystems protecting infrastructure and communities: lessons learned and guidelines for implementation

Burkina Faso
Sylvain Zabré and Fabiola Monty

Key Message
Involvement of communities in identifying solutions tohazard risks, planning, implementation and monitoring
leads to better community ownership of the interventions.

Fast facts on Burkina Faso*
Population: 18.65 Million
Main Livelihood: 90% of the working population are
subsistence farmers (Agriculture contributes 33% of GDP
and employs 90% of the working population)
Gross domestic product based on purchasing-powerparity (PPP) per capita GDP (current international dollar):
1,884.364
Human Development Index: 0.402 (ranks 185th in theworld)
Poverty headcount ratio at national poverty lines: 40.1%
Main drivers of ecosystem change:•• Loss of vegetation and biodiversity•• Loss of soil nutrients and organic carbon•• Water and wind erosion•• Loss of water availability, quality and reliability
World Risk Index:*(Sources: World Bank, 2017; IMF, 2017a; UNDP, 2016; IUCN and ProAct, 2013a;
United Nations University, 2016)18

2.1.1 Background and context in Burkina
Faso

although climate scenarios have yielded unclear
results, the country has already experienced anincrease in ambient temperature, a decreasein rainfall, along with a decrease in the average
number of rainy days per year, and more
frequent and intense weather events. The
northern region of Burkina Faso is particularly
prone to climatic extremes. The region is
located in the Sahelian agro-climatic area,
characterised by two alternating seasons: along dry season of eight months (October toMay); and a short rainy season of four months(from June to September) which brings about
650 mm and 1,000 mm. This precipitation ischaracterised by considerable seasonal andinter-annual variability (IUCN and ProAct,
2013a). During the dry season, the region
experiences dry, cool, harmattan winds1, usuallyfrom November to April (IUCN and ProAct,
2013a).

Burkina Faso is a landlocked country, borderedby Mali in the north, Niger in the east, Benin in
the southeast, Togo and Ghana in the south andCôte d’Ivoire in the southwest. It extends over
274,200 km2 and is largely flat (Barbier et al.,2009). It is one of the poorest countries in theworld, with a GDP per capita of USD 725.2. An
estimated 40.1% of the population lives below
the national poverty line, comprising 16 million
people (DANIDA, 2013; World Bank, 2017).
Poverty in Burkina Faso has a distinctly ‘ruralface’, and while 20.6% of urban dwellers fell
below the poverty line in 2009, an equivalent
figure of 48.8% was observed in rural areas(Kyendrebeogo et al., 2011). Regional disparities
are also stark, with poverty rates of 68%
and 17% in the northern and central regions
respectively (IMF, 2012a).

According to Burkina Faso’s NAPA (2007), thenorthern region is prone to drought, floods,
high winds and high temperatures. These
recurrent climatic risks are occurring withincreasing intensity, and their negative impacts
are exacerbated by non-climatic driversof vulnerability, including conflict, famine,
deforestation and disease. From 2007 to 2012,
the region experienced annual natural disasters
such as floods, drought and strong winds(PDSANS, 2012).

Burkina Faso’s economy revolves around
activities dependent on environmental services
and natural resources that are sensitive toclimatic variability. Agro-pasture and forestry
encompass 86% of livelihoods and account for
40% of national GDP, making them the country’s
main sources of economic growth (Kalame etal., 2011). Over 95% of Burkina Faso’s rural
inhabitants depend on forest resources tosatisfy their energy needs, while non-timber
forest products; wildlife, pastoral and fisheries
resources generate income and play an integralrole in the sustenance of cultural traditions andlivelihoods (Yeye, 2010).

Relevance of Eco-DRR interventions
Burkina Faso houses significant biologicalresources, however anthropogenic pressures(demographic growth, agriculture and energy
demands) and climatic factors (climate change,
hazard events and erosion) have fragmented
and destroyed ecosystem components
enhancing vulnerability (IUCN and ProAct,
2013a). Land degradation is a huge challenge
in Burkina Faso, a phenomenon known to be
exacerbated by conversion of natural habitats

Climate change and disaster risk
Burkina Faso has one of the most extreme
and variable climates in the world (González
et al., 2011). It is prone to strong spatiotemporal variability and irregular rainfall patterns(Hagenlocher, 2013; WB, 2011). Burkina Faso
ranks 15th in the world in lacking adaptive
capacities to combat climate change, and1

A dry and dusty northeasterly trade wind, of the same name, which blows from the Sahara Desert over West Africa into
the Gulf of Guinea.

19Ecosystems protecting infrastructure and communities: lessons learned and guidelines for implementation

into agricultural land and overexploitation offorest products (UNEP, 2015). Data from theUNEP-funded Global Assessment of HumanInduced Soil Degradation (GLASOD) classifies
around 40% of national territory as having‘very severe’ land degradation, rendering
Burkina Faso the most affected country inWest Africa (FAO, 2007). Land degradation anddesertification contributes to loss of land fertility,
reduced agricultural production, reduced
income, and poverty and food insecurity. It
is estimated that desertification costs theequivalent of 9% of national agricultural GDP
per annum (Jorio, 2013).

national territory (RDP, 2010). The study sites
include six villages within four municipalities(marked in red and green respectively in Figure
9: Namissiguima (villages of Basnéré, Birdininga
and Tougou), Koumbri (Tibtenga village), Barga(Ramdolla village) and Titao (Sillia village).
EPIC’s project area is one of the most vulnerable
to climatic risks and natural disasters in West
Africa. Using existing national and regional
assessments on vulnerability to climate change,
food insecurity and poverty, three criteria wereused to identify the northern region based on:
1. The level of vulnerability to climate change
2. The level of food insecurity
3. Poverty level

Policy context
There are twelve policies and plans that are
relevant to climate change and disaster risk
reduction and among these, three are the mostimportant. These are i) the National Adaptation
Plan of 2015, which attempts to reduce
vulnerability to the impacts of climate change bydeveloping adaptation and resilience capabilities
and facilitate the integration of climatechange adaptation into policies, programmes,
activities, development planning processes
and strategies within relevant sectors and atdifferent levels; ii) the National Strategy of Risk,
Humanitarian Crises and Disasters Prevention
and Management 2015-2017 to better
manage disasters and humanitarian crises;
and the National Action Plan to implement theConvention on Biodiversity 2011-2015 thatwill carry out realistic and achievable actions
for the preservation and restoration of species
and their environment, as well as engage indynamic management and sustainable use ofnatural resources by empowering all the actors,
particularly local communities.

Final choice of the villages within the region
was done following consultations withgovernment technicians and sites visits. As thearea comprises of 52 villages, the geographic
distance between each were considered toensure a representative geographic coverage.
Objectives of EPIC in Burkina Faso
The overall goal of the project was to diversify
and strengthen the actors and their strategies
involved in the prevention and adaptation toclimate change impacts on livelihoods andnatural resources in two countries of West
Africa.
Its specific objectives are:
1. To document and assess the risks and/or
effects of climate change on poor people,
on poverty efforts to the benefit of local
decision-makers of the rural development,water resources and environment sectors;
2. To demonstrate economic benefits ofintegrated ecosystem-based adaptation
strategies on the reduction of rural poor
communities’ vulnerability.

EPIC sites in Burkina Faso
The case study was conducted in the provincesof Yatenga and Lorum in Burkina Faso’s
northern region. These two provinces extend
over 16,130 km2 and represent 6.5% of the20

Figure 9. Map of the EPIC sites in Burkina Faso

2.1.2 Operational approach in Burkina
Faso
EPIC implementation in Burkina Faso consistedof 7 main steps: 1) baseline assessment on thenorthern region of Burkina Faso, 2) selection ofvillages, 3) vulnerability capacity assessment
and identification of local innovations to address
identified risks, 4) development of action plan,5) validation of the action plan and production ofannual work plan of activities in each village, 6)
training of communities for the implementationof activities and 7) implementation of activities.

mostly community representatives from thesix targeted villages as well as representatives
from local NGOs, local government agencies
and a national research institution. The Climate
Resilience Evaluation for Adaptation throughEmpowerment (CREATE) participatory tool wasused to guide community members to identify,
analyse and document their vulnerabilities.
Using a conceptual framework that breaks
down vulnerability and capacity into simple
matrices, CREATE can be used to qualitatively
assess social vulnerability and capacity.

Vulnerability and capacity assessment
The design and implementation of ecosystembased approaches for community resiliencein Burkina Faso was shaped by a vulnerability
capacity assessment (VCA) conducted in July
2013 in the northern region. The VCA was
conducted during a five-day participatory
workshop convening 52 participants including

In the context of EPIC, the CREATE tool namely
its vulnerability assessment matrices werecombined with the toolkit Promoting Local
Innovation (PLI) which uses “creative exercisesand discussions and lead participants into a
process of mutual learning and knowledge
exchange aimed at identifying and promoting
local adaptation capacities in the form of21

Ecosystems protecting infrastructure and communities: lessons learned and guidelines for implementation

innovations” (Marthez-Stiefiel and Murti, 2014).
The combination of these two tools allows to: 1)
document the problems by identifying priority
factors that contribute to vulnerabilities and 2) to
identify and prioritise locally-relevant solutions
or local innovations to respond to risks andclimate change impacts. A summary of theintegrated approach is summarised in Table 6
below.

grassland, water bodies, tree vegetation
etc. Based on the assessment of factors
contributing to vulnerability, the participants
identified the innovations in Table 7. During
implementation, additional activities to diversify
and improve livelihoods for example vegetablegardening were also included.
Following the identification of the innovations,
six individual village action plans weredeveloped to implement these. The action plans
contained the following information: 1) Actors
involved and their roles, 2) list of activities forexample collection of stones and constructionof stone bunds, 3) Strategy to be used forexample training and exchange visits, 4) timeline
and 5) the expected results such as ownershipof the innovations by the communities.

Outcomes of the VCA workshop in Burkina
Faso
The VCA workshop in Burkina Faso revealed
that the most important climatic factors
impacting the villages were mostly droughts,
floods, strong winds and high temperature andthese are mostly having negative impacts on
agriculture, livestock, vegetable gardening,

Table 6. Summary of integrated CREATE/PLI approach to assess social vulnerability and identify local innovations
Step

Goal

Description

1

Establishing joint teamwork values
and climate change problem
diagnosis

Getting to know each other through introductions,establishing a sense of teamwork and common values
through role plays focused on conflict resolution andpast experiences.
Using vulnerability assessment matrices, defining
the climate change problem. Establishing nonclimatic sensitivities and external factors beyond thecommunity’s control.

2

Joint visioning for the future

Visioning for the future through 2-D or 3-D models of thegeographical landscape and discussions on the desired
socio-economic and socio-ecological condition.

3

Identifying adaptation responses(termed innovations)

Communities identify solutions with inputs from external
actors, as needed.
Mapping of information gaps on the solutions. Using
peer-to-peer learning in a marketplace setting toappraise all responses according to ecological(including CC and disasters) concerns, socio-political/
economic considerations and cultural, ethical, healthrelated concerns

4

Field visit to analyse an existing
example of an innovation

Nominee of a particular innovation (that can be visited in
the vicinity of the workshop) coordinates a field trip

5

Joint action planning

Identifying resource needs, defining roles andresponsibilities, agreeing on a workplan

6

Fair (optional)

An opportunity to communicate and share the workshop
journey and its outcomes with the wider community andstakeholders beyond the workshop participants22

Action and social learning
In Burkina Faso, implementation and monitoringof the activities followed an action learning
process. Following the development of theaction plans during the VCA workshop,
individual meetings were held in each of
the villages to validate the action plans for
implementation in 2014. Monitoring andplanning workshops were then organized yearlyat the end of 2014, 2015 and 2016 to evaluate
the implementation of activities in that year andto plan activities for the following year. These
workshops convened representatives from thesix villages as well as government technicians.
An assessment of each activities implemented
per villages were conducted including
identification of the constraints and proposedsolutions to address these.

also organised for the project beneficiaries
to visit other neighbouring villages, providing
an opportunity to share their experienceswith EPIC as well as to learn from the villages
visited. Such an exchange initiated a demandand eventual implementation of bio-digesters
in the EPIC villages. These use cattle dung to
produce combustible gas as an alternative tofirewood for cooking. Two exchange visits werealso organised between project beneficiaries
in Senegal and Burkina Faso to explore therelevance and potential to export the different
local innovations in the two countries. The
exchange visit in Senegal included a community
representative from each of the target village
in Burkina Faso and consisted of: 1) initial
meeting and introductions between community
representatives and local government officers,2) field visits to all of the target villages in
Senegal and 3) a one-day workshop including
presentations on all activities implemented inboth countries and discussions.

Besides these meetings, exchange visitswere regularly implemented in Burkina Faso
between the villages of interventions forpeer-peer learning. Exchange visits wereTable 7. Main innovations identified during the VCA workshop in Burkina Faso
Innovations

Description

Soil restoration through endogenous techniquesZaïConsists of digging holes where organic manure is deposited. It contributes
to CCA through its ability to reduce the effects of drought by improving water
infiltration into the soil. It also helps recovering degraded lands and increases crop
yields, thus improving food security.

Stone bunds

These are mechanical constructions built with stones aligned along the contourof a parcel of land. Bunds offer an adaptation strategy to rainfall variability by
reducing water erosion and increasing water infiltration. As a consequence, cropwater stress is reduced during drought.

Half-moons

These are shallow basins (depth of (15 – 25 cm) of the shape of a semicircle(about 4 m in diameter) that is dug using axes and shovels. Crops are then grownwithin the open basin. They are meant to increase water infiltration and storage inthe soil and improve soil fertility.

Increasing vegetation cover
Reforestation

Replanting locally adapted trees

Assisted naturalregeneration

It is a simple, low-cost restoration method that can effectively convert degradedlands into more productive areas, by the retention of naturally regenerating
seedlings, particularly those of the legume family, that then enhance soil
productivity and and eventually provide shade and protection to crops (Shono etal., 2007)23

Ecosystems protecting infrastructure and communities: lessons learned and guidelines for implementation

Capacity building and awareness-raising on
Eco-DRR
Besides the VCA workshop, several training
events were organised to strengthen thecapacities of communities and government
officials to facilitate EPIC implementation as
well as to promote scaling up of the approach.
These include:

instability. In September 2015, a coup d’état
was launched in the country which brought civil
unrest for several months and eventually majorchanges in government at local and national
level. There were also changes in management
staff of several EPIC partner institutions. Fivemunicipal authorities that were partners on the
project were replaced with temporary specialdelegations in 2015. During these different
transitions, the local IUCN office has had to reestablish networks and build new collaborations.
However, a strong component of the policy
engagement in Burkina Faso is the maintenanceof a close collaboration with the National
Council for Emergency Relief and Rehabilitation(CONASUR) which provides a good entry-point
to leverage policy commitments, continued
efforts and more actions on the ground.

1. Three community training programmes onseed production (involving 30 people), zaïand stone bunds (300) and composting (30)were held;
2. Six practitioners were taken to the EPIC
study sites in Senegal for a study tour toexchange experiences.
3. Thirty partners (including 10 NGO’s, 10
local government, 10 technical partners
and one research institution) were provided
training on Eco-DRR using Partnership forEnvironment and Disaster Risk Reduction(PEDRR) techniques.
4. One hundred and six participants of Climate
Change Adaptation Day in 2014 wereintroduced to the concept of Eco-DRR.

Field interventions•• Six village development committees were
established to implement the activities•• Two thousand one hundred and twenty-two
hectares of zaï and 1,045 hectares of stonebunds, were constructed to strengthen the
productive capacity of the land.
•• Some 42,022 plants maintained in fivenurseries were introduced into homegardens and fields•• 264 hectares were restored using Assisted
Natural Regeneration, improving theavailability of fodder and strengthening
forest resources.
•• The above innovations benefitted all 10,181
community members in the six villages.
•• 32 biodigesters were provided to turndomestic waste into biogas. Thesebenefitted about 600 community members.
•• The promotion of organic gardening was
further enhanced by the establishmentof 56 manure pits that benefitted over a
thousand community members.

2.1.3 Results and challenges in Burkina
Faso
EPIC implementation in Burkina Faso involved
multiple stakeholders (Annex 2) to implement
the Science-Practice and Policy approach.
Research activities in Burkina Faso were limited
and conducted mostly at the beginning of the
project including the VCA rural appraisals aswell as a study on the impact of climate changeon the livelihoods of communities in the EPIC
project area finalised in 2015. In 2016 a studyof the impact of the endogenous interventions(Figure 10) on millet and sorghum yields wereconducted. Though it produced interesting
results and inform practice, the scope of thestudy and sampling size remained small.
Developing a stronger scientific base particularly
quantitative socio-economic assessments
and cost-benefit analyses was mostly limitedby the capacity. Policy influence at local andnational level was also minimal in Burkina Faso
during the project duration due to political

Effectiveness of the innovations implemented
There are several examples in the scientific
literature on the effectiveness of theendogenous practices implemented as part of
EPIC in Burkina Faso. Regarding zaï, previous

24

A

B

C

D

Figure 10. Pictures of endogenous practices implemented in Burkina Faso (A: Early stages of stone bund installation, B: appearance ofgrasses as land recover with stone bunds, C: Half-moon structures following harvest, D: Digging of zaï holes; © IUCN/Sylvain Zabré)studies and comparisons with untreated farms
has shown that they are effective in increasing
cereal yields particularly when implemented
on degraded soil (Maatman et al., 1998; Soméet al., 2004). Constructions of stone bunds
are documented to reduce run off and soil
loss by about 12 % and 45 % respectively(Zougmoré et al., 2003). Maatman et al. (1998)
found that the combinations of Zaï and stonebunds were mutually reinforcing technologies
to conserve water and land. A small study
conducted at the EPIC sites showed similar
results, noting for example that sorghum yieldwith zaï alone was 1290 Kg/ha while it was
1330 Kg/ha for stone bunds that was usedin combination with zaï by several farmers(APROS, 2016). However, it is important toacknowledge that there is a lack of robust
and quantitative data on effectiveness for the
EPIC villages. Qualitative information throughfocus groups (6 focus groups; 36 men and 38

women) conducted in 2017 provided anecdotal
evidence that the practices implemented wereincreasing crop yields. The approach used by
EPIC in Burkina Faso remains worthy of detailed
scientific probing. The innovations were not
implemented in isolation and how the different
sets of combinations of practices fare relative
to one another constitute important knowledge.
The integration of reforestation, assisted naturalregeneration and endogenous land restoration
practices and their combined role in reducing
social vulnerability are particularly relevant. In
terms of conservation practice, there are also
opportunities for learning as assisted naturalregeneration (ANR) was also combined with Zaïpits in Burkina Faso. An important barrier hereis possible mismatch between project set-ups
and scientific research needs. Effective scientificmonitoring of the crop yields requires long-term
temporal data collection and would also requirea strong presence on site.

25

Ecosystems protecting infrastructure and communities: lessons learned and guidelines for implementation

South-South learning and gender issues
Several exchange visits between communities
have been organised: between villages
benefiting from EPIC; between EPIC
beneficiaries and neighbouring villages andbetween project beneficiaries in Burkina Faso
and Senegal. These exchanges provide a good
example of the importance of such south-south
learning and the simplicity of how to implement
them. Community testimonies have highlighted
that there is stronger social cohesion within
and between villages. In terms of learning,
beneficiary communities have adopted andexpressed great interests in practices they haveobserved in other communities in both Burkina
Faso and Senegal. Even though EPIC was
implemented in only six villages, the two-way
exchanges provided an opportunity to export
the project’s approaches to other communities.

support for any initiative for an up-scalingof the project achievements.
•• EPIC Burkina Faso has been engaged with
CONASUR in the process of changing
policy through the implementation of anational action plan for the strengtheningof capacities for risk reduction andpreparedness to response to emergency in
Burkina Faso.

2.1.4 Lessons learned in Burkina Faso•• Inclusive and participatory project design
through the VCA ensure that technologies
put in place to build resilience are locally
relevant•• Involving communities in different stagesof the project has resulted in strengthening
community capacities and cohesion
and ultimately achieved community
empowerment.
•• • Involvement of communities in
identifying solutions to hazard risks,planning, implementation and monitoring
leads to better community ownership of theinterventions.
•• Eco-DRR/CCA projects should not exclude
non-ecosystem-based approaches andobjectives from its intervention. These canbe integrated with livelihood development
activities which help to provide incentives.
•• Successful participatory approaches canprovide means to address gender issues•• The above two points highlight that EcoDRR/CCA projects have the potential to go
beyond disaster risk reduction and climatechange. It is important to explore howthese co-benefits can be better integrated
and enhanced in such initiatives.
•• Exchanges between local actors within andbetween countries can be useful learning
experiences for different communities
ensuring they are active leaders of change
in their land.

In that aspect, one important contribution of
the project is the promotion of gender equity.
During the implementation of the project, EPIC
has also been used to increase awarenesson gender issues by including women in theactivities including meetings, trainings andimplementation of innovations. The exchange
visit in Senegal provided an opportunity
to promote this. The choice of community
representatives to make the trip to Senegal wasdone through internal community consultations
and it was decided that the delegationteam should include three men and three
women. This experience was shared with thecommunities in Senegal.
Policy influence•• There has been recognition of the relevanceof the Eco-DRR approach by the local
authorities as indicated by interviews withgovernment officers and discussions during
the final EPIC workshop in 2017.
•• The governor of the region has
communicated with IUCN committing

26

ChileKaren Podvin, Alejandro Casteller and Erika Cortés

Key Message
In the Valle de las Trancas, healthy forest ecosystems
can play a crucial role in protecting infrastructure andcommunities from avalanche and landslide hazards.

Fast facts on Chile*
Population: 17.91 Million
Main Livelihood: Mining (especially for copper), fishing,forestry, wine and fruits.
Gross domestic product based on purchasing-powerparity (PPP) per capita GDP (current international dollar):
16,660.21
Human Development Index: 0.700, ranks 38th in the world.
Poverty headcount ratio at national poverty lines: 14.4 %Main drivers of ecosystem change:•• Deforestation and land degradation caused by forestry
and agriculture;•• Overfishing;•• Environmental impacts of mining and hydroelectric
development;•• Air pollution caused by transport and manufacturingsectors;•• Water pollution because of the lack of proper
wastewater treatment and unsustainable agriculturaland mining practices;•• Climate change impacts and natural disturbances.
World Risk Index:*(Sources: World Bank, 2017; ECLAC, 2017; IMF, 2017b; UNDP, 2016; United
Nations University, 2016; Garschagen et al., 2016)27

Ecosystems protecting infrastructure and communities: lessons learned and guidelines for implementation

2.2.1 Background and context in Chile

Relevance of Eco-DRR interventions
The expansion of farming and forestry activities
and the exploitation of resources for energy
have led to the fragmentation of ecosystems
within the selected site for EPIC work (seesection below). Increasing urbanisation, given
the ever-growing tourism in the study site
called Valle de las Trancas has resulted in the
expansion of infrastructure and housing, exertingeven more pressure on the local landscapeand its biodiversity. All year, the site receives asignificant number of tourists attracted by wintersports and thermal waters in this volcanic area.
Because of this, in the recent decades, the Vallede las Trancas has experienced fast growth ineconomic development. In addition, the valley
is often affected by gravitational processes
including snow avalanches. Additionally, theselected study area is exposed to a variety ofnatural hazards including snow avalanches anddebris flows.

Chile has a surface area of 756,096.3 km andextends along 4,270 km2 as a long, narrow stripof land, west of the Andes, bordering Argentina
on the east, Peru on the north, Bolivia on thenortheast, the Drake Passage on the south and
the Pacific Ocean on the west. The country has
four main north-south morphological features:
the Andes Mountains in the east, the Coastal
Mountains in the west, and the Intermediate
Depression, and the Coastal plains (IUCN and
ProAct, 2013b).
2

Climate change and disaster risk
Chile fulfils seven out of nine characteristics ofvulnerability defined by the UNFCCC (MMA,
2016). Climate change predictions indicate adecrease in rainfall (mainly in the central region)
and an increase in temperature (especially inthe mid-northern region) (Government of Chile,
2015). The fifth Report to the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) highlights thesevere impacts on the country’s livelihoods
and its ecosystems, particularly the sectorsof fishing, aquaculture, forestry, livestock andfarming (Government of Chile, 2015). Thesevulnerabilities and impacts have also been
documented in the national communications
to the UNFCCC Secretariat and are being
incorporated into the National Plan of Action for
Climate Change (MMA, 2016).

Policy context
Currently in Chile, there are a few policy
instruments that incorporate Eco-DRR elements
into their plans, namely the sectoral Climate
Change Adaptation Plan in Biodiversity thataims to strengthen environmental institutions,public organisations, private entities and civilsociety to adapt to the impacts of climatechange on biodiversity and ecosystem services.
The National Policy of Urban Development
presents a more holistic vision of the needfor considering ecosystems in disaster risk
management and reduction. Other policies
that mention ecosystem-based adaptation are,for example, the National Plan of Action for
Climate Change, which emphasises the roleof ecosystems for climate change adaptation,
while the Climate Change Adaptation Planmentions the need for training on these topics.
Finally, the National Policy for Disaster Risk
Management acknowledges that, in the future,disaster risk reduction should incorporate
other kinds of units for territorial planning, suchas the ecosystems, basins or macrozones of
biodiversity (ONEMI, 2014).

Chile is also a country that is prone to multiple
natural hazards — ranked 11th among the most
exposed countries worldwide to natural hazards(Garschagen, et al., 2016). The frequency andintensity of climate-related events such as
strong winds, droughts and forest fires are also
expected to increase (IPCC, 2014). The mainrisks from hazards include flooding, extreme
temperatures, wildfires, earthquakes, volcanic
activity, storms and landslides (McBreen, 2016).
In recent years, prolonged droughts have also
influenced the frequency of large-scale fires(González, et al., 2014) affecting crops, native
forests, availability of water for consumption
and the welfare of thousands of people.

28

EPIC sites in Chile
The EPIC project site in Chile is the Biosphere
Reserve Corredor Biológico Nevados de
Chillán-Laguna del Laja (referred to henceforth
as BR), declared by UNESCO in 2011 (San
Martín, 2014), within the central Chilean zone,
in the Biobío Region (Figure 11). The BR
extends over an area of 565,807 hectares andis divided into three main areas: core, buffer
and transition (17%, 70% and 13% of the BR’s
area respectively). It seeks to reconcile theconservation of biological and cultural diversity
with economic and social development (íbid.,
2014). The BR has eight communes with apopulation of around 7,728 inhabitants (San
Martín, 2014). Around 78% of the BR is owned
privately.

adaptation, and as an integral part of various
global agreements and strategies.
Its specific objectives were to•• demonstrate the importance of sustainable
management of ecosystems as analternative to reduce the risks of disasters
and to adapt to climate change;•• strengthen capacities, create awarenessand improve communication about
ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction
and climate change adaptation; and•• disseminate, through multi-stakeholder
platforms, lessons learned and practicalsolutions that can be replicated or included
into programmes and public policies.

2.2.2 Operational approach in Chile

Objectives of EPIC in Chile
The goal of EPIC in Chile was to recognise andpromote the conservation of ecosystem services
within the national policies and programmes
for disaster risk reduction and climate change

EPIC was implemented by IUCN, in
collaboration with the Ministry of Environment(and its Regional Secretariat in Biobío) andthe Swiss Institute for Snow and Avalanche
Research (SLF), and with support from the

Figure 11. Map of the EPIC site in Chile

29

Ecosystems protecting infrastructure and communities: lessons learned and guidelines for implementation

Regional Government of Biobío. In 2013,a vulnerability assessment using the same
method and tools as described in section
2.1.2 earlier was carried out to help local andexternal stakeholders understand the current
and potential impacts of disasters and climatechange and identify risks. Scientific researchfollowed, while in parallel, the EPIC teamengaged in intensive policy advocacy.

disaster risk, revealed that the link between
disaster risk reduction and ecosystemservices was not yet established in Chile.
In parallel, a study on avalanches assessed
the main hazards locally and analysed theirprocesses and their interactions with forest
ecosystems. The general goal of the casestudy is to quantify and optimise the value ofmountain ecosystems in the reduction of risk
associated with snow avalanches and othernatural disturbances, such as rock falls anddebris flows. Dendrochronological2 methods
allowed for the reconstruction, in time andspace, of the patterns of snow avalanches forthe past decades. Simulation models wereused to determine different avalanche patterns
such as maximum runouts and maximum
impact pressures for the current state of theforest structure and for other forest (or nonforest) scenarios. In addition, a study about
the local perceptions of ecosystem servicesof the forest, climate change and local risks ofnatural hazards was conducted at Valle de las
Trancas, with the objective of assessing how
the local community perceived the importanceof the native forest and its ecosystem services,
including their knowledge and awarenessabout the relationship between native forest
and natural hazards of the area. This study
also generated new information to feed local
decisions regarding territorial planning, natural
hazards, regional tourism, management of the
BR and adaptation to climate change.

Outcomes of the vulnerability and capacity
assessment
The VCA workshop in Chile was implemented
over five days and convened 24 participants.
The top three priorities identified to beaddressed by the EPIC project were: 1) drought
and tourism, 2) forest fires and biodiversity
and 3) drought and energy infrastructure. 16
innovations were proposed and prioritised into
the following:
1. Create a water committee to regulate thesustainable use of water, including water
use in the tourism sector
2. Promote the sustainable management andconservation of native forests
3. Establish an agency to promote ecotourism and conservation of the Biosphere
Reserve
4. Promote sustainable energy consumption
by designing lighting solutions, buildingarchitectural designs, and encouraging
sustainable firewood use, among others

Capacity building and awareness-raising on
Eco-DRR
Multi-stakeholder meeting supported the
networking of key local stakeholders of the
BR and raised awareness about the needfor adopting the approaches of Eco-DRR
and EbA in Chile. Around 270 stakeholders
at the local level (BR) and around 150 actors
from the national level have been engaged ineight workshops organised by EPIC partners.

Action plans were then developed for eachinnovation. These included information on
actors and roles, activities to be implemented,
means required for implementation and
expected changes.
Scientific research
A literature review of more than 200 documents,of scientific knowledge about the ecosystems
services of forests and their role in reducing

2

The science or technique of dating events, environmental change, and archaeological artefacts by using thecharacteristic patterns of annual growth rings in timber and tree trunks’ (English Oxford Living Dictionaries, 2017).

30

Increased awareness within communities
Although EPIC in Chile did not include
field-based interventions, the VCA processcontributed to increase knowledge on the risks
to climate change and disasters among local
stakeholders, and assessing which are some of
the main solutions that could be implemented.
In addition, according to the results of the
EbA effectiveness research methodology3 it
was assessed that the EPIC project has built
a foundation for local human resilience, mainly
because of the awareness generated by the
project on climate change vulnerabilities andrisks to disasters, as well as the role that (forest)
ecosystems play in mitigating these risks.

Knowledge and capacities related to Eco-DRR(and EbA) within these diverse stakeholders
from civil society, government and academia
have been exchanged and fostered since2013.The scientific results of EPIC have been
disseminated in five international events.
The EPIC experience has also been
disseminated through diverse communication
products and means. One scientific publication
is currently under peer-review.
Policy advocacy
A literature review and analysis of thecurrent legal and policy framework identified
opportunities for the inclusion of Eco-DRR,
and concluded that it is imperative to enhanceand modify instruments and laws related toterritorial planning at different scales. For
policy advocacy, EPIC used participatory
processes through multi-stakeholder dialogues,
meetings and continuing coordination with
political partners throughout the project’s
implementation.

Science-based knowledge and evidence on
the protective role of forests
The combination of the applied methods
provided the basis for hazards mappingof the most exposed sectors of the valley(Casteller et al., In prep.). Dendrochronologicalstudies showed that the Nevados de Chillán
has a rich history of natural disturbances. In
the past, many avalanches and debris flow
events occurred. In the years 1995 and 2000,
avalanches occurred in many tracks (Figure12). Results of the simulation models showthat native broad-leaved forests shorten runout
distances and reduce impact pressures for small
to medium avalanches. While it is evident thatgrey measures (for example sheds) could be
locally constructed to reduce exposure to snow
avalanches in the valley, greener alternatives
such as the avoidance of large openings inforest management or even afforestation could
improve the protective capacity of the forests
without altering the landscape in such a pristine
environment.

2.2.3 Results and challenges in Chile
EPIC implementation in Chile involved multiple
stakeholders (Annex 3) to implement the
Science-Practice and Policy approach. Though
the VCA workshop proposed several local
innovations to be implemented in the project
area, EPIC in Chile eventually did not focus on
the practice component. This is mostly becauseof a lack of financial resources as well as thelack of presence in the country to implement
field-based interventions. Currently IUCN does
not have a presence in Chile and partners
involved in the project were from the scientificand policy fields. Implementations of theinnovations were expected to be implemented
by local stakeholders but did not progress as
expected. Yet the project had strong scientificand policy components.

3

Policy influence
Through its policy advocacy approach, EPIC in
Chile has been able to mainstream the Eco-DRR
concept into the Chilean government lexicon,

Part of a BMUB-funded, IIED led project, in which IUCN is one of the implementers, along with the UNEP-WCMC

31

Ecosystems protecting infrastructure and communities: lessons learned and guidelines for implementation

Figure 12. In the years 1995 and 2000 avalanches occurred in many tracks (shown in pink) (© Alejandro Casteller)

and there are now multiple opportunities for
its future integration into various policies andplanning instruments (Table 8).

levels.
•• The engagement of the diversity of
stakeholders at both local (BR) and national
levels to promote inter-institutional andmulti-disciplinary coordination is useful for
maximising impacts at policy levels.
•• When disseminating scientific knowledge,
it should be tailored in a way that scienceis made accessible to the range of different
stakeholders — such as decision-makers,
civil society, and academics.
•• Although the capacities of the range ofstakeholders about the Eco-DRR concepts
were strengthened through EPIC, there
is a continuing need (as a cross-cutting
and strategic component) to ensure that
Eco-DRR and EbA are institutionalised toobtain enduring influence. Therefore, more
multi-level spaces for cross-learning will
be useful for integrating perspectives andmaximising impacts in policy from the local
to national levels.
•• For future initiatives, it should be essentialthat a component of implementation(the practice of Eco-DRR) is included to

2.2.4 Lessons learned in Chile•• While in most case the consultative
workshops confirmed that EPIC’s focus
was appropriately responding to people’s
needs in terms of climate change
adaptation and disaster risk reduction, inthe case of Chile, local people highlighted
other risks that could have been includedin EPIC concept. Indeed, floods andlandslides are recurrent hazards frequently
occurring in the study area, while theproject currently focuses on avalanches
that are rarely occurring.
•• Using rigorous, pioneering science(combination of dendrological studies withsimulation models to generate knowledge
on avalanche patterns and the protectiverole of forests ) and multi-stakeholder
dialogues, EPIC has been able to position
the Eco-DRR approach among a diverse
range of stakeholders from local to national

32

Table 8. Summary of policy influence and opportunities in Chile
Policy document/ government body

OutcomeNational Plan for Adaptation to
Climate Change in Biodiversity

EPIC has been included as a measure of adaptation to climatechange to disseminate and promote the value of ecosystem-based
adaptation solutions, such as ecosystem restoration, reforestation,
as a mechanism of reduction of natural hazards exacerbated byclimate change.

Regional Ministerial Secretary ofEnvironment (SEREMI MA)

Sent recommendations to Biobío in the Regional Government of
the same region suggest including the results of EPIC’s avalanche
study in the Biobío Regional Land-Use Plan (currently under
formulation).

National Climate Change Adaptation
Plan

EPIC has contributed to the aim: ‘to develop a training programme
for public institutions and other stakeholders at national, regional
and local levels on adaptation to climate change within theframework of disaster risk reduction, including, among others,
issues related to impacts of climate change, adaptation and focus
and non-traditional adaptation alternatives’. These experiences
and lessons can be further institutionalised.

Ministry of Public Infrastructure

There has been growing interest about the EPIC results from theValle de las Trancas, to assess potential sustainable alternatives(such as green-grey measures) to reduce the risks of avalanches in
the road that connects the valley with the upper part of Nevadosdel Chillán. In addition, they have shown interest in learning more
about nature-based solutions.

National Emergency Office (ONEMI)

The National Platform on Disaster Risk Reduction from the
National Emergency Office (ONEMI) has shown an initial interest in
integrating the Eco-DRR approach into its multi-sectorial platform.

complete the comprehensive approach ofscience, practice and policy.
•• Land-use planning in Chile is a sector
that must be focussed on, from a multisectorial and territorial perspective, for the
integration of Eco-DRR into the country’splanning and policy.
•• Economic valuation of Eco-DRR, that
includes the value not only about reductionof risk but also about the protective

services of forests ecosystems (and allother ecosystem services) will be criticallynecessary in the portfolio of results used
to convince decision-makers about thebenefits of eco-DRR over hard engineeringsolutions.

33

Ecosystems protecting infrastructure and communities: lessons learned and guidelines for implementation

China
Alexia Stokes and Yan Zhang

Key Message
An increase in plant diversity and proper mixtures ofcrop and tree species in ecological engineering projects
could improve protection against shallow landslides anderosion, especially in Southwest China.

Fast facts on China*
Population: 1,378.67 Million
Main Livelihood: Services (51.63%), industry (39.81%) andagriculture (8.56 %)Gross domestic product based on purchasing-powerparity (PPP) per capita GDP (current international dollar):
16,660.21
Human Development Index: 0.738 (ranks 90th in the world)
Poverty headcount ratio at national poverty lines: 3.14%
Main drivers of ecosystem change:•• Erosion•• Accelerated urbanisation and industrialisation•• Overexploitation and unsustainable use of biologicalresources•• Environment pollution•• Climate change
World Risk Index:* (Sources: World Bank, 2017; IMF, 2017c; UNDP, 2016;; United Nations University,
2016)

34

2.3.1 Background and context in China

Reported since 2000, are i) 174 floods affecting
nearly 889 million people and costing 147.5
million USD; ii) 89 earthquakes, affecting 62.3
million people and costing 103.3 billion USD;
and iii) 47 landslides affecting 2.4 million people
and costing 1.7 billion USD; (CRED, 2017).

China is the world’s most populous country
with 1,378 million people, home to about 18.4%of the world’s population (World Bank, 2017).
Across its extensive landscape of 9.597 million
km², is found a range of extensive ecosystems,
both tropical and temperate, and a coastlineof 14,000 km of coastline (IUCN and ProAct,
2013c).

Relevance of Eco-DRR interventions
In the last fifty years, there has been asignificant increase in the construction ofroads in rural China (Sidle and Ziegler, 2012).
When such roads are not designed well, andconstructed on steep mountain slopes, thefrequency of landslides increases (Sidle andZiegler, 2012), as exemplified in China, where,
as a consequence of deforestation, road andinfrastructure construction, landslides haveincreased significantly in the last five decades(Ghestem et al, 2014), increasing soil erosion
and river sedimentation (EPIC final report, 2017).

Climate change and disaster risk
The effects of climate change are already being
felt in China. Annual average air temperature
has risen faster than the average rate of global
warming, increasing by 0.5-0.8°C in the past
century. This change is variable over the extent
of the country, with the largest warming of 0.36°C
per decade in northeast China, and the smallest
of 0.15 °C in southwest (Piao et al, 2010).
Annual precipitation trends between 1960 and2006 show a decrease in the northeastern area,
but increases in northwestern and southeastern
China. There are also seasonal changes inrainfall, with most areas (except the Qinghai–
Xizang Plateau) showing a decrease in Autumn
precipitation, while winter precipitation has
increased (Piao et al, 2010). In addition, there
has been a decrease in the annual number ofrainy days across China (Piao et al, 2010).

The Chinese government has through several
policies and programmes sought to address
this issue (EPIC final report, 2017). Althoughdisaster-risk reduction and climate change
adaptation are now included in environmental
policies, approaches used to address this issue
remain focused on hard engineering (EPIC final
report, 2017), lacking the suite of ecosystemservices that ecosystem-based approaches
restore.

Within much of western China is a triangleshaped tectonic area, the convergence zone of
the Eurasian, Pacific and Indian Plates, where‘tectonism is intense’ (Gao, 2010). China is,therefore, affected by frequent earthquakes— in fact, in this century, there have been 89
events where there was ground movement(CRED, 2017). Given that 69% of the land ismountainous and given China’s geologicalhistory, geological disasters are also common(NPR, 2012 in litt. IUCN and ProAct, 2013c).

The Yunnan Province, where the EPIC projectsites were located (see next section), hasbeen identified as containing 10% of China’s
geological disaster-prone sites (EPIC final
report, 2017). Sixty percent of the towns in the
Salween watershed within this province arereported to be affected by mountain disasters
while 52% of its land area is subject to soil
erosion (EPIC final report, 2017).
Policy context
China has a rather complex policy system,
including different policy instruments fordifferent purposes. There are no specific laws
about Eco-DRR, but many relevant ecologicalIn addition, meteorological disasters such as
floods have increased in frequency and affecttwo-thirds of the country (IUCN and ProAct,
2013c).

35

Ecosystems protecting infrastructure and communities: lessons learned and guidelines for implementationand disaster policies. Of the many hundred
environment-related policies, the following
are the most relevant: i) the Grain for Green
Programme of 1999 in its current phase of
2014-2020, which restores vegetation on
existing sloped agricultural land, by providing
compensation in form of grain and cash tocommunities (Ministry of Finance, 2015); ii) The
13th Five Year Plan on Forestry Development(2016-2020), specifying extensive priorities
and numerous tasks for the State Forestry
Administration to better manage forestry in
China, including disaster risk reduction, inmany proposed/ongoing programmes (State
Forestry Administration, 2016); iii) The 13th Five
Year Plan on Integrated Disaster Prevention
and Reduction published in 2017 for 20162020, specifying priorities and tasks to better
manage disasters, through improving policies
and systems, integrating disaster management
to other sector plans and policies, establishing
information systems, undertaking projects,

promoting awareness raising, civil society
participation and international cooperation.
Ecological management is included as an
ecological engineering approach to disasters(Ministry of Civil Affairs, 2017).
EPIC sites in China
In China, the focus of EPIC is on the Upper
Salween River valley (Figure 13). A UNESCOWorld Heritage Site, the upper Salween Rivervalley is one of the world’s richest areas interms of plant biodiversity. However, it is also a
mountainous area where degraded steep slopes
are prone to landslides/erosion. The natural
wealth together with the safety and livelihoodsof people living in the valley are under threat
from the massive soil runoff and landslides(EPIC final report, 2017). The government has
implemented the Grain for Green in the Upper
Salween River valley. Two field sites wereselected: Lukuidi (Salween River Valley) andJinghong (Xishuangbanna).

Figure 13. Map of the EPIC site in China

36

Objectives of EPIC in China
The goal of EPIC in China was to investigate theuse of eco-engineering for the stabilisation ofsteep slopes.

assessment was conducted and the social
vulnerability context was documented based on
existing literature. A second social vulnerability
assessment was conducted in 2014 whichbuilt on existing literature through interviews
and discussions with local governments
and communities. Road-related landslides
and associated riverine sedimentation were
documented as being important challenges
in the Salween River basin and are affecting
or expect to affect site productivity, decreasewater quality downstream, increase flood
potential and impacts livelihoods of water
users in communities downstream (IUCN and
ProAct, 2013c). Field visits to Upper Salween
were undertaken from 2013 to 2016 by IUCN
China and INRA. INRA then performed field
experiments and numerical modelling todemonstrate the mechanical role of vegetation
for improving slope stability and the impact
of different plant species on hydrologicalprocesses.

Its specific objectives were to•• Analyse the spatial occupation and root
structures of relevant plant species on
steep slopes that can potentially alleviate
the risk of shallow landslides and reduce
soil particle runoff caused by water runoff
due to floods and heavy rain.
•• Calculate the influence of vegetation
on slope stability through the use of
geotechnical engineering models, with theaim of developing a tool to aid engineers
choose plant species suitable for fixing soilon slopes with regard to shallow landslides.

2.3.2 Operational approach in China
EPIC in China was jointly implemented by theInstitut National de la Recherche Agronomique(INRA) and IUCN China, the former conducting
scientific research in the Yunnan Province andthe latter addressing policy issues, respectively.
The implementation of a socio-economic VCA
on site proved to be difficult at the beginningof the project. Alternatively, a landslide risk

Scientific research
The comprehensive landslide vulnerability
assessment in the Salween River valley involved
the measurement of landslide erosion along
seven unpaved road segments in the upper

Figure 14. Measuring landslide size and intensity along recently constructed roads in the Salween River Valley Yunnan Province China© Alexia Stokes

37Ecosystems protecting infrastructure and communities: lessons learned and guidelines for implementation

drainage basin and calculated sediment delivery
rates into the Salween River (Figure 14). Ratesof landslide erosion measured were extremely
high and at one site, the rate of erosion of
48,235 megagrams per hectare per year is thehighest ever reported along a mountain roadcorridor (EPIC final report, 2017).

(NDPR SFA, MWR and Ministry ofEnvironmental Protection) technicalinstitutions and NGOs.
•• Another provincial workshop heldin Kunming used the EbA Learning
Framework to facilitate discussions andthe potential and priorities to integrate
the EPIC approach and Eco-DDR into
forest and land use policies and projects.
This workshop had over 20 participants
including some from the Yunnan Forestry
Department, Yunnan Forestry Academy,
Nujiang Forestry Bureau.
•• The EPIC experience in China anddissemination of the scientific results, todiscuss the future areas for focused study
and priorities for Eco-DRR were the fociof another national workshop in March2017. Over 40 people, including officials
and experts from five ministries including
Ministry of Environmental Protection and
the Ministry of Communications provided
their insights and suggestions.
•• Four training sessions in China and Hong
Kong were carried out, for 50 and 100
people respectively, to demonstrate thatto reduce surface erosion, a high densityof roots and increased soil occupation isrequired. In both cases, soil protection is
improved by a diversity of plant species.

In Lukuidi, two sites — one, an active landslide
slope, and the second, a slope where alandslide had occurred in 2000 but which
has no recent activity — were selected. Sixty
species from the Salween River Valley had
been previously shortlisted to nine species
based on various ecological, economical andethnobotanical criteria. Characteristics of thesenine species were examined regarding their
desirability for fixing soil on slopes.
A study using Google Earth Pro to detect
locations of landslides showed that Google
Earth Pro was also conducted and showed that
it was not an adequate tool for precise landslide
detection and that detection rates changed withthe experience of users. It was concluded that
Google Earth Pro was suitable for identifying
zones of landslides, but was not sufficiently
accurate to detect small, shallow landslides(EPIC final report, 2017).
Capacity building and awareness-raising on
Eco-DRR
Several training events were organised tostrengthen the capacities of communities
and government officials to facilitate EPIC
implementation as well as to promote scaling upof the approach:

Policy influence
EPIC in China used the following processes tocommence policy influence:•• It conducted policy analyses to identify
existing policies related to climate change,
adaptation, as well as related sectors/
institutions. This analysis identified thefollowing as key policy players for Eco-DRR
in China: i) the National Disaster Reduction
Center (NDRC) under the Ministry of Civil
Affairs (MFA), which is the secretariat to the
China National Commission for Disaster
Reduction (CNCDR), the overall decisionmaking and cross-sectoral body in China;ii) the State Forestry Administration(SFA), which is the ministry managing theforests, wetlands and biodiversity; and iii)•• The concepts and approaches of EcoDRR and the plan for EPIC China wereintroduced at an Inception Workshop
in Kunming, targeting ten provincial
stakeholders, including technical institutions
such as the Kunming Institute of Botany and
Xishuangbanna Tropical Botanical Gardenof Chinese Academy Sciences;•• A similar training for 70 national
stakeholders, namely central ministries

38the Ministry of Water Resources (MWR),
dealing with major water induced disasters,
especially floods and droughts.
•• EPIC then proceeded to build relationships
with the NDRC, as well as related officials
of SFA and MWR, who have participatedactively in national workshops and eventsand are now willing to partner with IUCN for
the next steps.
•• EPIC sought engagement with key
technical experts on the Board of Experts
to CNCDR (which helps ministries
formulate policies), so that the results andknowledge generated by EPIC China could
be incorporated into such policies.
•• EPIC has established collaborations
with key technical institutions including
the Chinese Academy of Sciences,
Chinese Academy of Forestry, Chinese
Society of Forestry, China Water and Soil
Conservation Society.
•• • EPIC China results and other IUCN
nature-based solutions experiences are
now being used by a key expert to develop
a technical guideline for the China Waterand Soil Conservation Society.

These results have also been presented at
15 conferences and meetings. The study
on mechanical effects of vegetation on
slope stability revealed that deeper rooting
species, than those currently present on theslope monitored are required for improved
slope stability. Rainfall simulations carriedout in mixed, natural forest and rubber tree
plantations showed that most infiltration into
soil occurred in natural forests compared torubber plantations, indicating that conversion
from natural forest to plantations could increase
erosion. In cultivated soils, mixtures of tree andshrubs and herbaceous plants — such as thepractice of alley cropping — will benefit thesoil. Through the different studies a Stability
Database4 has been developed to aid sitemanagers choose the most suitable species
fields when replicating eco-engineering work.
Policy influence
Eco-DRR related policy development isconstrained by the fact that there are some 30
relevant sector agencies and ministries whosefunctions are disparate. In addition, thousandsof technical institutions also play critical roles inpolicy making. However, the approach used by
EPIC achieved several results in terms of policy
influence:

2.3.3 Results and challenges in China
EPIC implementation in China involved
multiple stakeholders (Annex 4) to implement
the Science-Practice and Policy approach.
However, in China, the practice component
was eventually not implemented. Community
engagement was an important challenge due
to several factors including distrust of strangers
and the uninhabited nature of the study site. The
local social and political contexts have restricted
several investigations and activities of EPIC.

•• A NDRC delegation participated in the
IUCN World Conservation Congress in2016 in Hawaii and spoke at a side eventon Eco-DRR event, indicating their growinginterest in Eco-DRR as a consequenceof the efforts of EPIC in China. A reportby the delegation, suggesting greatercollaboration with IUCN on Eco-DRR, hasbeen accepted by the NDRC.
•• The SFA has agreed to work with IUCN on
a GEF funded project, that aims to integrate
ecosystem service considerations,
including water and soil conservation anddisaster reduction, to the reform processof some 5,000 State Forest Farms), a land

Science-based knowledge and evidence on
the effectiveness of eco-engineering
The stronger component of the case study
is the scientific knowledge generated. The
EPIC scientific results have been publishedin peer-reviewed journals in seven papers.

4

http://publish.plantnet-project.org/project/stability

39

Ecosystems protecting infrastructure and communities: lessons learned and guidelines for implementation

management unit in China that in total,
comprise about 25% of all China’s forests
or five % of terrestrial territory. The projectis expected to be established in 2017.
•• A wider reach to a greater range of
relevant stakeholders has been establishedthrough i) the Water Salon, a joint
mechanism facilitated by World Resource
Institute, IUCN China, WWF, Global
Water Partnership, trying to promote
good water management in China; ii) the
China Megacities Watershed Partnership,a joint mechanism promoted by IUCN
China, China Water and Soil Conservation
Association and the Beijing Forestry
Society to ensure water security for
Chinese major cities through addressing
the ecosystem management issues, suchas erosion control; and iii) Mangroves for
Future China Advisory Panel, a stakeholder
group established by IUCN China topromote mangroves conservation andrestoration in China.

•• Working with Chinese partners is not only
essential for international projects like EPIC
to work smoothly in China, but is also agood approach to mobilise stakeholders
and ensure the involvement of the key
people.
•• Understanding how to work on policy
in China and integrating it in the project
design is critical for policy influence. China
has its own ways of policy development,
which is different from many othercountries, where advocacy and lobby may
work. An effective approach for policy
influence requires building trust with
policy makers, understanding how otherplayers fit into the policy arena, forging
relationships and conducting joint projects
and research.
•• It is important to build local capacity ofChinese institutions and transfer technicalknowledge for the continuation of EcoDRR-related research on Eco-DRR and toconvert research to practices and policies.
•• As Eco-DRR in China is related to many
ministries, targeted messaging relevant topolicy makers is needed. For example, the
NDRC-MCA is the focal agency on DRR
but has no mandate for ecosystems, while,in contrast, the SFA manages ecosystems
but has little input into DRR. Thus,
highlighting the Sendai Framework to makeEco-DRR relevant to NDRC, and referring
to ecosystem services when engaging
with SFA makes Eco-DRR relevant to bothorganisations.
•• EPIC China’s research site only represents
a specific example in China, which is
too limited for policy makers, even forprovincial level policy makers. Further
studies on other sites and more capacity
building events are needed for various
stakeholder groups.

2.3.4 Lessons learned in China•• Sites selected for research purposes
might not be the most suitable forgetting communities’ involvement anddemonstrating impacts. Hence, a tradeoff needs to be found between researchrequirements and the project’s vision andobjectives and site selection need to be
strategic.
•• The combination of 1) producing clear
scientific results that show that soil
conservation can be improved and erosion
can be reduced to mitigate the impacts oflandslides and 2) networking with national
authorities and experts to build trust,building their capacities and disseminating
the scientific results, has proven to be a
successful approach to promote eco-DRR.

40

NepalKaren Sudmeier-Rieux, Anu Adhikari and Sanjaya Devkota

Key Message
EPIC Nepal has successfully demonstrated that ecosafe roads — an ecosystem-based approach to disasterrisk reduction —is cost-effective and locally adapted,
with great potential for reducing risk while increasing theresilience of communities living in landslide-prone areas.

Fast facts on Nepal*
Population: 28.98 Million
Main Livelihood: Agriculture, which amounted to 1/3rd or
31.37% of GDP
Gross domestic product based on purchasing-powerparity (PPP) per capita GDP (current international dollar):
2,606.066
Human Development Index: 0.548 (145th place)
Poverty headcount ratio at national poverty lines: 25.2 %Main drivers of ecosystem change:•• Climate change•• Unplanned rural road construction•• Migration•• Land abandonment
World Risk Index:*(Sources: World Bank, 2017; IMF, 2017d; UNDP, 2016; IUCN and ProAct, 2013d;
United Nations University, 2016)41

Ecosystems protecting infrastructure and communities: lessons learned and guidelines for implementation

2.4.1 Background and context in Nepal

Relevance of Eco-DRR interventions
A major trend in Nepal’s rural development isthe exponential pace of rural road construction.
Because of the 2008 Decentralisation Act,significant authority and budgets have beentransferred to local governments. Consequently,
rural road construction has become the mainpriority of the Village Development Committees(VDCs) and District Development Committees(DDCs), the main village and district authorities.
Following the boom in rural road construction,
many communities are collecting their own
funds to rent bulldozers and building ruralroads, in landslide-prone areas, without proper
technical guidance, surveying, drainage or
structural protection measures (Sudmeier-Rieuxet al., 2017, submitted). The number of ruralroads in the Phewa watershed has increased
from 26 km in 1979 to 340 in 2016 (Vulliez et al.,submitted). The result is that many of these ruralroads collapse during the first monsoon rains,
triggering landslides and accelerating erosion
rates, directly affecting economic development
and increasing vulnerability (Leibundgut et al.,2016; Sudmeier-Rieux et al , submitted).

Nepal is a landlocked, largely mountainous
country (over 80% is mountainous), divided into
five physiographic units that run east to west:
the high Himalaya (4,877 to 8,848 meters), highmountains, the middle hills region, the Churia or
Siwalik range and the Terai region in the plains(lower than 200 m and the agriculture region of
Nepal) (Sudmeier-Rieux et al. 2014).
Climate change and disaster risk
Nepal’s has an annual rainfall varying from
1,000 to 5,000mm. Around 80% of this
precipitation occurs during the monsoon
season, which lasts from June to September.
Cloud bursts can bring more than 300 mmof rainfall in 24 hours and create severe
flash flooding and landslides (MoHA, 2009).
Over the last three decades, winter rainfall
has decreased from 30 mm to 17 mm perday, and total rainfall days has decreased
from 135 to 120 days (Shah et al.,2012). In
contrast, temperature in Nepal has increasedin the range of 0.06-0.120°C per year in themountains and hills and by about 0.030°C in
the Siwalik and Terai regions during the periodof 1971-94 (Shrestha et al, 1999).

Nepal’s steep topography and geological history
combined with changes in temperature andrainfall, will have profound negative impacts
on the agricultural sector, on ecosystems andlivelihoods (MoHA, 2016). Such changes are
particularly acute for poor communities, who
are highly vulnerable and have little capacity tocope with such change.

In addition, the Himalayan range is one of thegeologically youngest in the world, making
these mountains seismically active (GeologicalSociety, undated). Therefore, the rate of natural
erosion and the transport and deposition of
sediments is high and landslides are a naturalfeature in the Himalayas (Sthapit and Tennyson,1991). Climate change in the Himalayas ispredicted to exacerbate such natural hazards,
resulting in more frequent extreme events, suchas global lake outburst flood, floods, drought
and landslides, which have caused major
damage in the past. Many of these hazards
have, indeed, intensified during the past two
decades, especially flooding and landslides.
Between 1996-2015 there have been 235
fatalities, on annual average, mainly because offlooding and landslides (Germanwatch, 2017).

Policy context
There are some 30 policies, acts andregulations that are related to disaster risk
reduction, climate change and environmental
conservation. Of these the three most important
policies in relation to disaster risk reduction
and climate change are i) the Water Induced
Disaster Management Policy (2006), which
focuses on water-induced disasters such as
floods, landslides, erosion and mentions bioengineering as a means to mitigating their42

impacts; ii) National Strategy for Disaster Risk
Management (NSDRM) (2009), based on the
Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA) of 2005,
whose long-term vision is to develop Nepal
as a disaster-resilient community; and iii) the
National Adaptation Programme of Action (2010)
which mentions community-based disastermanagement as a means for combatting climatechange.

humid summers (30-35°C) and cold (3-5°C) andmostly dry winters. The altitude of the location
is between 700 and 2,517 AMSL and rainfall isamong the highest in the country, with annual
precipitation levels close to 4,000 mm (CBS,2009). The entire area is severely affected byannual landslides and flooding, which occur
during the monsoon season (Leibundgut
et al., 2016; Vulliez et al, submitted). These
events usually cause casualties and are very
destructive for local livelihoods. Landslides
block roads and destroy houses and sedimentflows frequently cover productive agriculturallands, hampering economic development in the
area.

EPIC sites in Nepal
The Panchase region (Kaski, Parbat andSyangja districts) in Western Nepal (Figure 15)
was selected for piloting the EPIC project as itlies in the IUCN Ecosystem-based Adaptation(EbA) Mountain project area, selected by the
EbA project for its vulnerability to climatechange, which is already having negative
impacts on water resources, agriculture andbiodiversity. The three districts consist of 17
village development committees (VDCs) andcover an area of more than 284 km2. Within
this area, there are 15,964 households with apopulation of 62,001 (CBS, 2011).

Objectives of EPIC in Nepal
The main goal of the EPIC project was tocatalyze and quantify the role of ecosystems
in protecting vulnerable communities against
the risks associated with climate change andnatural hazards.
Its objectives were to:

The area is in sub-tropical climatic region in thecentral-western region of Nepal, with hot and1. Establish demonstration sites for reducing
landslide instabilities along road sides using

Figure 15. Map of the EPIC site in Nepal

43

Ecosystems protecting infrastructure and communities: lessons learned and guidelines for implementation

ecosystem-based, locally adapted bioengineering methods;
2. Develop capacity building throughnational and district level workshopsthat bring together stakeholders fromthe environmental sector, disastermanagement, land use planning,development and civil society;3. Advocate ecosystem-based disaster risk
reduction at global, national and local levels
by influencing policy processes at thesevarious levels.

study was conducted at the community andhousehold level. Five villages were surveyed
through 48 semi-structured household surveys.
The studies provided information on the main
sources of income, land management anduse trends, population concerns forexample
unemployment, flooding, etc.
Scientific research
Through the EPIC project, support wasprovided for research on Eco-DRR toeight master’s degree students and two
PhD students, all of whom were Nepalesecitizens. Biophysical research was carriedout establishing rhizotrons — undergroundareas constructed to study the soil andits interactions with plants — as well as
automated weather stations. Drone imagery,remote sensing and Laser-based Terrestrial(LiDAR) scans were used to capture andmeasure, with high precision, changes inerosion rates.

2.4.2 Operational approach in Nepal
The EPIC project in Nepal was developed
jointly between the University of Lausanne(UNIL) and IUCN Nepal. The EPIC teamconducted preliminary field and scoping visits,
consultations and meetings from a range ofgovernment officers, university personnel andcommunities to identify stakeholders and sites
for implementation. An inception workshop
was then held to carry out participatory
vulnerability analyses, community risk maps andparticipatory bio-engineering maps.

Socio-economic research (using cost-benefit
analysis) was also carried out at the EPIC sites
by Dr. M. Vicarelli, (Department of Economics,
University of Massachusetts, Amherst, USA).
This study compared conventional bulldozed,
or grey roads with bio-engineered or ‘eco-safe
roads’ over a 40-year time horizon (Sudmeier etal., submitted).

Memoranda of Understanding were formalised
both at the national and district level with the
Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation toensure involvement from the Department ofSoil Conservation and Watershed Management(DSCWM). Partnerships were launched with the
EbA Mountain project and research institutions
such as the Tribhuvan University and the
University of Agriculture and Forestry University.
Baseline studies of the selected sites werecarried out, activities identified in a participatory
manner, and demonstration sites were
established in three villages. Intensive capacity
building (See later section) also buttressed the
project.

Capacity building and awareness-raising on
Eco-DRR
Through the EPIC project, there have been
extensive efforts to increase awareness about
Eco-DDR at both local and national levels:•• For communities, bio-engineering training
was provided to 66 community members.
•• A booklet on bio-engineering techniques
has been distributed to all 56 District Soil
Conservation Offices officers of Nepal.
•• Community cross-learning field visits wereorganized to foster community exchange.
•• Five national and regional workshops,
totaling participation of over 300 people,
were held.

Vulnerability and capacity assessment
The VCA in Nepal was conducted using a
combination of qualitative and quantitative
data collection methods including geologicalassessments, remote sensing and semistructured interviews with ‘key informants’. The

44•• A workshop creating awareness about EcoDRR specifically for 20 journalists was held.
•• Four cross-learning visits to demonstrationsites, for about 110 people, were carriedout for research institutions, academics aswell as INGOs.
•• EPIC results have been disseminatedthorough mass media in local and national
newspapers, presentations, national andinternational television.
•• More than a dozen field visits/ study tours
organized for different stakeholders with 96
participants•• Four cross-project learning visits werecarried between China and Nepal, as well
as a visit to Chilesite — Gharelu —has already extended the
EPIC interventions. About 450 community
members benefitted from EPIC activities. Over
90 focus group meetings and discussions were
held to discuss issues and provide support
to communities. Nurseries in two District Soil
Conservation Offices (Kaski and Syangja) were
supported to produce bio-engineering species(previously not a common practice), enabling
distribution of species to communities. To
date, more than 5,000 seedlings have been
distributed. Plant survival rates were monitoredby communities, encouraging citizen science.
In Gharelu, communities are now harvesting
Broom grass used for road stabilisation during
the dry season, for use as fodder and for saleand are earning 20,000 NPR per year, perkilometre.

2.4.3 Results and challenges in Nepal
EPIC implementation in Nepal involved multiple
stakeholders (Annex 5) to implement the
Science-Practice and Policy approach. The
case study generated strong science, practiceand policy influence despite encountering
several challenges. These include variations in
the level of community participation across the
EPIC sites and establishing trust and relations
with local and national government.

Science-based knowledge and evidence on
the effectiveness of bio-engineering
The rhizotron-led studies showed that Broom
grass (Thysanolaena maxima) had the highest
overall survival rate, but this varied between
the demonstration sites, likely because ofdifferences in soil types and community
participation in ensuring survival. It also had the
deepest roots (up to one meter below the soil),however Scented grass (Chrysopogon gryllus)
had the strongest roots. These preliminary
results provide guidance for bio-engineering
best practices, especially as intense rainfall
and longer drought periods are predicted.
Both historical and the recently recorded data

Bio-engineering activities and community
involvement
Three demonstration sites (Figure 16) and threebio-engineering committees were establishedsuccessfully and all three are actively seeking
funding to extend bio-engineering works. One

Figure 16. Demonstration site Gharelu before interventions (left) after interventions (right) (© Sanjaya Devkota)

45

Ecosystems protecting infrastructure and communities: lessons learned and guidelines for implementation

demonstrate that the rainfall in the region should
be considered intensive with the potential forhigh soil loss (Devkota et al., submitted).

The cost-benefit study developed five different
scenarios using various levels of assumptions,from very conservative to moderate estimatesof future soil losses as a consequence of road
construction (Figure 17). Scenario 1 assumes a‘normal’ monsoon season (based on historicalrainfall records) with conservative yield losses asa result of damaged agricultural land adjacent torural roads. In this scenario, the ‘eco-safe road’
becomes more cost-effective after 12 years as
repair costs are significantly lower. Scenario 5
estimated that in with high agriculture losses
along grey roads, the cost of grey roads may
be significantly higher than eco-safe roads
from the very first year of construction and thecosts of eco-safe roads actually decrease overtime while benefits accrue as a consequenceof income generated from grasses in bioengineering sites. Both scenarios give values
per kilometre of road construction, assuming a
discount rate of 0.1 (which translates the streamof costs and benefits into a single monetary
value, or the net present value (NPV)). These
losses and repair costs are often not accounted
for by policy makers and communities,
when decisions are made to use funds forconstructing roads.

The role of rural earthen roads in contributing
to increased erosion and landslides was
documented and 179 erosion events along
129 km of roads surveyed in 2014-2015
amounting to an estimated 100 m3 of soil per
km per year released into the Phewa watershedalong earthen rural roadsides in Phewa Lakewatershed (at the heart of the Panchase area)
were recorded (Leibundgut et al,. 2016).
Vulliez et al. (submitted) documented thatnearly half (44%) of 174 landslides were due
to a large rainfall event in Phewa Watershedcrossed by a road, of which, 84% werelocated within a buffer of 40 m from a road.
These results show a trend shift in erosion
zones from riverways and open grazing areas
to roadsides, as a consequence of improved
grazing management and exponential road
construction, respectively. Results in 2016 of
LIDAR scans demonstrate that soil loss was
reduced by 95% at the Tilahar demonstrationsite (Sudmeier-Rieux et al, 2017, submitted).

Figure 17. Left: Scenario 1: a conservative comparison of initial costs and very low estimated losses over time. Right: Scenario 5: theworst-case scenario of high losses as a consequence of repair costs and agricultural losses due to grey roads. The small inserted
figure on right shows the eco-safe road in more detail for this scenario. Credit: Vicarelli, U Mass Amherst.

46

For research on resilience and indicatorsof resilience that would contribute toward
establishing decision-support systems forincreasing resilience (Sudmeier, Devkota andAdhikari, unpublished data), five focus groupsessions were undertaken to obtain feedback
on indicators of resilience using two groups.
The top five indicators were found to be:
employment (32.2%); education (29.5%); soil
productivity (22.2%); vocational skills (19.9%);and safe houses and schools (19.8%).

•• At the national level, ecosystem-based
approaches are being mainstreamed
into targeted policies related to road
construction, land management (Integrated
Watershed Management) and DRR.

2.4.4 Lessons learned in Nepal•• Policy arguments were strengthened
significantly when based on rigorous
scientific findings.
•• Community participation in vulnerability
assessments, field trips, on-site training,and cross-community and projectexchanges, and community science(monitoring interventions) all havecontributed to community ownership.
•• It is important to integrate livelihood
enhancement benefits with DRR/CCA
benefits: the selection of bio-engineering
plants in consultation with community
members is critical and will have a higher
success rate when combined with species
that bring direct livelihood benefits, suchas broom grass which is a species withboth deep roots for slope stabilisation andfor making brooms which can be sold forprofit. Alternatively, mixing deep-rooted
species with fodder species also provides
communities with livelihood benefits.
•• Media training and taking policy makers
on visits to demonstration sites were very
beneficial for raising awareness about
the issues and EPIC interventions and forpolicy advocacy.
•• Both the above lessons exemplify theadage ‘convincing by demonstrating’•• Sound, strong analytical science andeconomic valuation are essential asevidence to convince decision makers.
•• IUCN-Nepal’s long-term policy support
to key ministries on environmental
legislation enabled effective influence andmainstreaming of Eco-DRR into policy
advocacy.

The above scientific research has generated fivepeer-reviewed scientific publications (published,submitted for publication or in preparation);
11 scientific presentations and posters; one
book (with parallel funding) on migration and
DRR and a video documentary as well as eight
presentations at international fora.
Policy influence
The above scientific results have been fed into
many policy-related events including thoselisted below:•• A policy brief developed, widely distributedand now uploaded online.
•• A workshop targeting policy issues washeld with 50 participants from relevant
government ministries (including concerned
Ministries, Departments, and other relevant
institutions etc.), national and international
non-governmental organisations,consultants, and other stakeholders.
•• Twenty-five participants from sevendifferent government ministries, including
the National Planning Commission member
responsible for the environment and theForest policy implementation working
group from the Ministry of Forests and Soil
Conservation, were taken on five site visits.
•• Eco-DRR has now been integrated into the
National Strategic Framework for Nature
Conservation (2015-2030)•• The EPIC has provided inputs into thedraft Forest Sector Strategy, as well as theForest Sector Climate Change Policy bothof which are being currently formulated.

47

Ecosystems protecting infrastructure and communities: lessons learned and guidelines for implementation

SenegalEl H. Ballé Seye

Key Message
Participatory and iterative approaches ensure involvement
and continued commitment from communities.

Fast facts on Senegal*
Population: 15.41 Million
Main Livelihood: Agriculture, livestock and fishing are themain livelihoods in the country.
Gross domestic product based on purchasing-powerparity (PPP) per capita GDP (current international dollar):
2,733.47
Human Development Index: 0.367 (ranks 163rd in theworld)
Poverty headcount ratio at national poverty lines: 46.7%
Main drivers of ecosystem change:•• Salinisation and acidification of land•• Coastal erosion•• Destruction and fragmentation of ecosystem due toconstruction of roads, dams and human settlements
World Risk Index:* (Sources: World Bank, 2017; IMF, 2017c; UNDP, 2016;; United Nations University,
2016)

48

2.5.1 Background and context in
Senegalthe uncertainty and unevenness of rainfall, hasresulted in a decrease in agricultural productivity
in a country where nearly 50% of the population
is categorised as poor (IUCN and ProAct,
2013e).

Senegal is in the westernmost part of Africa’s
Sahel region, extending over 196,722 km², andbordered to the north by the Islamic Republicof Mauritania, east by Mali, south by Guinea
Bissau and Guinea and the west by the Atlantic
Ocean. The Republic of Gambia is almost
entirely surrounded by Senegal (IUCN and
ProAct, 2013e).

In the Fatick region selected by EPIC for
its interventions (see below), poverty isoverwhelming — about 20% higher than thenational average (68.1%) (FAO, 2011) — andalmost 90% of population is engaged inagriculture (IUCN and ProAct, 2013e). There
are frequent bush fires highlighted by violent
winds, creating forage deficits. In addition,high temperatures accelerate the drying ofgrass. Traditional poultry farming is also heavily
affected, as the high heat causes massive
mortalities.

Climate change and disaster risk
Climate change in Senegal is characterised byerratic rainfall in time and space, resulting in a
rainfall deficit and the disruption of the annual
rainfall calendar. In addition, mean annual
temperatures have increased by 0.9°C since1960 (IUCN and ProAct, 2013e).

Salinisation of water and land is another risk
attributed to climate change and change in land
cover. Because of low freshwater inputs during
periods of drought and deforestation and inland
fresh water extraction, salt affected areas havebecome more frequent and have expanded over
the regions and particularly in the lowland andvalleys.

This variability in rainfall, combined with sealevel rise and inland freshwater and resource
extraction, is driving soil salinisation anddegradation, which has reduced agricultural
productivity and hampered growth in all key
economic sectors. Nearly three decades ago,
research revealed that soil salinisation had
affected an estimated 90,000 hectares in the
Saloum estuary (NAPA, 2006).

Policy context
There are seven main policies that relate toclimate change, disaster risk reduction andthe mitigation of environmental destruction.
Of these the most relevant policies are i)
The Emergent Plan for Senegal 2014-2035
which promotes, inter alia, prevention andreduction of major disaster risks through thedevelopment of contingency plans at nationaland regional levels, promotion of a culture ofdisaster risk prevention and management; ii)
The plan for national organisation of relief bythe ‘Organisation de la Réponse de Securité
Civile’ (ORSEC) of 2013 that facilitates
the rapid mobilisation and engagement of
exceptional means when public emergency
services are overstretched because of theextent of the disaster; and iii) Contribution
Nationale Déterminée au Niveau National(2015-2020) which falls within the framework

Unsustainable agricultural practices,
coupled with drought, have also resulted indesertification which affects soil fertility andagain, reduces agricultural productivity (IUCN
and ProAct, 2013e).
In addition, the frequency and intensity of
extreme weather events are increasing. For
example, reported between 2000 and 2017 are
three droughts, affecting 17,73702 people intotal and 13 floods affecting 868,357 people(CRED, 2017).
Relevance of Eco-DRR interventions
Agriculture contributes 18% to the GDP and
employs 46.1% of the population (World
Bank, 2017). Senegal’s land degradation(salinisation and desertification) combined with49

Ecosystems protecting infrastructure and communities: lessons learned and guidelines for implementationof the Emergent Plan for Senegal, as well as its
sectoral management programmes. This plan
tracks Senegal’s progress on climate change
adaptation and mitigation (MoE&SD, 2015b).

The specific objectives were to:•• assess the risks and effects of climatechange on poor people;•• demonstrate the economic benefits ofadaptation strategies based on ecosystems(EbA).

EPIC sites in Senegal
The Djilor district is in the department ofFoundiougne, Fatick region. It is about 40 km
from the sea in the protected area of the Saloum
Delta Biosphere Reserve. Extending over an
area of 576 km², it has 28,606 inhabitants
distributed in 44 villages and eight hamlets(Municipal Council for Djilor, 2009). Six villages
within the district — Djilor, Gagué Cherif,
Goudème Sidy, Kamatane Bambara, Péthie andSadioga — totalling about 6,700 people, wereselected for EPIC interventions (Figure 18).

2.5.2 Operational approach in Senegal
Site selection in Senegal was based on i)vulnerability to climate change; ii) richness of
biodiversity; iii) commitment of communities
and local authorities; and iv) the presence of
IUCN Senegal. An inception workshop washeld to carry out vulnerability and capacity
assessments to identify risks and the Promoting
Local Innovations (PLI) tool used to elicit
traditional solutions (innovations) to these risks.
These innovations were prioritised and scientificresearch to provide baselines regarding these
topics was obtained through partnerships
with research institutions — the School of

Objectives of EPIC in Senegal
The overall goal of EPIC in Senegal was toreinforce local adaptation strategies to climatechange.

Figure 18. Map of the EPIC site in Senegal

50

International Agro-development (ISTOM) andthe Institute of Environmental Sciences (ISE).
Training was provided to community members
for successful implementation.

the contours of a slope to reduce salt
intrusion and soil erosion and increasewater infiltration (Figure 19)
3. Establishment of a mechanism forregulating the exploitation of natural
resources for sustainable use

A commission — comprising a range of regional
officers from various technical services (theCommission of Prevention and Disaster Risk
Management and Humanitarian Affairs) — wasestablished for the prevention and disaster risk
management in the department of Foundiougne.
This commission served as EPIC’s steeringcommittee.

Actions plans were also developed following the
VCA and contained the following information:1) actors involved and their roles, 2) list ofactivities for example collection of stones andconstruction of stone bunds, 3) strategy to be
used for example training and exchange visits,4) timeline and 5) the expected results.

Outcomes of the vulnerability and capacity
assessment
The VCA in Senegal used the same method
as that implemented in Burkina Faso. It
was conducted over four days convening
representatives of the concerned communities,
government technical officers in charge ofrural development, local NGOs and technicalpartners and IUCN staff. The VCA results
indicated that vulnerability factors include
drought, floods following heavy rainfall and soil
salinisation. These hazards, largely exacerbatedby human activities, are of major concern forthe socio-economic development of the region.
For example, land salinisation, which hasreached an unprecedented scale in the area,
has significantly reduced the quality of soil andvegetation cover, thus leading to water andwind erosion. One of the direct consequencesof this situation is the accentuation of the cereal
shortfall with its corollary food insecurity mainly
because of the reduction of arable land.

During implementation, additional activities
to diversify and improve livelihoods were also
included. These include vegetable gardening
and establishment and improvement of poultry
activities. Exchange visits were also organisedwith beneficiaries from Burkina Faso. The firstexchange visit was conducted in Senegal in2016 and the second one was conducted in2017 with community representatives from
Senegal visiting the villages of interventions in
Burkina Faso.
Baseline scientific studies
In Senegal, the socio-economic vulnerability
assessment was complemented with scientificbaseline risk assessment in the project area,
through the partnership with the School ofInternational Agro-development (ISTOM) andthe Institute of Environmental Sciences (ISE).
The following studies combined with resultsfrom the VCA helped to guide the project
implementations:

Based on existing vulnerabilities of the region,
three innovations were selected based on theirrelevance, but also in relation to the project
objectives:•• Mapping risks of disasters in the Djilor
district, analysing climatic hazards in themunicipal territory by degree of exposure,
intensity and frequency;•• Assessing the impacts of climate risks
on the sectors of agriculture, livestockand fisheries, in relation to agricultural
production (such as variation of yields,
quality, fertility, soil structure, extent
of water-induced erosion, extent of

1. Using the ‘Assisted Natural Regeneration’(ANR) for conserving forest resources
2. Construction of ‘fascines’ or anti-saltbunds with local materials. These aresmall structures made of bundles of sticks(deadwood) and built into the earth along51

Ecosystems protecting infrastructure and communities: lessons learned and guidelines for implementation

salinisation and crop-specific diseases);
as well as economic impacts (such aschanges in working time, loss of stocks,
price changes);•• Characterising the potential for Assisted
Natural Regeneration (such as assessmentof floristic composition; frequencyof natural regeneration by species;
parameters for assessing ANR such as
number, abundance, regeneration rate,density per species);•• Characterising soil salinity in the region

institutions and projects and programmes
in the field of climate change as well as
local decision-makers including 15 headsof regional services and local elected
representatives.
•• An exchange visit to Kaffrine, for sharing
experiences on and understanding of theeconomic benefits of ANR was held for five
local decision-makers, ten representatives
from technical departments and 20
cultivators.
•• In addition, six Senegalese cultivators
visited the department of Ouahigouya in
Burkina Faso to observe and learn fromEPIC interventions.
•• EPIC Senegal has been showcasedon the German television channel DWTV (Deutsche Welle TV) and at otherinternational for a, such as the World
Conservation Congress.

Capacity building and awareness-raising on
Eco-DRR
Besides the VCA workshop, several training
events were organised to strengthen thecapacities of communities and government
officials to facilitate EPIC implementation as
well as to promote scaling up of the approach.
These include:

2.5.3 Results and challenges in Senegal
EPIC implementation in Senegal involved
multiple stakeholders (Annex 6) to implement
the Science-Practice and Policy approach.
Research activities in Senegal were mostly
conducted at the beginning of the project but
contributed to shape the local policy scene.
The results of the different baseline scientificstudies including mapping of risks in the Djilor
district were shared during different workshops
which increased awareness on the disasterchallenges that the area was facing. This
provided incentives and a demand for improved
institutional support allowing the project tocontribute to the establishment of new local
committees for risk reduction. Unfortunately
the Senegal case study also lacks strong
scientific assessments of its impacts, partly
limited by capacity. Another challenge was
the lack of constant presence within the areaof intervention with IUCN main office being
far from the villages. However with close
collaboration and strengthening of capacities ofboth the local government and communities, theproject was able to implement strong practiceon the ground.

•• Eighty-two community members
comprising village development
committees for the six villages weretrained to strengthen their capacities
in organisational dynamics, project
management and project monitoring.
•• Two training sessions covering threemodules (ANR, establishing a nursery forsalt-tolerant and drought-tolerant species;
and the recovery of salinised soils) wereconducted and followed by a practicalhands-on learning sessions for 90 people(community members, rural council officers,
women’s groups, youth groups, farmers,
fishers and farmers, and government
officers from the Department of Water
and Forests, the Regional Division for theEnvironment and Classified Establishments
and the Centre for Support to Local
Development).
•• A training workshop on Eco-DRR
was conducted and attended by 40
stakeholders involved in risk management,
including civil society, NGOs, international

52

Field interventions•• Nearly half the population of the six villages— about 3,200 people — were involved in
EPIC interventions.
•• Seventy-six anti-salt bunds or fascines
were constructed, benefitting the whole
population of about 6,700 people.
•• Two nurseries were established in thevillages of Gagué Cherif and Péthie andthrough the EPIC project, 1,766 plants havebeen produced and planted in degradedlands.
•• After practising Assisted Natural
Regeneration5, there are now 7,192
saplings growing in 232 hectares ofcultivated land. A training handbook forcommencement and maintenance ofnurseries to produce seedlings of forest
and fruit plants for planting in degraded
land, was also produced.
•• In the villages of Kamatane Bambara andPéthie reforestation on one hectare eachhas been commenced.
•• One hundred and twenty roosters of theBlue Holland variety (a stronger, better
variety) have been introduced as an incomegenerating livelihood for women, so thatthey may use this income to purchase gas
for cooking instead of collecting fuelwood
from forested areas and further degradingthem. This has resulted in the production of
450 cross-breeds in two months. The valueof these cross-breeds is five times higher
than the cost for a local chicken.
Effectiveness of the innovations implemented
Similarly, to the case study from Burkina Faso, it
is important to acknowledge that there is a lackof quantitative data on effectiveness for the EPIC
villages. Qualitative information through focus
groups (6 focus groups; 85 men and 76 women)
conducted in 2017 as well as opportunistic
observations and collection of information
during three field visits in 2016 and 2017,provided anecdotal evidence that the practices
implemented were improving soil quality andincreasing crop yields. Community testimonies
linked assisted natural regeneration and fascineswith an increase in amount of land that can becultivated as well as re-appearance of grasses
in degraded land. However, it is difficult toisolate the cause-and-effect relationships andto attribute ‘documented’ changes with projectinterventions. Here also, an important barrier
is possible mismatch between project set-ups
and scientific research needs. Effective scientificmonitoring can be implemented over long-term
but would require a strong presence on site.
One potentially important area of study in the
project site is comparisons between fascines

Figure 19. left: Fascine (© IUCN/Ballé Seye); Right: Saplings growing in an ANR field (© Sriyanie Miththapala).

5

Assisted natural regeneration (ANR) is a simple, low-cost land restoration method that can effectively convert degradedlands into more productive areas, by the retention of naturally regenerating seedlings, particularly those of the legume
family, that then enhance soil productivity and eventually provide shade and protection to crops (Shono et al., 2007).

53

Ecosystems protecting infrastructure and communities: lessons learned and guidelines for implementationand hard infrastructures (concrete dams) thathave been previously implemented in the area
to address land degradation by comparing
for example, their effectiveness in mitigating
land degradation and their cost-effectiveness.
Discussions with the communities and fieldvisits have highlighted that these concretedams have been unsuccessful in restoring theland. Indeed, communities in the area have had
to abandon traditional rice cultivation due toland degradation despite establishment of thedams in several areas. While it would be easy
to generalise that these infrastructures are notas effective as nature-based ones, this context
in Senegal provide a very good opportunity
for innovative studies that can inform practice.
Besides comparative studies, it will be useful
to assess the factors that did not work for theconcrete dams. Fascines are small structures
implemented within villages and even if effective,
they probably need to be combined with otherstructures that address the local issues atlandscape level.

Development Action (ENDA) and Innovation
Environnement Dévéloppement (IED) Africa.

2.5.4 Lessons learned in Senegal•• Keeping communities at the heart ofsolutions to adapt to climate change
impacts is essential for the success of suchprogrammes.
•• The approach of working at grassroots,
local and national levels has been very
successful in ensuring the creation ofawareness about ecosystem-based
approaches to adapt to climate change.
•• Investing in capacity building andsensitising a range of stakeholders to
ecosystem-based approaches to deal
with natural hazards and climate change isessential for project success.
•• Eco-DRR/CCA projects can be integrated
with livelihood development activities which
help to provide incentives.
•• Exchanges between local actors
between countries can be useful learning
experiences for different communities
ensuring they are active leaders of change
in their land.
•• Eco-DRR/CCA can be a combination of“natural” and “built” infrastructures. In
West Africa, some of the infrastructures
built for example to reduce soil erosion
and store water, involve the constructionof man-made structures such as
fascines and stone lines. In contrast toconventional hard engineering solutions,these are constructed using available
natural resources such as plant debris,
woody materials and stones and thus
nature-based. But they illustrate that
protection of ecosystems may not exclude
built structures and that they can becomplementary.
•• Research can be leveraged to strengthen
local institutional support and provide
opportunities for continued actions•• Involving communities in decision-making,project management and implementation,
strengthened through capacity building,leads to community ownership.

Policy influence:•• EPIC in Senegal has provided capacity
building, particularly on ecosystembased adaptation to the local committee(Commission of Prevention and Disaster
Risk Management and Humanitarian
Affairs) in charge of prevention and disasterrisk management in the Fatick region.
•• Also at the local level, a Departmental
Committee for Prevention and Managementof Natural Disaster Risk and Humanitarian
Affairs has been established to ensurehorizontal linkages among departments andthe development of an operational plan, thefirst of its kind in Senegal.
•• At the national level, ecosystem-based
approaches for DRR and CCA have been
included in the National Wetland Policy(2015), integrating wetland conservation
into disaster risk reduction.
•• Also at the national level, a national
platform to promote ANR has been
established as collaboration among
IUCN, Word Vision, Environment and54

Thailand
Supranee Kampongsun and Jim Enright

Key Message
Community-based Ecological Mangrove Restoration(CBEMR) is an effective method for successfully restoring
abandoned aquaculture ponds back to a healthy,
biodiverse mangrove bio-shield, which will help protect
communities, infrastructure and agricultural lands fromtropical storms and erosion hazards.

Fast facts on Thailand*
Population: 68.86 Million
Main Livelihood: Industry sector (40.5%), Agriculture,
forestry and fisheries (38.1%), Services and business (16.9%)
Gross domestic product based on purchasing-powerparity (PPP) per capita GDP (current international dollar):
17,730.54
Human Development Index: 0.740 (ranks 87th in the world)
Poverty headcount ratio at national poverty lines: 10.6 %Main drivers of ecosystem change:•• Destruction and degradation of natural habitats fromurbanisation, development projects, conversion toagriculture and over fishing.
•• Overexploitation of natural resources (poaching, hunting
and wild trafficking)World Risk Index:*(Sources: World Bank, 2017; National Statistical Office, 2016; IMF, 2017f; UNDP,
2016; MoE, 2014; United Nations University, 2016)55

Ecosystems protecting infrastructure and communities: lessons learned and guidelines for implementation

2.6.1 Background and context inThailandflash), affecting 35 million people, and costing
42.7 billion USD; 10 storms and cyclones
affecting 1 million people and costing 22 million
USD; and eight droughts affecting 21.5 million
people and costing 3.7 billion USD (CRED,
2017).

Thailand extends over 513,115 km2 in thenorthern part of the Malay peninsula ofSoutheast Asia and is bordered by Myanmar,
Laos P.D.R, Cambodia and Malaysia Asia
(IUCN and ProAct, 2013f). It has a coastlinethat stretches for 3,219 km along the Gulf ofThailand and Andaman Sea (IUCN and ProAct,
2013f).

Climate change will have overarching impacts
on Thailand’s agriculture, coastal tourism, andthe capital city. “One degree of warming will
destroy the rice crops that are central to theeconomy, and a few centimetres of sea level
rise will submerge the capital city and devastate
coastal tourism” (Kisner, 2008).

Climate change and disaster risk
During the past 55 years, the averagetemperature in Thailand has increased
significantly (ONEP, 2015). Every decade,average temperature has increased by 0.174°C,
which is higher than the average global
temperature increase of 0.126°C, for the same
period of time (ONEP, 2015). It is predicted that
average temperature both during the day andnight time will slightly increase, and the numberof hot days during the year will also increase,affecting all of Thailand (Setthasirot et al, 2015).
This increased temperature is predicted tocause a longer dry season for 2-3 months by
the end of the century (ONEP, 2015).

Relevance of Eco-DRR interventions
During the period from 1985-2000, land
conversion into shrimp ponds for aquaculture
led to massive mangrove deforestation,
exacerbating the vulnerability of coastal local
populations against natural hazards such as
storms surges, strong winds or sea level rise.
The coastal landscape of Thailand, as in manyother countries in Asia, is blanketed by a jigsaw
puzzle of abandoned shrimp ponds in areasof former mangrove forest (Enright, person.
comm).

Regional diverging trends in rainfall have been
observed, with decreases in central and eastern
Thailand, and increases in the northeast, theGulf of Thailand and the Bangkok metropolitan
area (TransRe, 2016). In addition, there havebeen seasonal shifts in the volume of rain witha significant increase between November andApril and a decrease May and October. Climate
variability in the form of intense rainfall days isincreasing, while rainfall patterns are changing(TransRe, 2016). This rainfall variability has thepotential to cause flash floods.

Within the Krabi River Estuary in the southwestof Thailand is Klang Island, which is where
EPIC carried out its interventions. This island
is only about one metre above sea level andhigh sea tides that occur annually between
October and December have become higher
and cause flooding (Raks Thai, 2014). Storms
and winds during monsoon seasons adversely
affect communities living on this island. Coastal
erosion driven by mangrove destruction andwater extraction inland is also very detrimental.
Since 2003, this erosion has become very
severe with one coastal community losing three
to four metres of beach every year (Raks Thai,
2014). During the dry season, there are water
shortages, and seawater intrusion (Raks Thai,
2014).

From 1993-2008, the sea level in the Gulf ofThailand has risen about 3-5 mm per year whencompared to the global average of 1.7 (±0.5)mm per year (TransRe, 2016).
In addition, the frequency and intensity of
extreme weather event has increased. Since
2000, there have been 41 floods (riverine and

There have been many mangrove restoration
campaigns following major disasters. However,56

© IUCN/Camille Buyck

in many cases there were high levels of
failures, attributed inter alia to implementation
techniques (Thavanayagam and Thangmuthu,
2014). Therefore, it is important to use
scientifically rigorous knowledge to effectively
restore mangrove ecosystems that not only
act as bio-shields, but also provide multiple
economic, social and ecological benefits (Lewis,2005).

Plan on Climate Change 2017-2021 (Phase 1of implementation) will prioritise agriculture,public health and tourism in the 2017
implementation plan. The principal instruments
for adaptation and mitigation in these fields
will be implemented by different government
agencies; for instance, Ministry of Finance,
Ministry of Interior, Ministry of Agriculture andCooperatives, Ministry of Tourism and Sports,
Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment,
Ministry of Transport and Ministry of Energy.

Policy context
The key act for disaster risk reduction is theDisaster Prevention and Mitigation Act of 2007,
implemented by the Department for Prevention
and Mitigation of National Disasters under the
Ministry of Interior as the principal focal point
for coordination, policy and planning for disasterprevention and mitigation.

The Marine and Coastal Resource Management
Act of 2015, implemented by the Departmentof Marine and Coastal Resource, also promote
community engagement in the sustainable
management of marine and coastal resource
management.
EPIC sites in Thailand
Ban Klongkam (EPIC site one) village is locatedon Klang Island, and faces the Andaman Sea,
approximately 100 metres from the coast(Figure 20). A large part of the community is
located close to mangroves and a beach which
are low-lying areas that consist of small canals

Climate Change Master Plan 2015-2050
focuses on the 6 areas for adaptation andmitigation. It includes 1) Water, flood anddrought management, 2) Agriculture and Food
security, 3) Tourism, 4) Public Health, 5) Natural
resource management, and 6) Settlement andhuman security. A draft of the National Action

57

Ecosystems protecting infrastructure and communities: lessons learned and guidelines for implementation

Figure 20. Map of the EPIC site in Thailand

connecting to the community. There are 177
households with a population of 799 people inthis village. EPIC site two is Ban Koh Klang is
one metre above sea level, and approximately
300 metres the Andaman coast. There are 468
households and a total population of 2,098 inthis village.

The specific objectives were to:•• create two CBEMR demonstration sites
for future CBEMR trainings in Thailand andbuild awareness of the hydrological factors
in restoring areas degraded by man- madechanges to the hydrology;•• use a multi-stakeholder approach during
the entire process involving government,
local people, and NGOs;•• empower and build capacity of local
communities as central stakeholders incoastal resource management so that they
become examples of agents of change ina bottom-up approach to neighbouringcommunities and hopefully leading to
the establishment of a local community
network;•• restore the biodiversity of mangrove
habitat, which a number of community
members depend on as a supplementary
livelihood such as producing thatch forincome and mud crab collection;

Shrimp aquaculture — the most importantcause of mangrove loss — developed rapidly on
the island from the late 1980s to the mid-2000s
and then declined.
Objectives of EPIC in Thailand
The overall goal of the EPIC project in Thailand
was to use the Community based EcologicalMangrove Restoration (CBEMR) method torestore abandoned aquaculture ponds to
productive mangrove habitats, which will aid
coastal protection and support resource-based
livelihoods, especially fisheries.

58•• develop and deliver tailored policy
messages for target government agencies;
and•• establish a stakeholder dialogue platform,
comprised of government, NGOs, civilsociety established in Thailand, which will
use and promote nationally and provide
input to the findings of the project.

committee comprised government officers from
district and provincial level; officers of the local
mangrove management unit and regional officefrom the Department of Marine and Coastal
Resources (DMCR); community representatives
and NGOs. The role of the committee was tokeep stakeholders informed of project progress,
provide feedback and solutions as needed, as
well as to disseminate information on CBEMR.

2.6.2 Operational approach in Thailand
EPIC in Thailand was implemented jointly by
the Mangrove Action Project (MAP) and IUCN
Thailand, the former carrying on-the-groundinterventions and the latter addressing policy
issues, respectively.

Policy advocacy was conducted throughdiscussions and awareness workshops.
Vulnerability and capacity assessment
In Thailand, the VCA analysis was conductedbased on a manual developed by CARE
International on community’s climate change
adaptation framework. This frameworkcomprised a set of questions for the data
analysis for local organisations and at thecommunity level. The data derived werequalitative data, which later used to analyse,
compile, and write the conclusions. The overall
process followed these guidelines. The study
also gathered background information on
future trends in climate change and risks within
the project site based on a previous study
conducted by Southeast Asia START Regional
Center (SEA START RC).

Under the EPIC project, the Mangrove
Action Project (MAP) utilised two abandoned
shrimp ponds on Klang Island, in the Krabi
River Estuary Ramsar Site as demonstrationsites to showcase the Community based
Ecological Mangrove Restoration (CBEMR)
methodology. CBEMR is a methodology
for mangrove restoration which is basedon science, using nature as the model for
mangrove restoration. It is grounded in theprinciple that restoring mangroves requires
initial restoration of natural ecological processes
that once supported healthy mangroves. Thus,
CBEMR places a strong emphasis on correctinghydrological problems and dealing with natural
or man-made stressors to facilitate natural
mangrove regeneration. It reaches beyond
the mere planting of seedlings, as is typicalof most mangrove restoration projects, andincreases the effectiveness of restoration of
degraded mangrove forests by embracing andunderstanding the mangrove ecosystem as awhole, using nature as a model for restoration(MAP 2017). CBEMR is also a participatory,
community-led process that involves
communities from the planning stage through toimplementation, empowerment, ownership andmonitoring.

Science and monitoring
Two systems of monitoring were used tomonitor the restoration sites: 1) Quadrat
analysis and 2) time-lapse photography.
Nine fixed quadrats measuring 3m X 3m
were established on each site and monitored
regularly with data collection on mangrove
species, height and health condition percent ofground cover, and number of crab holes plus
any other observations, especially hydrology,
and volunteer seedlings appearing on site.
Time-lapse photography were taken every
three months and proved to be a simple, costeffective method of monitoring regeneration.

A local EPIC Advisory Committee (of 11
members) was established and met for halfa day on average three times per year. This

Although not directly supported by EPIC, one
post-doctoral student, two PhD students andthree master’s degree students, used the EPIC

59

Ecosystems protecting infrastructure and communities: lessons learned and guidelines for implementationsites to collect data for their research. A third
PhD student will commence work soon. The
work of the post-doctoral students has been
published in two peer-reviewed journals/book.
One of these students has developed a multiple
linear regression model to predict levels of
biomass and carbon in mangrove ecosystems.
Once published, this research may provide
an inexpensive and reliable way of estimating
carbon stock in mangroves.

introducing Eco-DRR was held for 80
participants.
•• In total, there were five local workshops
held with 176 participants.
•• Nationally, there were three workshops heldwith a total of 198 participants.
•• EPIC results have been disseminatedwidely within Thailand and also at 16international conferences. In addition,a blog, handbooks, flyers on CBEMR
and videos have been produced anddisseminated.

Capacity building and awareness-raising on
Eco-DRR
Several training events were organised tostrengthen the capacities of communities
and government officials to facilitate EPIC
implementation as well as to promote scaling upof the approach. These include:

2.6.3 Results and challenges in Thailand
EPIC implementation in Thailand involved
multiple stakeholders (Annex 7) to implement
the Science-Practice and Policy approach. The
participatory approach used from the beginningof the project and during implementation helped
to ensure the inclusion local knowledge. In
terms of challenges, mangrove restoration
activities were slowed down by free grazing
goats in the second EPIC site. Different
types of fencing methods had to be tested
depending on their effectiveness to protect the
mangrove seedlings. An attempt to incorporate
silvofisheries into the CBEMR sites also proved
be unsuccessful due to difficulty to control thehigh energy tidal conditions at the sites suchthat it is suitable for both mangrove restorationand silvofisheries.

•• Two CBEMR training workshops and astudy tour were carried out to build local
capacity on mangrove restoration for 57
participants from local communities andlocal government. Many of these members
are now part of the CBEMR community
network organised by MAP. The network
has three main objectives: to build capacity
on CBEMR; transfer CBEMR knowledge
to other communities through meetings,
workshops, study tours and trainings;
and to have CBEMR spokespersons andsupporters who will communicate with the
DMCR, as a mechanism to help change
their approach to mangrove restoration.
Community members involved in thesetrainings now understand the CBEMR
method, know how to implement it, andare aware of the approach’s strengths andweaknesses.
•• As much as the positive impacts of
CBEMR were promoted, the EPIC project
also served to raise awareness of thenegative impacts (both biological andsocioeconomic) of mangrove monocultures
to a very wide range of people.
•• Two training workshops for both local
people and local authorities in Krabi

Field interventions•• Two mangrove demonstration sites,
totalling two hectares have been
established successfully using the CBEMR
method, and involving 25 community
members in physical work. This processincluded developing a baseline report oflocation and stakeholders; consultation
with communities; surveying and selecting
two abandoned ponds; negotiating withholders of ponds to secure their consent
to proceed with restoration; carryingout climate vulnerability and capacityof communities; collecting baseline
biophysical data of the sites; developing60

Figure 21. Top: EPIC Site # 1 in June 2015; Bottom: the same site in August 2017 (© MAP)

and implementing mangrove restoration
with hydrological plans, using hand-digging
and a backhoe to restore hydrology;
monitoring the sites with fixed quadrats toassess the diversity of flora and fauna as
well as using time-lapse photos (Figure 21)•• The CBEMR method has restored
mangrove species biodiversity to therestoration sites. One the main goals of
CBEMR is to bring back the full range ofmangrove species diversity which existed
previously on the site. Most mangrove
restoration projects plant even-aged monoculture plantations, often in areas notsuitable for mangroves. CBEMR ensuresthat each species will be in the correct zone
as determined by nature. There are now

eight mangrove species in the EPIC sites,
as well as fauna such as mud crabs andfish.
•• Raks Thai Foundation (CARE Thailand) has
commenced implementation of CBEMR
principles at their restoration sites on Klang
Island in Klong Prasong village and Klong
Yang village in Krabi. Raks Thai learned
about CBEMR from the training carriedout under the EPIC project and from its
field projects and is now implementing its
elements.
•• Even though the EPIC sites are in theirearly stages of natural recovery already 580
people have from 25 countries have visitedthese sites to learn about the CBEMR
process, including local government

61

Ecosystems protecting infrastructure and communities: lessons learned and guidelines for implementation

officials, DMCR officers from Bangkok,
study groups, students, master’s degree
and, PhD researchers, media personnel,
MAP Interns, and hundreds of international
volunteers.
•• Local communities have provided
traditional knowledge to trap seeds in thedemonstration sites. Namely salt tolerant
grasses were found to provide not only aphysical trap for seeds but may also act asnurseries protecting and shading mangrove
seedlings. In areas of barren soil, local
communities have also recommended thatbrush piles be staked down on the pondbottom and used to trap seeds.

scale restoration to occur. The project has
also raised awareness about the complex
land tenure issues in Thailand, whichmust be first resolved before many of theabandoned prawn farm areas in Thailand
can be restored.

2.6.4 Lessons learned in Thailand•• Creation of awareness about CBEMR, andthrough it Eco-DRR, to Thai society was amajor achievement, as these approaches
are new compared to other kinds of climatechange related approaches such as
mitigation and adaptation.
•• Implementing hydrological restoration in
the field with local people was an effective
way to transfer CBEMR knowledge.
The hydrological correction field work
involved much hand-digging following
the excavation by the backhoe digger
over a period of many months, usuallyfor a period of 1-2 days per month. This
allowed many community members to joinin the work and learn, hands-on, about
CBEMR. Community members learn bestfrom hands-on experience, observing andimplementing. Such field work also helps
build interest.
•• The local EPIC Project Advisory Committee
was a very important instrument to support
project implementation and it helped not
only in providing solutions to problems
and feedback, but its members became
ambassadors of the CBEMR approach.
•• Incorporating silvofisheries and CBEMR
is unsuccessful. A deep outer channel
was excavated by backhoe around theentire perimeter of the restoration so thatfauna could enter the pond but not leave.
Approximately, a half meter of waterremained in these deeper channels during
the low tide period. Controlling the hightidal energy of the semi-diurnal tides (witha tidal range of up to three metres) was
not possible even though several types ofsluice gates were used. In addition, water
did not drain sufficiently from the pond, sothat the site remained too wet for too long.

Policy influence•• IUCN established a working groupconsisting of local NGOs, MAP, DMCR
and IUCN to work together on for policy ofmarine and coastal resource management
and the Marine and Coastal Resource
management Act 2015. Now, the working
group is focusing sustainable marine andcoastal management and promotion of
Eco-DRR in Thailand as a methodology thatwill contribute to the SDGs.
•• A policy brief has been prepared anddisseminated to 100 key stakeholders.
•• The Eco-DRR approach, as well as the
CBEMR approach, has been introduced
to different stakeholders — communities,
government officers at the local andnational levels; the provincial, regional andnational officers of the DMCR at various
fora.
•• IUCN and DMCR have established a formal
collaboration platform (through a MoU) for
marine and coastal resource management.
•• A collaborative work plan under thisplatform is being prepared for theestablishment of a CBEMR demonstration
site, which is currently halted because theposition of the Director of the Mangrove
Resource Conservation Office is vacant.
•• Land tenure is the single largest barrier
to restoring abandoned shrimp ponds inThailand, and must be solved for larger62

To combine aquaculture with mangrove
restoration on a multi-pond site, it would be
best to undertake aquaculture in one pond
where water can be controlled, and restore
mangroves in the other ponds.
•• Involvement of research institutions should
be prioritised to provide socioeconomic
valuation of mangroves restored by
CBEMR. Such solid evidence is essential
so that the cost effectiveness of themethodology can be presented to DMCR
and other related agencies.

•• The Department of Disaster Prevention and
Mitigation should have been included forpolicy discussions, instead of focussing
only on the DMCR. This is a missed
opportunity for the introduction of Eco-DRR
into a key government agency.
•• CBEMR should be used as a means of
introducing the larger approach of EcoDRR. In EPIC Thailand, this could havebeen better reinforced.

63

Ecosystems protecting infrastructure and communities: lessons learned and guidelines for implementation© IUCN/Fabiola Monty

Chapter 3
Lessons learned from EPIC
Camille Buyck, Fabiola Monty and Radhika Murti

643.1 EPIC achievements andingredients of successbio-engineering as a source of income, and theiraccess to markets has been improved thanks tobetter road conditions.

All EPIC case studies used the same SciencePractice-Policy operational framework to guidethe implementation of activities. However,there were different levels of success acrossthe six case studies with great variations in theextent and type of science-based knowledge
generated, field-based interventions and policy
influence results. This unevenness in success
was largely shaped by the different local andnational contexts and engagement as well as
the partners involved in each case study. But asa pilot project, EPIC provides important learning
opportunities for replication as well as scaling
up. Overall, through engagement with a diverse
range of stakeholders, the project has beenvery successful in increasing awareness of theimportance of ecosystem-based approaches fordisaster risk reduction and in influencing policy(Miththapala, 2017). Also for each case study,
there was at least one aspect (science, practiceand policy) that was very successful. This
provides a unique opportunity for comparisonsand to assess the key ingredients of success.

Ingredients of success•• Participatory approach and giving a voice
to local people•• Integrating livelihood improvement
strategies with Eco-DRR/EbA interventions•• Adaptive management to incorporate
learning and community interests•• Developing and/or building on existing local
partnerships•• Exchange visits between communities

3.1.2 Mitigation of hazards and impactsof climate change
The activities implemented in the EPIC sites
were informed by vulnerability assessments
as well as desk-based review of existing
information on impacts of climate change.
They are thus relevant to the local challenges
in terms of disaster and climate change.
Research conducted in Nepal, China and Chileprovides evidence that the approaches usedand ecosystems can be effective in providing
physical protection from hazards. For example,
in the case of Nepal, planted grasses effectively
allow the control of gully erosion and landslides,
and actions have been taken to prevent thepilot sites being affected by drought and floods(through the use of drought-resistant species
and the establishment of a drainage system).
It is worth noting that in Thailand, priority isgiven to site restoration and demonstration of
the CBEMR technique to policy makers, while
the effectiveness of restored sites in termsof disaster protection could be assessed in
the future when the mangrove will be fully
developed.

3.1.1 Building resilience and reducing
vulnerability
It is generally acknowledged that healthy andbio-diverse ecosystems provide a range ofgoods and services including food, timberand non-timber products, water, fresh air, andprotection against natural hazards. In Nepal,
Thailand, Burkina Faso and Senegal, the fieldbased interventions included efforts to build
community resilience. In Burkina Faso andSenegal, the implementation of locally-adapted
techniques (such as stone bunds, zaï, anti-saltbunds and assisted natural regeneration) cancontribute to better soil condition for cultivationand improved water availability. In Thailand,
it is reported through the monitoring activities
that restored ponds are bringing crab species
back that are used for food consumption. In
Nepal, people are able to sell grass used forIngredients of success•• Vulnerability and capacity assessment(VCA)•• Participatory approach and responding tocommunities’ immediate worries

65

Ecosystems protecting infrastructure and communities: lessons learned and guidelines for implementation•• Integration of VCA with existing information
on climate change impacts•• Involvement of research partners

addition, the participatory approach undertaken
for instance in West Africa allows communities’
to build capacities on activity planning andappraisal.

3.1.3 Generating science-basedknowledge

Ingredients of success•• Inclusive approach and community
involvement•• Including peer-to-peer learning
opportunities between local people

In each EPIC country, IUCN has partnered witha research institute or university in charge of
documenting the approach or techniques being
implemented. As a consequence, EPIC has
generated several studies that help to enhance
the knowledge base on Eco-DRR, particularly
when it comes to the role of vegetation in
reducing risks of landslides and avalanches
and provides opportunities for more actions on
the ground. For example, INRA has generated
a database of suitable species for slope
stabilisation, aiming at informing future bioengineering work in China. Similarly, a manualon community-based bio-engineering for ecosafe roadsides has been produced in Nepal.
In Chile, SLF has mapped risky areas andhas investigated the protective role of forests
against snow avalanches. In Burkina Faso andSenegal, the impact of climate change on local
livelihoods has been assessed.

3.1.5 Strengthening institutional
capacities
Through various meetings and workshops held
at local and national levels as well as field visits,
EPIC effectively raised awareness on EcoDRR issues and approaches; through concrete
examples from the pilot sites, policy makers
were able to understand Eco-DRR principles
and to appreciate that ecosystem-based
approaches also constitute solutions for risk
reduction and climate change adaptation. In thisregard, it is important to bring together relevant
stakeholders, for instance local conservation
officers and development officers. For example,
in Nepal, where bio-engineering was alreadyincluded on the policy agenda, it was critical tobuild capacities and to show how it could be
implemented at local level, and how effective it
was for coping with landslide risks. Organising
workshops including field visits to the sites
is an effective way to raise awareness and todemonstrate that Eco-DRR is a relevant andcost-effective approach to deal with natural
hazards.

Ingredients of success•• Early and constant collaboration withresearch institutions•• Building on existing relationships with local
networks and institutions

3.1.4 Building capacities of local people
In all countries, workshops have been organised
so as to raise awareness of local stakeholders
on climate change and disaster risks intheir area, as well as on ecosystem-based
approaches to respond to those risks. Except
in China and Chile where EPIC doesn’t interact
directly with a community, capacity-building
workshops have been organised regularly
to train local people on specific techniquessuch as CBEMR in Thailand, bio-engineeringin Nepal, and agricultural practices, including
nurseries development, in Burkina Faso andSenegal. These training events are key to ensurecommunities’ ownership of the activities. In

Ingredients of success•• Awareness-raising•• Organising frequent events including
workshops and field visits to increase
capacity•• Producing and distributing knowledge of
products

3.1.6 Policy influence
In some countries, EPIC is being taken as amodel and there is growing interest to integrate
Eco-DRR in national policies. As highlighted in66the different case studies, there are different
emerging entry-points following EPIC’s work.
For example, in Thailand, a MoE has beensigned between IUCN and the Departmentof Marine and Coastal Resources (DMCR),
and a joint action plan is under development
for developing mangroves conservation workfor climate change adaptation in Thailand.
In Senegal, EPIC’s work has led to theestablishment of a departmental commission
on risk prevention and management thanks toefforts through the project. An action plan will
be developed for strengthening the work on
Eco-DRR in the area.

on credible science that drive informed
practices (science>policy>practice);•• through applying science as new
approaches (practices) to influence policies(science>practice>policy);•• through using good practices toinfluence policy change and establish
resources to address research gaps
(practices>policy>science).
In EPIC, a bottom-up approach was adopted,
where local activities were implemented
and documented so as inform policies anddrive opportunities for scaling up. Policy was
influenced from local to national levels throughthe multi-stakeholder engagements, which
guided the project’s implementation as well
as strategic policy advocacy. It is important tohighlight that there are several discussions on
how to take the Eco-DRR/CCA agenda forward
and the challenges that need to be addressed(Box 3.1).

Ingredients of success•• Multi-stakeholder engagement•• Working at different levels from local to
global level•• Linking capacity building with policy
advocacy•• Awareness-raising activities•• Seeking information on upcoming policy
reviews

Lessons learned from EPIC’s achievements
and challenges provide important contributions
to further inform the field of practice aswell as efforts to integrate Eco-DRR andEbA. Before looking at lessons learned andrecommendations to successfully implement
science, practice and policy influence
respectively, it is important to note that
unevenness in how these three aspects were
implemented across the case studies indicatespotential trade-offs particularly between practiceand science. This is particularly relevant for
all the case studies except Nepal. In the otherfive case studies, there has indeed been either
strong science, for example Chile and China,
or strong practices, for example Burkina Faso,
Senegal and Thailand. One common factor
among the case studies that showed strong
science is that a research institution was a main
partner (See Table 3) and was involved fromthe very beginning as the project was being
developed at global level. Case studies thatshowed strong practice also shared common
factors that could explain the success including
previous experience working with community-

3.2 Towards the effective
implementation of Eco-DRR/
CCA: lessons learned andrecommendations
EPIC’s experience demonstrates that effective
Eco-DRR/CCA implementation requires
working on three main aspects, namely
science, policy and practice, so as to 1) makeEco-DRR activities sustainable; 2) document
evidences; and 3) make the case for Eco-DRR.
The interactions between science, policy andpractice are multiple and can work in different
ways. As showcased by EPIC, Eco-DRR/
CCA can work from the local to global levelby collating science, applying science andinforming with best practices for policy changeor strengthening. This can be done in different
ways, including:•• through establishing sound policies based67

Ecosystems protecting infrastructure and communities: lessons learned and guidelines for implementation

Box 3.1 Eco-DRR/CCA: emerging issues and challenges for scaling up
The increased acknowledgement of the linkages between ecosystems and disasters and theincreased recognition of the importance of ecosystem management in risk reduction still remain
to be translated into large-scale actions. Recent and on-going progress at the science and policy
level already provides the right enabling factors to advance Eco-DRR.
Indeed Eco-DRR has been increasingly promoted in the scientific literature. A recent review ofrecent advances for coastal, riverine and mountain ecosystems reveals a growing interest in
the concept by the scientific and practitioner community (Renaud et al., 2016). The EPIC casestudies surely build on such literature, particularly showcasing the importance of vegetation in
mitigating the impacts of avalanches and landslides. The China case studies also highlight theimportance of plant diversity and traits in restoration efforts to mitigate hazard risks. Yet there
still remain several knowledge gaps that need to be addressed, for example there is a lack ofknowledge: on the role of ecosystems in mitigating slow-onset hazards (Renaud et al., 2016)
and on ecosystem threshold levels to various hazards (Estrella and Saalismaa, 2013). The
case study from Nepal also provides a good example of the economic benefits of Eco-DRR,
particularly over time. However, demonstrating the economic benefits of ecosystem-based
approaches is difficult and as they are important tools to influence policy, they often need to besite-specific or at least geographically relevant.
In terms of scaling up, several barriers need to be addressed if we are to move towards theimplementation of the key global policies recently adopted. The 2017 Global Platform forDisaster Risk Reduction held in Mexico was focused on translating the Sendai commitments
into concrete action for risk reduction. Discussions during several sessions on ecosystemmanagement at the event were geared towards a better understanding of why ecosystem-based
approaches are not yet fully adopted and integrated in disaster risk reduction. Some of the main
challenges highlighted by participants were the following:•• Nature-based solutions are not easily seen as a solution and there is a perceived uncertainty
about their value•• Ecosystem-based approaches need patience and the benefits takes time to manifest•• There is a lack of practical knowledge and information on the subject•• There is a lack of capacity•• There is a need for solutions that are accepted by communities and that demonstrate clear
benefits
Estrella et al. (2016) also identified the “lack of standardised, technical guidelines for designingand using ecosystem-based measures for disaster and climate risk reduction” as a key barrier tothe uptake of Eco-DRR.
Taking Eco-DRR/CCA forward will require that the lessons learned from pilot projects arecompiled and that the good examples are made more visible and accessible to different
stakeholders. It is also important that these lessons learned contribute to build trust andconfidence in Eco-DRR/CCA solutions and start to guide the implementation process of suchinitiatives, particularly for those that are still not familiar with the approach.

683.2.2 Lessons learned andrecommendations for effective EcoDRR/CCA practice: making our actions
sustainable

based approaches, building on existing good
relationships with local stakeholders and astrong overlap between local demand and the
project’s activities.

An important component of Eco-DRR/CCA
initiatives is their participatory nature. To
ensure community mobilisation, adoptionof and interest to continue the field-based
interventions, these need to be relevant for
the local communities. It is also important
to empower local people through capacity
building and to engage them in project design,
implementation and monitoring.

3.2.1 Lessons learned andrecommendations for effective EcoDRR/CCA science: documenting
effectiveness
Science has a key role to play in documenting
Eco-DRR/CCA evidence, either as leverage
points to influence policy as showcased insome of the case studies, particularly Nepal, orto inform evidence-based field interventions.
It is therefore important to set up the basics
for strong science from the early stages in an
initiative, and to also engage with the scientificcommunity to create interest in contributing toknowledge creation on scientific evidence andgood practices.

Recommendations:•• Adopt a participatory approach by involving
all relevant stakeholders from the startof the project, and by involving themin the design of the activities (throughconsultation meetings or Vulnerability
and Capacity Assessment workshops, forinstance).
•• Create and maintain ownership of
the project by giving clear roles andresponsibilities to community members
and local partners, including monitoringof the activities. This can be done, forinstance, through partnerships with local
partners active in the area, or through theestablishment of community-led monitoringsocial institutions.
•• Take any opportunities to invite local
people to participate in relevant meetings
at national, regional or global level, so as togive them a voice and allow them to give
their testimony on the project.

Recommendations•• Identify scientific needs of an initiativefrom the project design phase and engage
early on with different scientific partners
or groups of scientists that can support
the development and implementation of
the planned scientific studies including
baselines.
•• Encourage research thesis topics on EcoDRR/CCA by using Eco-DRR projects
for research and partnering with research
institutes for resources mobilisation. In
EPIC, this strategy allowed to partnerwith various research institutes anduniversities that were able to document
the effectiveness of the approach and/or to give recommendations for Eco-DRR
implementation.
•• Gather knowledge and experience withmultiple actors and at different levels; this
could be done through organising fieldvisits, participating in scientific conferences
and policy meetings, publishing scientificresults and translating them into
recommendations for practitioners or
policy-makers.

When designing the activities, seek traditional
practices that may have been abandonedor need to be replicated or scaled up.
Communities are often willing to apply their own
knowledge for designing activities. It is also agood opportunity to (re)discover practices thatwould otherwise be lost, and to promote them.

69

Ecosystems protecting infrastructure and communities: lessons learned and guidelines for implementation

3.2.3 Lessons learned andrecommendations for effective EcoDRR/CCA policy influence: making thecase for Eco-DRR/CCA

governments’ support in the field, which
can then be used for advocating at nationaland global levels.

3.3 Towards the integration of
Eco-DRR and EbA

Making the case for ecosystem-based
approaches is probably the most important
aspect to scale-up such work. They do not only
need to be mainstreamed into different policies
but also into different sectors. In the case of
EPIC, there are lessons learned mainly withregards to mainstreaming ecosystem-based
approaches into different policies including
disaster risk reduction and climate change
adaptation. Constant engagements throughseveral meetings and training events withlocal and national policy-makers have been
instrumental to influence policy. These close
collaborations and exchanges during workshops
and field visits can also facilitate policy influenceeven when the field-based interventions taketime to manifest as showcased by the casestudy in Thailand.

Throughout this publication, the term EcoDRR/CCA has been used to describe EPIC as
it aims to address both disaster risk reduction
and climate change adaptation. An important
initial point of convergence in the EPIC casestudy is the integration of hazard and climatechange vulnerability assessment. A combinationof desk-based review on disaster and climatechange challenges with socio-economic
vulnerability assessment helped to inform the
project on short-term disaster challenges aswell as long-term climate change challenges.
The CBD COP 13 saw an importantachievement with the adoption of the decision
XIII/4 on Biodiversity and climate change. For
the first time linkages between EbA and EcoDRR were included in a CBD decision. This
recent policy development mirrors the increased
coherence in different global policies. It is thus
particularly timely to go beyond informing EcoDRR and EbA separately and to link scaled-up
actions with integration.

Recommendations•• Involve different policy sectors andministries early in the project, so as to raiseawareness of Eco-DRR/CCA and planned
activities. Encourage cross-sectorial
dialogues through the organisation of roundtable discussions or workshops.
•• Make the case for Eco-DRR/CCA byusing scientific data and evidences on
the effectiveness of the approach; makerecommendations for future implementationof Eco-DRR/CCA in the country, based on
research outputs. This can be done throughthe development of policy briefs, or throughthe organisation of meetings and field visits.
•• Build capacities on Eco-DRR/CCA throughjoint capacity development amongst policy
actors such as Protected Area managers,
disaster management planners andagencies for CCA.
•• Act at multiple levels (from local to
global) for promoting Eco-DRR/CCA,
because each level of governance has its
own mandates and responsibilities. For
instance, it is strategic to seek for local

Given such cross-cutting issues, integrated
approaches provide the opportunities tobring multiple sectors together and to tap
into different types of resources and financing
mechanisms. Furthermore, ecosystem-based
approaches can provide multiple co-benefits
and if well designed and involving the rightstakeholders, Eco-DRR/CCA initiatives have thepotential to go beyond disaster risk reduction
and climate change adaption.
The EPIC case studies from the previous
chapter and lessons from EPIC as discussed
in earlier sections provide guidance on theoperational approach for Eco-DRR/CCA
projects. However, there are also some gaps

70and opportunities for improvement and to add
value to such initiatives:techniques to determine threshold levels
for different ecosystem health. Climatechange scenarios and modelling ecosystem
responses can be used to assess how theecosystems of interest will be affected byclimate change.
•• Ecosystem-based mitigation: At the global
policy scene, there are not only calls forthe integration of Eco-DRR and EbA but
also ecosystem-based mitigation. The
latter can no doubt be a co-benefit of EcoDRR/CCA approaches, particularly whenit comes to protection and restoration of
ecosystems. Forests, for example, are
known to be important carbon stocks.
Recently there has been increased interestin the role of mangrove forests as carbon
sinks. For example, a recent review ofscientific evidence on the role of marine
ecosystems and its components as viablelong-term carbon sinks found that “Coastal
blue carbon ecosystems (mangroves,tidal marshes, and seagrasses) represent
important climate mitigation opportunities”(Howard et al., 2017) with high rates ofcarbon sequestration particularly in thesoils. Though not part of the EPIC casestudy in Thailand, the projects sites wereused for a study to assess carbon stocks.
However, the results were not available
at the time that this publication was
being produced. Integrating carbon stockmonitoring with Eco-DRR/CCA can show
the added value of these projects as a tool
to implement multiple policy commitments.

•• Assessment of ecosystem services: inthe case of EPIC, besides informationcollected during the VCA, there was no
detailed assessment of ecosystem services
at early stages of the project. If conductedat landscape level, such assessments
can pinpoint where ecosystem-based
approaches are relevant. For example,
ecosystems that provide important
ecosystem services for risk reduction andclimate change adaptation can be targeted.
•• Assessment of ecosystem trends andhealth: this is linked to the point discussed
above. EPIC was mostly focused on social
vulnerability assessment, particularly
for those case studies that had strong
practice. While ecosystem services
assessment can pinpoint ecosystems ofinterest, it is also important to understandthe state of these ecosystems, their health,factors contributing to degradation andtrends in land-use change. This will in turnhelp to inform the type of actions needed toprotect important ecosystems.
•• Climate proofing: To ensure that
ecosystem-based approaches are effective,
it is important to assess their potential
limits and how field interventions can beaffected by hazards and climate change.
Such assessments can be integrated
with the ecosystem assessment above.
Citizen science may be useful to gather
historical data on the impacts of hazards on
ecosystems and combined with modelling71

Ecosystems protecting infrastructure and communities: lessons learned and guidelines for implementation© IUCN/ Camille Buyck

Chapter 4
To conclude and align the lessons learned fromEPIC with the current demand for coherent actions
and technical guidance, this chapter builds on
existing guidelines for EbA implementation andinformed by the experience of EPIC, proposes thefirst guidance to implement integrated Eco-DRR and
EbA initiatives.
Fabiola Monty, Radhika Murti and Camille Buyck

72

There are multiple case studies publishedin the literature, which includes lessons andrecommendations to inform development of
Eco-DRR initiatives, but currently, there areno specific step-by-step guidelines on how to
implement such initiatives or hybrid ones. Inan effort to move one step further, a step-bystep guide (Figure 22) to implement Eco-DRR/
CCA is proposed, which integrates lessons fromEPIC with existing guidelines on EbA, namely:1) the EbA framework developed by FEBA,
2) Principles and Guidelines for Integrating
Ecosystem-based Approaches to Adaptation in
Project and Policy Design (Andrade et al., 2012),
3) a guide for setting up an EbA intervention
developed by IUCN Netherlands (Jiménez
Hernández, 2016), and 4) the proposed

integration points at project level by Doswald
and Estrella (2015).
The current guidance is meant to guide
project set-up in a specific country. The latter
may be chosen based on existing demands
or partnerships. It is expected: 1) that thisguidance will remain flexible and can beadapted to different scales of focus and the
local context, 2) some of the initial steps
may not be needed depending on existing
information and preliminary work conducted,3) some steps may be merged together
particularly the first and second steps and 4)
that some steps can or need to be implemented
simultaneously.

Figure 22. Proposed steps to implement Eco-DRR/CCA initiatives

73Ecosystems protecting infrastructure and communities: lessons learned and guidelines for implementation

STEP 1 Exploring opportunities for Eco-DRR/CCA
Goal

Outcomes:•• Identification of policy entry points for
Eco-DRR/CCA•• Understanding of institutional setup for conservation, disaster risk
reduction and climate change
adaptation•• Overview of national government
future priorities in terms of DRR and
CCA•• Overview of priority disaster andclimate change challenges•• Overview of possible drivers ofvulnerability•• Overview of activities of key
institutions and organisations andexperiences with ecosystem-based
measures•• Understanding of existing gaps andneeds in terms of Eco-DRR/CCA•• Understanding of barriers to theimplementations of Eco-DRR/CCA

To determine Eco-DRR/CCA opportunities andneeds within the country under consideration

Approach•• Multi-stakeholder survey•• Multi-stakeholder meetings and/or
workshops•• Desk-based literature review including
policy analysis, disaster risk profilingand synthesis of existing climate change
vulnerability studies

Successful factors checklist•• Use of both disaster and climate
information•• Build on existing relationships withlocal, national and global networks andinstitutions to maximise data collection
as well as to explore potential new
partnerships for the new project•• Use this step to start engagement with
policy-makers of interest•• Integrating this step with a capacity
building workshop can facilitate future
multi-stakeholder involvement and also provide incentives for engagement

74

STEP 2

Understanding the geographical context and defining
project goals

Goal

Outcomes:•• Project team defined•• Local stakeholder overview withinformation on actors that haveinfluence on land use change, actorsthat are changing land uses•• Qualitative land use analysis at thetargeted sites including information on
key ecosystems•• Project scope and goals defined
including expected co-benefits interms of biodiversity conservation andclimate mitigation•• Establish adequate partnerships to
support delivery of project’s goal•• Development of a preliminary theory ofchangeTo identify target sites, provide anunderstanding of the local context and defining
project goals

Approach•• Define and gather multi-disciplinary teams
and group of partners•• Identify potential target sites within the
country•• Multi-stakeholder surveys and/or
discussions (meetings/ workshops)

Successful factors checklist•• Project goals need to be relevant for thetargeted site•• Selection of appropriate geographical scale
for project intervention•• Integrate local knowledge to ensure project
relevance•• Add value to the project by integrating potential co-benefits of Eco-DRR/CCA projects, forexample conservation, mitigation and livelihood development into the project core•• The expertise and multi-disciplinary team gathered need to match the project goals•• Seek information on upcoming policy reviews (local and national) that can be targeted75

Ecosystems protecting infrastructure and communities: lessons learned and guidelines for implementation

services appraisal and ecosystem
STEP 3 Ecosystemassessment
Goal

Outcomes:•• Site-based documentation and/or mapping of key ecosystems andservices contributing to resilience•• Understanding of how these key
ecosystems are changing with respect
to environmental and social changes•• Identification of research gaps andelements that require monitoring
during the project

To document ecosystem services at the target
sites and their relevance for risk reduction andclimate change adaptation; to assess state of
key ecosystems of interest and trends

Approach•• Field-based ecosystem services
assessment•• Ecosystem assessment* See Table 9 (page 81) for potential tools

Successful factors checklist•• Integration of science-based, local and traditional knowledge•• Early and close collaboration with research institutions

STEP 4 Integrated vulnerability assessment
Goal

Outcomes:•• Social vulnerability assessment withregards to disasters and climatechange•• Analysis of local coping strategies andadaptive capacities•• Identification and prioritisation of local
innovations

To conduct localised social vulnerability
assessments

Approach•• Participatory workshop and rural appraisals* See table 10 (page 82) for potential tools

Successful factors checklist•• Participatory approach and integration of
traditional knowledge•• Involvement of different partners besides communities: for example government technicalofficers, local NGOs, local research institutions•• Account for all drivers and hazards

76

STEP 5 Develop strategy and ecosystem-based measures
Goal

Outcomes:•• Theory of change created•• Clearly defined project strategy•• Local action plan developed•• Identification of research needs todevelop a robust project baseline
and to document effectiveness of
ecosystem-based measures proposed

To build the Eco-DRR/CCA strategy, defining
priorities and design ecosystem-based
measuresApproach•• Integrate results from steps 3 and 4
and, along with multidisciplinary team,define priorities: which ecosystems (andservices) are to be managed to (1) reduce
vulnerability, (2) mitigate the impacts ofdisasters and (3) increase future adaptive capacity•• Propose a set of ecosystem-based measures including local innovations identified in step 4•• Update theory of change and develop a set of indicators for monitoring•• Share and validate the strategy with multiple stakeholders•• Development and validation of local action plan (covering a specific time frame, for example oneyear) to implement strategy

Successful factors checklist•• Include trade-off analysis of ecosystem-based options•• Ensure ecosystem-based options are climate smart and climate proof•• Ensure that the strategy is fed by local knowledge•• Integrate FEBA’s qualification criteria and standards in the project strategy and theory of change(Table 11)•• Articulate how ecosystem-based measures can help to achieve DRR and CCA•• Participatory development and validation of local action plan•• Prioritise measures that provide multiple benefits and that also have positive effects for different
sectors•• Address more than one sector to promote synergies and provide opportunities to mainstream
Eco-DRR/ CCA into other practices, strategies and policies•• Identify opportunities to integrate the private sector•• Include policy targets (local, national and global) and strategies to be used to achieve these77Ecosystems protecting infrastructure and communities: lessons learned and guidelines for implementation

STEP 6 Implementation
Goal

Outcomes:•• Database of baseline indicators•• Ecosystem-based measures
implemented•• Science-based knowledge generated•• Strengthening of local capacities•• Policy influence

To effectively implement the developed strategy
and local action plans

Approach•• Before any field-based interventions, andbased on the theory of change, choose
adequate indicators and set up a qualitativeand quantitative baseline *•• Simultaneous implementation of SciencePractice-Policy operational framework•• Action plans evaluated and updated at pre-determined intervals through participatory workshops*This is linked to step 7 on monitoring and evaluation

Successful factors checklist•• Provision of materials to local communities for project implementation•• Capacity building of different actors•• Support equitable governance•• Integrate livelihood improvement strategies with Eco-DRR/CCA interventions•• Ensure adaptive management and support “learning-by-doing”•• Strong and constant collaboration with research institutions•• Multi-stakeholder engagement•• Working at different levels from local to global level•• Linking capacity building with policy advocacy•• Inclusive approach and community involvement•• Promote south to south learning and exchanges between local people•• Include mechanisms to ensure sustainability of interventions even after project closure: forexample development of community groups and local committees and strategies to generate
local funding

78

STEP 7 Monitoring and evaluation
Goal

Outcomes:•• A sound M&E framework is in placeand implemented•• Learning outcomes on what works or
not in the Eco-DRR/CCA intervention

To set up a monitoring and evaluation system(M&E)

Approach•• Step 6 establishes the baseline to guidemonitoring and evaluation•• There are several M&E tools andframeworks that can be used, though most are focused on EbA projects only (Box 4.1; Table 12).

Successful factors checklist•• Involve local communities and project partners in the M&E•• Ensure an adequate time period and operate at the most appropriate scale to assess project
effectiveness•• Choose adequate indicators that reflect resilience and good governance (linked to step 6)•• Ensure M&E also generates information on the interventions’ efficiency and sustainability•• Embed learning as part of assessment of progress and impacts

79

Ecosystems protecting infrastructure and communities: lessons learned and guidelines for implementation

Box 4.1 Combined impact framework and cost-benefit analysis
IUCN is currently describing the application of an impact framework combined with a costbenefit analysis to assess the value for money aspect of its Forest Landscape Restoration
project in Guatemala. The impact framework has five components which overall help to look atcontribution to change as well as project the future benefits of that change.
1. A change process is themain element of the impact
framework. It can be, forexample, policy formulation,changes in social network
dynamics and changes in land
use patterns.
2. The line defines a specific pointin the change process which
distinguishes between the pastand the future (t0)
3. The first type of assessment
is an analysis of changes that
happened to predeterminedbaseline indicator variables(What happened from tStart to t0?). An analysis of contribution is also conducted (Whocontributed what?).
4. Simulation modelling is used to assess future benefits of identified changes. The impact
is defined as the difference between business as usual (no intervention) and intervention
scenarios.
5. The last component involves using evidence from past cases to validate the findings.
Following the impact assessment, a value for money assessment was conducted using the
Redstone Strategy’s cost-benefit analysis approach. This allows the calculation of an Expected
Return on Investment (EROI) (EROI= contribution * benefit/cost).
Source: Colomer et al., In prep; Colomer, Pers comm.

80

Table 9. Potential tools and frameworks to assess ecosystem status and ecosystem services (Source: Lo, 2016; Bland et al, 2017)
Tool

Description

Assessing Ecosystem Services
The Toolkit for Ecosystem
Service Site-based Assessment(TESSA)

Piloted in Protected Areas, TESSA guides non-specialists throughmethods for identifying which ecosystem services may be important at asite, and for evaluating the magnitude of benefits that people obtain fromthem currently, compared with those expected under alternative land use.

Integrated Valuation ofEnvironmental Services andTradeoffs (InVEST)InVEST is a suite of software models used to map and value the goods
and services from nature that sustain and fulfil human life. This tool
enables decision makers to assess quantified trade-offs associated withalternative management choices and to identify areas where investment innatural capital can enhance human development and conservation.

Exploring Nature-Based
Solutions: The role of green
infrastructure in mitigating theimpacts of weatherand climatechange-related natural hazards

This report proposes a simple, practical methodology for screening (rather
than assessing) ecosystem services in areas where GI may contribute to
reducing current (or future) weather- and climate-related natural hazards.
The hazards addressed include landslides, avalanches, floods, soil
erosion, storm surges and carbon stabilisation by ecosystems. Several
case studies at the European level outline the screening process and also
summarise recent estimates of the economic value of GI.

Assessing Ecosystem status
IUCN Red List of Ecosystems

The IUCN Red List of Ecosystems is a global framework for monitoring
the status of ecosystems. The basis of the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems
is the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems Categories and Criteria, a set of eightcategories and five criteria that provide a consistent method for assessing
the risk of ecosystem collapse. The eight categories of ecosystemrisk are: Collapsed (CO), Critically Endangered (CR), Endangered (EN),
Vulnerable (VU), Near Threatened (NT), Least Concern (LC), Data Deficient(DD) and Not Evaluated (NE).

81

Ecosystems protecting infrastructure and communities: lessons learned and guidelines for implementation

Table 10. Potential tools and frameworks for vulnerability assessments (Source: Lo, 2016; IUCN, n.d)
Tool

Description

Climate Resilience Evaluation
for Adaptation ThroughEmpowerment (CREATE) –Integrated Vulnerability andCapacity Assessment Method

CREATE is designed to integrate existing methods such as CRiSTAL,
CARE’s CVCA, etc. and provides a broad framework together withgeneral guidelines and suggestions, allowing people to assess andanalyse their vulnerability and capacity, identify adaptation options andbegin the planning process.

CRiSTAL (Community-based Risk
Screening Tool – Adaptation andLivelihoods)

CRiSTAL is a tool developed by IISD, SEI and IUCN to help projectplanners and managers integrate climate change adaptation and risk
reduction into community-level projects.

Climate Vulnerability andCapacity Analysis Handbook

Developed by CARE, the handbook assesses hazard impacts on each of
the five categories of livelihood resources and provides a framework forcommunity-based adaptation.

CEDRA – The Climate change
and Environmental Degradation
Risk and Adaptation

Analyses risks posed by climate change and environmental degradationand supports NGOs in understanding communities’ experiences ofenvironmental change (Tearfund).

Risk and Vulnerability
Assessment Methodology
Development Project (RiVAMP) in
JamaicaThis training manual was developed by UNEP to provide instruction
on how to implement a methodology that helps to quantify the role ofecosystems in DRR and climate change adaptation, based on a pilot
project implemented in Jamaica from 2009-2010.

Integrated Strategic
Environmental Assessment in Sri
Lanka

UNEP and UNDP collaborated together to modify the existing Strategic
Environmental Assessment (SEA) used for sustainable development
planning. The new version, Integrated Strategic Environmental
Assessment (ISEA), includes more disaster sensitivities into the analysis
framework of SEAs. This tool was tested in Sri Lanka’s Northern
Province, which helped to map out the distribution of space andresources available for development with minimum environment anddisaster constraints. This tool can enable other countries to promote
integrated area development that is both sustainable and disasterresilient.

Scenario Planning for Climate
Change Adaptation: A Guidancefor Resource Managers

A step-by-step guide to using scenarios to plan for climate change
adaptation. The intended audience includes natural resource managers,planners, scientists and other stakeholders working at a local or regional
scale to develop resource management approaches that take future
possible climate change impacts and other important uncertainties into
account.

http://webra.cac.sc.edu/hvri/
products/sovi.aspx

SoVi is a comparative metric that facilitates the examination of thedifferences in social vulnerability among countries. It graphicallyillustrates the geographic variation in social vulnerability. It shows where
there is uneven capacity for preparedness and response and where
resources might be used most effectively to reduce the pre-existing
vulnerability. The index synthesises 32 socioeconomic variables, which
the research literature suggests contribute to reduction in a community’s
ability to prepare for, respond to, and recover from hazards. The data
were culled from national data sources, primarily those from the UnitedStates Census Bureau.

82

Tool

Description

Promoting Local Innovations (PLI)

PLI is designed to engage men and women from communities incommunity-driven climate change adaptation planning and action. The
PLI approach uses a workshop based on interactive learning among
different stakeholder groups in the local context. The workshop aims
to engage participants in open communication and provide a forum foran exchange of knowledge and experience. It facilitates the merging
of different forms of knowledge, ideas and competencies, allowing
discussions about problems and potential solutions beyond theconstraints of social hierarchies.

Community Vulnerability Mapping

The major aim of the developed approach is to provide the community
members with appropriate decision support and awareness tools to
identify and reduce their own vulnerabilities. A central element is theprovision of community maps, which should significantly assist thecommunity with their decision-making. Therefore, this manual cancontribute significantly in the support of community-based disasterrisk reduction measures, but has to be embedded in the context of an
integral disaster risk reduction programme.

Table 11. Qualification criteria and standards for EbA (Source: FEBA, 2017)
Element A – “Helping people to adapt”
Qualification criteria

Quality standards

1. Reduces social and environmental vulnerabilities

1.1 Use of climate information
1.2 Use of local and traditional knowledge
1.3 Taking into account findings of vulnerability
assessment
1.4 Vulnerability reduction at the appropriate scale

2. Generates societal benefits in the context ofclimate change adaptation

2.1 Quantity & quality of societal benefits comparedto other adaptation options
2.2 Timescale of societal benefits demonstrated
2.3 Economic feasibility & advantages compared toother adaptation options
2.4 Number of beneficiaries
2.5 Distribution of benefits

Element B – “Making active use of biodiversity and ecosystem services”
3. Restores, maintains or improves ecosystem
health3.1 Appropriate scale of management
3.2 Prioritisation of key ecosystem services withinmanagement
3.3 Monitoring of ecosystem services health &stability
3.4 Protection and management area coverage /diversification of land use
3.5 Level of co-management (government,
communities, private sector)

83

Ecosystems protecting infrastructure and communities: lessons learned and guidelines for implementation

Element A – ‘Helping people to adapt’Qualification Criteria

Quality standards

1. Reduces social and environmental vulnerabilities

1.1 Use of climate information
1.2 Use of local and traditional knowledge
1.3 Taking into account findings of vulnerability
assessment
1.4 Vulnerability reduction at the appropriate scale

2. Generates societal benefits in the context ofclimate change adaptation

2.1 Quantity & quality of societal benefits comparedto other adaptation options
2.2 Timescale of societal benefits demonstrated
2.3 Economic feasibility & advantages compared toother adaptation options
2.4 Number of beneficiaries
2.5 Distribution of benefits

Element B – ‘Making active use of biodiversity and ecosystem services’
3. Restores, maintains or improves ecosystem
health3.1 Appropriate scale of management
3.2 Prioritization of key ecosystem services withinmanagement
3.3 Monitoring of ecosystem services health &stability
3.4 Protecion and management area coverage /diversification of land use
3.5 Level of co-management (government,
communities, private sector)

Element C – “Part of an overall adaptation strategy”
4. Is supported by policies at multiple levels

4.1 Compatibility with policy and legal frameworks &policy support
4.2 Multi-actor & multi-sector engagement(communities, civil society, private sector)

5. Supports equitable governance and enhances
capacities

5.1 Accountability & group representation
5.2 Consideration of gender balance andempowerment
5.3 Status of indigenous and local knowledge andinstitutions
5.4 Long-term capacity to ensure sustainable
governance84

Table 12. Potential tools and frameworks for monitoring and evaluation (Source: Jiménez Hernández, 2016)
Tool

Description

A Review of Monitoring and Evaluation
Approaches for Ecosystem-Based Adaptation

This is a desk review of documentation on frameworks andapproaches to EbA

Measuring adaptation to climate change – a
proposed approach (2010)

This report outlines a proposed approach to measuring
adaptation to climate change at the national level.

Making Adaptation Count Concepts andOptions for Monitoring and Evaluation of
Climate Change Adaptation

This report aims to provide adaptation and development
practitioners with a practical framework for developing
monitoring and evaluation systems that can track
the success and failure of adaptation initiatives in thedevelopment context.

AdaptMe: Adaptation Monitoring and
Evaluation Toolkit

The AdaptME toolkit aims to get users to think throughsome of the factors that can make an evaluation ofadaptation activities inherently challenging, and equip you
to design a robust evaluation.

Learning Framework for IUCN’s work on EbA(Ecosystem Based Adaptation) – Short Version

This document summarises a more detailed version of alearning framework and set of core learning questions forUnion-wide learning on EbA.

85

Ecosystems protecting infrastructure and communities: lessons learned and guidelines for implementation

References
ADB. (2017). Inequality in Asia and the Pacific, trends, drivers and policy implications. Bangkok: AsianDevelopment Bank. 487 pp. Available at: https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/41630/
inequality-asia-and-pacific.pdf [Retrieved July 2017].
Andrade, A; Córdoba, R; Dave, R.; Girot, P; Herrera-F., B; Munroe, R; Oglethorpe, J; Paaby, P; Pramova, E; Watson, E; Vergar, W; Suarez,I. (2012). Principles and Guidelines for Integrating Ecosystem-based Approaches to Adaptation in Project and Policy Design. IUCN- CEM, CATIE. Turrialba,
Costa Rica. 4p.
Barbier, B., Yacouba, H., Karambiri, H., Zoromé, M. and Somé, B. (2009). Human Vulnerability to Climate Variability in the Sahel: Farmers’ Adaptation Strategies in Northern Burkina Faso. Environmental
Management, 43: 790-803.
Bland, L.M., Keith, D.A., Miller, R.M., Murray, N.J. and Rodríguez, J.P. (eds.) (2017). Guidelines for theapplication of IUCN Red List of Ecosystems Categories and Criteria, Version 1.1. Gland, Switzerland:
IUCN. ix + 99pp.
Casteller A., Cortés, E. Podvin, K.,and Bebi, P. (Forthcoming) Assessing the interaction between
mountain forests and natural hazards at Nevados de Chillán, Chile, and its implications for Eco-DRR.
Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences.
CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity) Secretariat. (2009). Connecting biodiversity and climatechange mitigation and adaptation: report of the second ad-hoc technical expert group on biodiversity
and climate change. CBD Technical series No.41, Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal, 126p.
CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity) Secretariat. (2010). X/33 Biodiversity and climate change, Decision Adopted by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity at its TenthMeeting; UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/x/33; 29 October 2010, Nagoya, Japan.
CBS. (2009). Statistical Year Book of Nepal 2009. Kathmandu: Central Bureau of Statistics, Government of Nepal.
Cohen-Shacham, E., Walters, G., Janzen, C. and Maginnis, S. (eds.) (2016). Nature-based solutions toaddress global societal challenges. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. xiii + 97pp.
Colomer, J., Imbach, A.A., Raes, L., Parilla, U. Reinhard, F. and Fernandez, M. (Forthcoming) IUCN
value for money case – Guatemala Forest Landscape Restoration.
CRED EM-DAT database. Available at: http://www.emdat.be/database [Accessed 17 July 2017].
DANIDA (2013). Denmark-Burkina Faso Partnership Policy 2013-2018. Copenhagen: Danish International Development Cooperation, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark. 24 pp.
Devkota, S., Sudmeier-Rieux, K. Jaboyedoff, M., Van Westen, C.,McAdoo, B.G., Adhikari, A. (submitted) Development of Monsoonal Rainfall Intensity-Duration-Frequency (IDF) Curves and Empirical
Model for data-scarce situations: The case of Central-Western Hills of Nepal.
DoR [Department of Roads]. (2015). Road Network Data. Government of Nepal, Department ofRoads. Available at: http://www.dor.gov.np/road_statistic_2008/Report%20Pages/tables/1.pdf. [Retrieved July 2017].

86

Doswald, N. and Estrella, M. (2015). Promoting ecosystems for disaster risk reduction and climatechange adaptation: Opportunities for Integration. UNEP discussion paper.
Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC). (2017). CEPALSTAT | Databases and Statistical Publications. Available at: http://estadisticas.cepal.org/cepalstat/WEB_CEPALSTAT/
Portada.asp [Accessed July 2017].
Estrella, M. and N. Saalismaa. (2013). ‘Ecosystem-based Disaster Risk Reduction (Eco-DRR): An Overview’. In F. Renaud, K. Sudmeier-Rieux and M. Estrella (eds.) The role of ecosystem management indisaster risk reduction, pp. 26-54. Tokyo: UNU Press.
Estrella, M., Renaud, F.G., Sudmeier-Rieux, K. and Nehren, U. (2016). ‘Defining New Pathways for
Ecosystem-Based Disaster Risk Reduction and Adaptation in the Post-2015 Sustainable Development
Agenda’, in F.G. Renaud, K. Sudmeier-Rieux and M. Estrella (eds). Ecosystem-Based Disaster Risk Reduction and Adaptation in Practice, pp. 553-591. Springer.
EPIC final report (INRA) (2017). The mechanical and hydrological effects of vegetation on slopes prone
to landslides and erosion. 42 pp. Unpublished report.
FAO. (2011). Resilience Analysis in Senegal 2011. Rome: FAO. xii+48 pp http://www.fao.org/3/ai6584e.pdf. Retrieved July 2017.
FEBA (Friends of Ecosystem-based Adaptation). (2017). Making Ecosystem-based Adaptation Effective: A Framework for Defining Qualification Criteria and Quality Standards (FEBA technical paper developed for UNFCCC-SBSTA 46). Bertram, M., Barrow, E., Blackwood, K., Rizvi, A.R., Reid, H. and vonScheliha-Dawid, S. (authors). GIZ, Bonn, Germany, IIED, London, UK, and IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
14 pp.
Gao, X., Ma, X. and Li, X. (2011). The great triangular seismic region in eastern Asia: Thoughts on its
dynamic context. Geoscience Frontiers, 2(1):57-65.
Geological Society (undated). Continental/Continental: The Himalayas. Available at: https://www.geolsoc.org.uk/Plate-Tectonics/Chap3-Plate-Margins/Convergent/Continental-Collision. [Retrieved July2017].
Germanwatch. (2017). Global Climate Risk Index 2017. Available at: https://germanwatch.org/
en/12978 [Retrieved July 2017].
Ghestem, M., Cao, K., Ma, W., Rowe, N., Leclerc, R., Gadenne, C. and A. Stokes. (2014). A Framework for Identifying Plant Species to Be Used as ‘Ecological Engineers’ for Fixing Soil on Unstable
Slopes. PLoS ONE 9(8): e95876. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0095876
González, M.E., Lara, A., Urrutia, R. and Bosnich, J. (2011). Cambio climático y su impacto potencial
en la ocurrencia de incendios forestales en la zona centro-sur de Chile (33º-42º S). Bosque (Valdivia), 32(3), pp. 215-219. Available at: http://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?pid=S0717-92002011000300002&script=sci_arttext. [Retrieved July 2017].
Government of Chile. (2015). Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) of Chile towards the
Climate Agreement of Paris 2015. Santiago, Chile. Available at: http://www4.unfccc.int/submissions/
INDC/Published%20Documents/Chile/1/INDC%20Chile%20english%20version.pdf [Retrieved July
2017]
Hagenlocher, M. (2013). Identifying and Evaluating Hotspots of Climate Change in the Sahel andWestern Africa. In S.L. Cutter and C. Corendea (Eds.) From Social Vulnerability to Resilience: Measuring Progress towards Disaster Risk Reduction, pp. 93-107. Studies of the University: Research,Counsel, Education Publication Series of UNU-EHS. No. 17/2013,=.

87

Ecosystems protecting infrastructure and communities: lessons learned and guidelines for implementation

Howard, J., Sutton-Grier, A., Herr, D., Kleypas, J., Landis, E., Mcleod, E., Pidgeon, E. and Simpson,
S. (2017). Clarifying the role of coastal and marine systems in climate mitigation. Frontiers in Ecology
and the Environment, 15(1): 42-50.
IMF. (2017a). Report for Selected Countries and Subjects (Burkina Faso). Available at:https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2016/02/weodata/weorept.aspx?pr.x=63&pr.
y=7&sy=2014&ey=2021&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=748&s=PPPPC&grp=0&a [Retrieved July 2017].
IMF. (2017b). Report for Selected Countries and Subjects (Chile). Available at: https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2016/02/weodata/weorept.aspx?pr.x=71&pr.y=2&sy=2014&ey=2021&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=228&s=PPPPC&grp=0&a [Retrieved July 2017].
IMF. (2017c). Report for Selected Countries and Subjects (China). Available at: https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2016/02/weodata/weorept.aspx?pr.x=63&pr.
y=10&sy=2014&ey=2021&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=924&s=PPPPC&grp=0&a[Retrieved July 2017].
IMF. (2017d). Report for Selected Countries and Subjects (Nepal). Available at: https://www.
imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2016/02/weodata/weorept.aspx?sy=2017&ey=2021&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&pr1.x=33&pr1.y=10&c=558&s=PPPPC%2CLP&grp=0&a [Retrieved
July 2017].
IMF. (2017e). Report for Selected Countries and Subjects (Senegal). Available at: https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2016/02/weodata/weorept.aspx?pr.x=53&pr.
y=11&sy=2014&ey=2021&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=722&s=PPPPC&grp=0&a=[Retrieved July 2017].
IMF. (2017f). Report for Selected Countries and Subjects (Thailand). Available at: https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2016/02/weodata/weorept.aspx?pr.x=55&pr.
y=7&sy=2014&ey=2021&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=578&s=PPPPC&grp=0&a=[Retrieved July 2017].
IPCC. (2014). Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report Summary for Policymakers. n/a: IPCC. http://
portal.mma.gob.cl/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Plan-Nacional-Adaptacion-Cambio-Climatico-version-final.pdf [Retrieved July 2017.]
IUCN and ProAct (2013a). Strengthening Ecosystem-based Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate
Change Adaptation Strategies in West Africa, Burkina Faso, baseline report. 78 pp. Unpublished report.
IUCN and ProAct (2013b). Quantifying and Improving the Protective Capacity of Forests against Snow
Avalanches, Chile. Unpublished report.
IUCN and ProAct (2013c). Eco-engineering for the Stabilisation of Steep Slopes in Southern China
Literature Review. 33 pp. Unpublished report.
IUCN and ProAct (2013d). Baseline Report and Literature Review Bio-engineering: Reducing Risks
from Landslides and Flash Floods in Nepal. 54 pp. Unpublished report.
IUCN and ProAct (2013e). Strengthening Disaster Risk Reduction Based on Ecosystems and Changing Climate Adaptation Strategies in West Africa, Senegal. 58 pp. Unpublished report.
IUCN and ProAct (2013f). Demonstrating Community-based Ecological Mangrove Restoration (EMR) in
Thailand. 49 pp. Unpublished report.
Jaquet, S., Schwilch, G., Hartung-Hofmann, F., Adhikari, A., Sudmeier-Rieux, K., Shrestha, G., Liniger,
H.P. and Kohler, T. (2015). Does outmigration lead to land degradation? Labour shortage and land88management in a western Nepal watershed. Applied Geography 62:157-170.
Jiménez Hernández, A. (2016). Ecosystem-based Adaptation Handbook. Amsterdam: IUCN..
Jorio, L. (2013). The Creeping Disease that Threatens Populations. Available at: http://swissinfo.ch/
eng/science_technology/The_creeping_diisease_that_threatens_populations.html [Retrieved 11 December 2013].
Kalame, F.B., Kudejira, D. and Nkem, J. (2011). Assessing the Process and Options for Implementing
National Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPA): A Case Study from Burkina Faso. Mitigation and
Adaptation Strategies for Global Climate Change, 16: 535-553.
Kisner, C. (2008). Climate Change in Thailand: Impacts and Adaptation Strategies. The Climate Institute. Available at: http://climate.org/archive/topics/international-action/thailand.htm [Retrieved July2017].
Kyendrebeogo, M.E.M., Ouiminga, I. and dit Guérin, O.L. (2011). Building a Social Protection Floor:
Burkina Faso. Successful Social Protection: Floor Experiences. Sharing Innovative Experiences, 18.
UNDP, ILO and SUSSC.
Leibundgut, G., Sudmeier-Rieux, K. Devkota, S., Jaboyedoff, M., Derron, M-H., Penna, I. and Nguyen,
L. (2016). Rural earthen roads impact assessment in Phewa watershed, Western region, Nepal.
Geoenvironmental Disasters, 3 (13).
Le Plan Sénégal Émergent. (2014). 167 pp. https://www.sec.gouv.sn/IMG/pdf/PSE.pdf [Retrieved July2017].
Lewis, RR. III. (2005). Ecological engineering for successful management and restoration of mangrove
forests. Ecological Engineering 24(4):403-418.
Lo, V. (2016). Synthesis report on experiences with ecosystem-based approaches to climate change
adaptation and disaster risk reduction. CBD Secretariat.
Maatman, A., Sawadogo, H., Schweigman, C. and Ouedraogo, A. (1998). Application of zaï and rockbunds in the northwest region of Burkina Faso: Study of its impact on household level by using a stochastic linear programming model. NJAS Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 46(1): 123-136.
MAP. (2017). Mangrove Action Project, CBEMR: A Successful Method of Mangrove Restoration.
Available at: http://www.mangroveactionproject.org/cbemr/ [Retrieved 19 July 2017].
Mathez-Stiefel, S. and Murti, R. (2014). Promoting Local Innovations: A tool for adaptation to climatechange and sustainable development in Mountains (Unpublished). In: World Mountain Forum. Cusco,
Peru. 22-24 May 2014.
McBreen, J. (2016). Regional Assessment on Ecosystem-based Disaster Risk Reduction and Biodiversity in South America. A report for Resilience through Investing in Ecosystems – knowledge, innovationand transformation of risk management (RELIEF Kit) project. IUCN.
Michoud, C. and M. Jaboyedoff. (2017). LiDAR data of the EPIC Project. Assessment, processing,comparison and interpretation of terrestrial LiDAR acquisitions for the EPIC project, conducted in Nepal, Unpublished technical report. Terranum and UNIL. 14 February 2017, 24 pp.
Ministerio del Medio Ambiente (MMA). (2016). Tercera Comunicación Nacional de Chile ante la Convención Marco de las Naciones Unidas sobre Cambio Climático 2016. http://portal.mma.gob.cl/
wp-content/doc/TCN-2016b1.pdf [Retrieved July 2017].
Ministry of Civil Affairs. (2017). The 13th Five-Year Plan on Integrated Disaster Prevention and Reduction. Available online: http://www.gov.cn/zhengce/content/2017-01/13/content_5159459.htm (in89Ecosystems protecting infrastructure and communities: lessons learned and guidelines for implementation

Chinese). [Retrieved July 2017].
Ministry of Environment. (2014). Thailand National Report on the Implementation of the Convention on
Biological Diversity. Thailand: MoE. 108 pp. Available at: https://www.cbd.int/doc/world/th/th-nr-05en.pdf [Retrieved July 2017].
Ministry of Environmental Protection (2010). China National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan
(2011-2030). Available online: http://www.zhb.gov.cn/gkml/hbb/bwj/201009/t20100921_194841.htm(in Chinese). [Retrieved July 2017].
Ministry of Environment and Protection of Nature. (2006). Plan D’Action National pour L’Adaptation
aux Changements Climatiques. 84 pp. Available at: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/napa/sen01f.pdf[Retrieved July 2017].
Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development. (2015a). Strategie Nationale & Plan National
D’actions pour la Biodiversite. 78 pp. Available at: https://www.cbd.int/doc/world/sn/sn-nbsap-v2-fr.
pdf [Retrieved July 2017].
Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development. (2015b). Contribution Prevue Determinee au
Niveau National. 18 pp. Available at: http://www4.unfccc.int/submissions/INDC/Published%20Documents/Senegal/1/CPDN%20-%20S%C3%A9n%C3%A9gal.pdf [Retrieved July 2017].
Ministry of Finance (2015). Notification Document on the New Phase of the Grain for Green. Available
online: http://tghl.forestry.gov.cn/portal/tghl/s/2166/content-846817.html (in Chinese). [Retrieved July2017].
Miththapala, S. (2017). EPIC External review. Consultancy report.
MoHA. (2016). Disaster Risk Reduction in Nepal: Achievements, Challenges and Ways Forward. National Position Paper for the AMCDRR 2016 2-5 November, New Delhi, India. 2 pp.
MoHA/DpNET. (2015). Nepal Disaster Report, 2015. The Government of Nepal, Ministry of Home Affairs(MoHA) and Disaster Preparedness Network-Nepal (DPNet-Nepal).
Monty, F., Murti, R. and Furuta, N. (2016). Helping nature help us: Transforming disaster risk reduction
through ecosystem management. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. vi + 82 pp
Municipal Council, Djilor. (2009). Local plan for development. Unpublished document. 98 pp.
National Adaptation Plan of Action (NAPA). (2007). National Adaptation Plan of Action for Burkina Faso.
84 pp. Available at: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/napa/bfa01f.pdf [Retrieved July 2017].
National Statistical Office. (2016). Executive summary. Available at:
http://web.nso.go.th/en/survey/popchan/data/2015-2016-Executive%20Summary.pdf [Retrieved July2017].
National Statistics Bureau (2017). 2016 China National Statistics Yearbook. Available online: http://
www.stats.gov.cn/tjsj/ndsj/2016/indexch.htm (in Chinese) [Retrieved July 2017].
NCDR (undated). China National Commission for Disaster Reduction. About the NCDR. Available online: http://www.jianzai.gov.cn//DRpublish/ywzsy/0001002300010001-1.html. [Retrieved July 2017].
Northern Regional Council. (2010). Regional Development Plan. Ouahigouya: Northern Regional
Council. Unpublished document 291 pp.
Office of National Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning (ONEP). (2015). Thailand’s
Climate Change Master Plan 2015-2050. Available at: http://www.deqp.go.th/media/36631/%

90

E0%B9%81%E0%B8%9C%E0%B8%99%E0%B9%81%E0%B8%A1-%E0%B8%9A%E0%B8%97_2558_2593.pdf [Retrieved July 2017].
ONEMI. (2014). Política Nacional para la Gestión de Riesgos de Desastres. Santiago de Chile http://
siac.onemi.gov.cl/documentos/POLITICA_NACIONAL_PARA_LA_RRD.pdf [Retrieved July 2017].
Piao, S., Ciais, P., Huang, Y., Shen, Z., Peng, S., Li, J., Zhou, L.,Liu, H., Ma, Y., Ding, Y., Friedlingstein,P., Liu, Kun Tan, C., Yu, Y., Zhang, T. and Fang, J. (2010). The impacts of climate change on water
resources and agriculture in China. Nature 467: 43-51. doi:10.1038/nature09364
Provincial Directorate of Social Action and National Solidarity PDSANS (2012). Etude sur la prévention
et la gestion des catastrophes et crises humanitaires au Burkina Faso, Tome 1 : Contexte général descatastrophes et crises humanitaires au Burkina Faso (Version provisoire).
Raks Thai Foundation. (2014). Preliminary Study Vulnerability and Capacity Analysis, Baan Klongkam,
Klong Prasong Sub-district, Muang District, Krabi Province. Bangkok, Thailand.
Regmi, B. R., Pandit, A., Pradhan, B., Kovats, S. and Lama, P. (2006). Climate Change and HealthCountry report, Nepal, Capacity Strengthening in the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) for Adaptation to Climate Change (CLACC) Working Paper, Local Initiatives for Biodiversity, Research andDevelopment (LI-BIRD), Pokhara Nepal. 23-24 pp.
Renaud, F.G., Sudmeier-Rieux, K. and Estrella, M. (2013). The role of ecosystems in disaster risk reduction. United Nations University Press.
Renaud, F.G., Sudmeier-Rieux, K. and Estrella, M. (2016). Ecosystem-Based Disaster Risk Reduction
and Adaptation in Practice. Springer. https:/doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43633-3
San Martín, P. (2014). Reserva de la Biosfera Corredor Biológico Nevados de Chillán – Laguna delLaja: de la amenaza de la extinción al desarrollo sustentable. In: A. Moreira-Muñoz and A. Borsdorf(eds) Reservas de la Biosfera de Chile: Laboratorios para la Sustentabilidad. Academia de Ciencias
Austriaca, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Instituto de Geografía, Santiago, serie Geolibros 17: 146-160. http://reservadelabiosfera.gorebiobio.cl/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Reservas-de-la-Biosfera-de-Chile-Laboratorios-para-la-Sustentabilidad.pdf [Retrieved July 2017].
Setthasirot, B., Chitthaisong, B. and Chinwanno, S. (2015). Climate@Risk: Global Warming’s Risks
and the Future Thailand. Thailand Research Fund. (In Thai ) pp. 19 (Unpublished report).
Sherpa, P. (2009). Climate change as seen in Nepal. Climate frontiers. Available at: http://www.climatefrontlines.org/en-GB/node/382 [Retrieved July 2017].
Shono, K., Cadaweng, E.A. and P. B. Durst. (2007). Application of Assisted Natural Regeneration to
Restore Degraded Tropical Forestlands. Restoration Ecology 15 (4): 620-626.
Shrestha, A.B., Wake, C.P. Mayewski, P.A. and Dibb J.E. (1999). Maximum temperature trends in the
Himalaya and its vicinity: An analysis based on temperature records for the period 1971-94. Journal of
Climate 12: 2775-2787.
Sidle, R. C. and Ziegler, A.D. (2012). The dilemma of mountain roads. Nature Geoscience 5:437-438.
Shah. R., Adhikari. A. and Khanal, R. (2012). Scoping of Piloting Ecosystem Based Adaptation in Panchase. Unpublished report. Kathmandu, Nepal: IUCN. 10-12 pp.
Somé, D., Zombré, P.N., Zombré, G. and Macauley, H.R. (2004). Impact de la technique du zaï sur laproduction du niébé et sur l’évolution des caractéristiques chimiques des sols très dégradés (zipellés)du Burkina Faso. Science et changements planétaires/Sécheresse, 15(3), pp. 263-269.

91

Ecosystems protecting infrastructure and communities: lessons learned and guidelines for implementation

State Forestry Administration (2016). The 13th Five-Year Plan on Forestry Development. Available online: http://www.forestry.gov.cn/main/72/content-873366.html (in Chinese). [Retrieved July 2017].
Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockström, J., Cornell, S.E., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E.M., Biggs, R., Carpenter,
S.R., de Vries, W., de Wit, C.A. and Folke, C. (2015). Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science, 347(6223), p.1259855.
Sthapit, K. M. and Tennyson L.C. (1991). Bio-engineering erosion control in Nepal. Unasylva Watershed Management 42 (164) FAO.
Sudmeier-Rieux, K. (2013). Operationalizing ‘resilience’ for disaster risk reduction in mountainous
Nepal. Disaster Prevention and Management (22) 4.
Sudmeier-Rieux, K., Ash, N. and Murti, R. (2013). Environmental Guidance Note for Disaster Risk Reduction: Healthy Ecosystems for Human Security and Climate Change Adaptation. Gland, Switzerland:
IUCN, iii+34 pp.
Sudmeier-Rieux, K., Penna, I., Khanal, R., Adhikari, A. and Devkota, S. (2014). Desk Review andBaseline Report — Nepal Ecosystems Protecting Infrastructure and Communities — EPIC. Unpublished document. 54 pp.
Sudmeier-Rieux, K., Adhikari, A., Derron, M-H, Devkota, S. Jaboyedoff, M. Leibundgut, G., Michoud,C., Tonini, M., Vicarelli, M. and Vulliez, C. (Submitted) Eco-safe roads in Nepal – Lessons in promoting
bio-engineering for erosion and landslide mitigation, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction.
Thavanayagam, M. and T. Jayasingam. (2016). Present Status of Mangrove Restoration in Batticaloa
District, Sri Lanka: Is it a success? (Abstract only), pp. 222 in Abstract Book Mangroves and Macrobenthos meeting 8-22 July 2016, St Augustine, Florida, USA.
TransRe. (2016). Climate Change in Thailand. Issue 2:1-6. Available at: http://www.transre.org/
files/3114/6522/5151/Climate_Change_in_Thailand_TransRe_Fact_Sheet_No.2.pdf [Retrieved July2017].
UNDP, UNEP and IUCN. (2012). Ecosystem-based adaptation in mountain ecosystems in Nepal, project document, for German government, BMU. 96 pp.
UNDP. (2016). Human Development Report 2016: Human Development for Everyone. United Nations
Development Programme.
UNEP. (2015). The Economics of Land Degradation in Africa. ELD Initiative, Bonn, Germany. Availableat www.eld-initiative.org. [Retrieved June 2016].
UNISDR. (2009). UNISDR terminology on disaster risk reduction. Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations.
UNISDR. (2017). Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction. Atlas: Unveiling Global Disaster Risk. Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR).
United Nations. (2016). Report of the open-ended intergovernmental expert working group on indicators and terminology relating to disaster risk reduction. United Nations General Assembly A/71/644. 1
December 2016. New York, USA.
Vulliez, C. T., Sudmeier-Rieux, K. Devkota, S, Derron, M-H. and Jaboyedoff, M. (Submitted) Land usechanges, landslides and roads in the Phewa Watershed, Western Nepal from 1979-2016.
World Bank. (2011). Country Note on Disaster Risk Management and Adaptation to Climate Change in
Burkina Faso.
World Bank (2017). World Bank Open Data. Available at: http://data.worldbank.org/ [Accessed July

92

2017].
World Economic Forum. (2017). The Global Risks Report 2017: 12th Edition. Geneva, WEF.
World Risk Report. (2016). Focus: Logistics and infrastructure. United Nations University. Alliance Development Works.
Yeye, M.S. (2010). Confirmation of Government’s Interest in Participating in the Forest Investment
Programme. Submission to the Climate Investment Fund.
Zougmoré, R., Zida, Z. and Kambou, N.F. (2003). Role of nutrient amendments in the success of half
moon soil and water conservation practice in semiarid Burkina Faso. Soil and Tillage Research, 71:
143-149. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0167-1987%2803%2900050-3

93What werethe existing
institutionaland community
capacities todeal with snow
avalanches
and what were
the specificweaknesses?

What type ofrisk analyses
and climate
scenarios werecarried out andwhat were theirroles in capacity
building andestablishing
future DRR
adaptivemanagement
strategies?

What were thespecific projectinterventions
at the researchsites that
resulted in
improved
protective
capacityof forests
against snow
avalanches?

How did theprotective
capacityof forests
against snow
avalanches
increaseand reducerisk of snow
avalanches ?

Quantifying
and Improving
the Protective
Capacityof Forests
against Snow
Avalanches(Nepal andChile)

Learning
Question 2

Core
Question 1

EPIC ProjectIntervention

How did
participatory
processes leadto improved risk
management
and adaptive
capacities?

What were theparticipatory
process andhow did theybuild institution
and community
capacity to
manage forests
against snow
avalanches?

Learning
Question 3

What were thelinkages if any
to national DRR
policies, NAPAs,
climate change
adaptationplans/ policies?

What were
the partner
institutions
and what were
the barriers
pertaining toeach one withregards to theresearch sites
being studied?

Learning
Question 4

Were there
any policy
influences thatemerged withregard to forest
managementfor disaster risk
reduction?

Were the resultsof the studied
research sites
beneficial inscaling up
locally or
scaling out inother regions?
How and why?

Learning
Question 5

What werethe existing
livelihoods anddid livelihoods
diminish?

What role(negative
and positive)
did rights,
governance,
tenure, local
control andpolitical willplay in forest
functionality andbenefit flows
in the researchsites?

Learning
Question 6

Ecosystems protecting infrastructure and communities: lessons learned and guidelines for implementation

Annex 1
Mapping questionnaires for EPIC based on the DRR-EbA learning
framework

94

95

EPIC ProjectIntervention

What were theenvironmental,social andeconomic costsof lack of andincreasing thiscapacity?

Core
Question 1

Learning
Question 2

Learning
Question 3

How did
livelihoods
influence forest
ecosystemfunctions before
and after projectinterventions?

What arethe policy,
institutional andlegal aspects
that need to
be changed/
improved?
How?

Learning
Question 6
Did livelihoods
improveafter projectinterventions?
How?

Learning
Question 5

What were
the policy andlegal barriers tocollaborationand joint
implementationof the researchsites being
studied?

Learning
Question 4

What were theexisting institutionaland community
capacities to deal
with local coastal
disasters what
were the specificweaknesses?

What were theresults of therestoration site
surveys andreference mangrove
forest site studies? How did theresults help tobuild institutionaland community
capacity?

What were thespecific projectinterventions at therestoration sitesthat resulted in
improved provisionof mangrove
ecosystems
services?

How were the risksof local coastal
disasters reduced? What were thespecific disasters?

Demonstrating
EcologicalMangrove
Restoration(Thailand)

Learning Question
2

Core Question 1

EPIC ProjectIntervention

How did
participatory
processes leadto improved risk
management
and adaptive
capacities?

What were theparticipatory
process and how
did they build
institution andcommunity capacity
for restorationand sustainable
management ofmangroves?

Learning Question
3

What were thelinkages if any
to national DRR
policies, NAPAs,
climate change
adaptation plans/
policies?

What were thepartner institutions
and what were
the barriers
pertaining to each
one with regards
to restorationand sustainable
management ofmangroves aswell as hazard
management?

Learning Question
4

Were there any
policy influencesthat emerged withregard to mangrove
restoration andmanagement forcoastal disaster risk
reduction?

Were the resultsof the studied
sites beneficial inscaling up locally or
scaling out in otherregions? How andwhy?

Learning Question
5

What were theexisting livelihoods
and did livelihoods
diminish?

What role (negativeand positive) did
rights, governance,
tenure, local control
and political willplay in mangrove
ecosystemfunctionality andbenefit flows at thesites?

Learning Question
6

Ecosystems protecting infrastructure and communities: lessons learned and guidelines for implementation

96

97

EPIC ProjectIntervention
What were
the policy andlegal barriers tocollaborationand joint
implementation?

What are thepolicy, institutional
and legal aspects
that need to
be changed/
improved? How?

What type of risk
analyses andclimate scenarios
were carried out
and what were
their roles incapacity building
implementation anddemonstration?

What role
did capacity
building play indemonstration andimplementation?

Learning Question
4

What were theenvironmental,social andeconomic costsof damaged
mangroves andwhat were theeconomic socialand environmental
costs of restoringand sustaining
natural hydrology?

Learning Question
3

Learning Question
2

Core Question 1

Learning Question5

How did livelihoods
influence forest
ecosystemfunctions before
and after projectinterventions?

Did livelihoods
improveafter projectinterventions?
How?

Learning Question6

What were theexisting institutionaland community
capacities to deal
with the floods andlandslides as wellas other associatedhazards if any?

How did site
specific studies/
researchundertaken (such as
the research doneat the University of
Lausanne) help tobuild institutionaland community
capacity?

What specificproject interventions
were identified
that would assistin landslides andflooding risks at the
project site?

How will theseintervention reduce
the risk of floods
and landslides ?
What were otherhazards the area isprone to?

An operationalframework for
Reducing Risk
from Landslides
and Flashfloods
in Eastern Nepal's
Churia Hills

Learning Question
2

Core Question 1

EPIC ProjectIntervention

How did
participatory
processes leadto improved risk
management
and adaptive
capacities?

What were theparticipatory
process and how
did they build
institution andcommunity capacity
for adopting,promoting andimplementing
bio-engineeringsolutions?

Learning Question
3

What were thelinkages if any
to national DRR
policies, NAPAs,
climate change
adaptation plans/
policies?

What were thepartner institutions
and what were
the barriers
pertaining to each
one with regards
understanding
and promotion of
bio-engineeringsolutions?

Learning Question
4

Are there any policy
influences thatemerged or canemerge with regard
to bio-engineering?

Are the resultsof the studied
site beneficial inscaling up locally or
scaling out in otherregions? How andwhy?

Learning Question
5

What were theexisting livelihoods
and did livelihoods
diminish?

What role (negativeand positive) did
rights, governance,
tenure, local control
and political willplay in ecosystem
functionality andbenefit flows at thesites?

Learning Question
6

Ecosystems protecting infrastructure and communities: lessons learned and guidelines for implementation

98

99

EPIC ProjectIntervention
What were
the policy andlegal barriers tocollaborationand joint
implementation?

What are thepolicy, institutional
and legal aspects
that need to
be changed/
improved? How?

What type of risk
analyses andclimate scenarios
were carried out
and what were/
are their roles incapacity building
implementation anddemonstration?

What role
did capacity
building play indemonstration andimplementation
and/ or promotionof bio-engineeringsolutions in future
projects?

Learning Question
4

What were theenvironmental,social andeconomic costsof floods andlandslides andwhat are theeconomic socialand environmental
costs of thebio-engineeringsolutions being
promoted?

Learning Question
3

Learning Question
2

Core Question 1

Learning Question5
How did livelihoods
improve or are
likely to improvewith projectinterventions?

Learning Question6

What were theexisting institutionaland community
capacities to deal
with the hazards?

How did site
specific studies/
researchundertaken (suchas inventories
of endogenous
strategies ofadaptation toclimate change)
help to build
institutional andcommunity capacity
as well as in
implementation anddemonstration?

What specificendogenous
strategies wereidentified that would
assist in adapting toclimate change inthe site areas?

How will theseintervention reduce
the risk hazards thearea is prone to?

Strengthening
local Climate
ChangeAdaptation
Strategies in West
Africa (Senegal
and Burkina Faso)

Learning Question
2

Core Question 1

EPIC ProjectIntervention
What were thepartner institutions
and what were
the barriers
pertaining to each
one with regards
understanding
and promotion ofclimate change
adaptation
strategies?
What were thelinkages if any
to national DRR
policies, NAPAs,
climate change
adaptation plans/
policies?

How did
participatory
processes leadto improved risk
management
and adaptive
capacities?

Learning Question
4

What were theparticipatory
process and how
did they build
institution andcommunity capacity
for adopting,promoting andimplementing
climate change
adaptation
strategies?

Learning Question3

Are there any policy
influences thatemerged or canemerge with regard
to bio-engineering?

Are the results ofthe demonstrations
beneficial inscaling up similar
adaptation
strategies locally or
scaling out in otherregions? How andwhy?

Learning Question
5

What were theexisting livelihoods
and did livelihoods
diminish?

What role (negativeand positive) did
rights, governance,
tenure, local control
and political willplay in ecosystem
functionality andbenefit flows at thesites?

Learning Question
6

Ecosystems protecting infrastructure and communities: lessons learned and guidelines for implementation

100

101

EPIC ProjectIntervention
What were
the policy andlegal barriers tocollaborationand joint
implementation?

What are thepolicy, institutional
and legal aspects
that need to
be changed/
improved? How?

What type of risk
analyses andclimate scenarios
were carried out
and what were/
are their roles incapacity building
implementation anddemonstration?

What role
did capacity
building play indemonstration andimplementation
and/ or promotionof endogenous
adaptation
strategies in future
projects?

Learning Question
4

What were theenvironmental,social andeconomic costs ofidentified hazards
at the sites andenvironmental,social andeconomic costs ofthe solutions being
promoted?

Learning Question
3

Learning Question
2

Core Question 1

Learning Question
5
Did livelihoods
improve or are
likely to improvewith projectinterventions?

Learning Question
6

Ecosystems protecting infrastructure and communities: lessons learned and guidelines for implementation

Annex 2Multi-stakeholders involved with EPIC in Burkina Faso

102

Annex 3
Multi-stakeholders involved with EPIC in Chile103

Ecosystems protecting infrastructure and communities: lessons learned and guidelines for implementation

Annex 4Multi-stakeholders involved with EPIC in China

104

Annex 5
Multi-stakeholders involved with EPIC in Nepal

105

Ecosystems protecting infrastructure and communities: lessons learned and guidelines for implementation

Annex 6
Multi-stakeholders involved with EPIC in Senegal

106Annex 7
Multi-stakeholders involved with EPIC in Thailand

107

INTERNATIONAL UNIONFOR CONSERVATION OF NATURE
WORLD HEADQUARTERS
Rue Mauverney 28
1196 Gland, Switzerland
Tel: +41 22 999 0000
Fax: +41 22 999 0002
www.iucn.org