Outlook on climate change adaptation in the Tropical Andes mountains

Comparative analysis of available policies

Following the review of the impacts of climate change on natural and human systems (Chapter 2) and analysis of existing policies (Chapter 3), this chapter identifies existing adaptation policy gaps, but also opportunities, relating to country and sectoral policies on water; ecosystem functions and biodiversity; food; health, and energy. A selection of regional cases illustrating adaptation measures and policies are also presented. The analysis of national and sector policies shows that one potential gap is that policies are not designed for easy integration with other instruments, which is further complicated when policies are from another sector. Because adaptation has just started to receive more attention in policy circles over the last few years, there is little experience on how to vertically integrate adaptation instruments and measures from national to local levels, and whether to do this across and/or by sector (Hoffmann, 2015). This early stage of adaptation policy development explains, in part, why they are still absent in some sectors, and why existing instruments have not included performance indicators. Generally speaking, the policies analysed have been found to be based on sectors’ needs, whereby key climate risks identified under Chapter 2 have not guided policy design. Analysis reveals that there is little specific mention of mountains in the sectors’ 51 policies and few specific policies for mountains. However, certain instruments do have a mountain specific scope. For example, in Ecuador the páramo are defined as fragile ecosystems in Ecuador and included as such in different policies. In addition to the perceived

ecosystem itself (i.e. mountains). Another possible explanation is that mountains become objects for policymakers only when impacts visibly affect urban centres, lowlands or productive activities important for the Gross National Product [including “damaging extractive industries”]). Though mountains in the region are not specifically acknowledged as policy “objects/subjects of interest”, more analyses are needed of the multiple impacts of climate change on mountain ecosystems and sectors. For instance, changing water availability within mountains may have significant impacts on health, energy, and several productive sectors, which in turn will feed back on adaptive capacity and exposure of mountain social-ecological systems. Further, these impacts will hinder economic development from the national to the local levels, and cause livelihood and economic losses at the local levels. Although extreme weather events and their direct impacts (e.g. through floods and landslides) on populations do grant them attention from policymakers, this is mainly in the formof emergency ad-hoc measures and disaster risk management/ reduction, while adaptation policies to prevent such losses or increase resilience remain sectoral-based. Finally, there is a clear disconnect between the scientific community and the transfer and uptake of scientific knowledge in policymaking. This gap is an opportunity for collaborative work among scientists, public and international agencies, civil society, and mountain populations (who are among the most vulnerable to social, political and climatic changes).

Farmers, Venezuela

remoteness of mountains, this neglect could be due to several factors. These could include the perception that mountains do not have unique problems or that the problems are already being addressed by non- mountain-specific approaches (Ariza et al., 2013). The difficulty in defining mountain ecosystems (including their boundaries) hinders using them as units for policy design, even when there is political interest in such ecosystems. Policies may also be more focused on urban and/or lowland areas and there might be greater interest in protecting an ecosystem’s functions and services rather than the

76