Outlook on Climate Change Adaptation in the South Caucasus Mountains

74 / 88

74
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)
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
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
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