76 / 96
76
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
Comparative analysis of available policies
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
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