Outlook on Climate Change Adaptation in the South Caucasus Mountains

data, both from a historical and contemporary, perspective, and c) lack of spatial data. Currently, almost all initiatives on climate change vulnerability assessments use their own sets of indicators, which are often created without the consultation or agreement of the responsible government authorities. Studies and research papers are fragmented and, therefore, it is hard to create a comprehensive picture of sensitivity and to judge which economic sector or type of ecosystem is more sensitive to climate impacts at a country level. Moreover, most of the studies, completed so far, are quite general and sometimes based on assumptions, and their applicability under concrete local adaptation action planning is rarely feasible. Policy documents also point to the fragmented nature and shortcomings of the research, and many of the policy documents recommend further assessments for different sectors. Similar problems are observed when evaluating the adaptive capacity of climate sensitive sectors or ecosystems, without assessment of which vulnerability to climate change cannot be assessed. Therefore, assessment of the vulnerability of mountain regions/ecosystems to climate change can often only be evaluated on the basis of sets of general assumptions, thus making prioritization of climate action in a country context rather complicated. Methodology and research As mentioned above, almost all climate adaptation initiatives are using their own methodology – as government agencies are unable to provide common, formally agreed and adopted methods for vulnerability assessments. Many of those assessments

Another disadvantage of climate change forecasts lays in the use of Global Climate Models (GCM) for prediction of climate change and the downscaling resolution (20–25 km) (Climateprediction.net 2015) practised under regional models used in the countries. For example, the methodology used for climate change forecasts and projection described in Georgia’s Third National Communication to UNFCCC is sufficient for demonstrating climate change trends at the country level, but is not precise enough for vulnerability assessments at the municipal or community levels given the country’s complicated mountain terrain (MoENRP 2015). This disadvantage, certainly common for many countries, can be tackled through improvement of the existing monitoring/observation networks and climate modelling capacity building of relevant agencies. In addition, it is assumed that some data can be obtained through knowledge sharing with regional and/or international bodies and from information sources which can provide updated methodologies for monitoring/observation. Vulnerability assessments and research Indicators The section above lists certain challenges and disadvantages that are evident in the monitoring/ observation and modelling of climate exposure. A much more complicated issue is measuring the climate change sensitivity of ecosystems, including mountain ones, and economic sectors. Here, the setting of comprehensive and consistent quantitative and qualitative indicators for each sector or ecosystem is key. However, a comparison of sensitivity in a spatial context to expose the most sensitive areas of a country is hampered by: a) lack of sufficient observational data, b) lack of applicable statistical

do not share the same approaches for data collection, indicator selection, and methods of analysis. Due to fact that there is insufficient official data within relevant government agencies, they are often forced to collect information through surveys, questionnaires, etc. As a result, information collected is not always reliable or representative; many projects/initiatives are also overlapping each other. Therefore, as was already underlined above, it is hard to compare or find correlation between existing studies and identify vulnerability areas at a country level. Areas uncovered by studies As mentioned above, existing studies are fragmented and do not always cover the entire territory of the countries; therefore forecasts are often unreliable. In addition, there are some sectors, which are not yet covered by any studies, e.g. energy sector vulnerability and a number of others. Studies identifying potential financial losses from climate change impacts are also very limited or almost absent. In one remarkable study, conducted under the Third National Communication of Georgia to the UNFCCC, a group of experts assessed the vulnerability of the cultural heritage of one of the mountain regions of Georgia (Upper Svaneti). It was made clear that climate change will affect this sector, inter alia through the increased frequency of different natural disasters such as wind erosion, heavy rainfalls, extreme temperatures, etc. However, no further research has been conducted on this sector. Fragmentation is common for the studies such as on forests, biodiversity, land resources, agriculture, water, protected areas, tourism, glacier fluctuation, physical infrastructure vulnerability (settlements, railroads, roads, etc.). Existing reports on vulnerability assessments broken by sector and country typically

74