4 Integration into Development: Translating International …
57
in Gunung Kidul District in 2007 with funding from the Ministry of Agriculture
whose implementation was in collaboration with the Institute for Agricultural Technological Assessment (BPTP) in the Yogyakarta Region. These results discuss the
CFS programme, which focused on teaching farmers to start recording data on a
quantitative basis in order to transform agroclimatic tacit knowledge into explicit
knowledge. Together, the sets of farmer experiences taken from both cases provide
examples of how climate change adaptation programming activities, internationally
framed, nationally programmed and then implemented at the village level, in practice
combine the priorities of international climate policy and finance with the priorities
and processes of village governance and community-devised strategies of adaptation. The longitudinal results of research conducted under the two case studies are
used to show how current approaches to climate change adaptation interventions
have influenced changes to adaptive capacity to climate change over time and their
interactions with local village processes in doing so.
Conceptual Underpinnings in Determining the Approaches
of Farmer Engagement in Adaptation Programming
This section of the chapter outlines a framework of adaptation and the key-related
terms, to be able to describe how these concepts, central to the local adaptation activities in programming are developed and translate from universal principles under international climate change commitments, through national climate adaptation planning
apparatus, into interpretations applied at the local village scale. We set out definitions of adaptation as an ongoing social process to discuss how interpretations
of adaptation conceptually determine ways that programmes engage participants.
We discuss adaptive capacity and how the processes of building capacity in the case
studies, pivots on the assumptions of capacity being enhanced by assets,social capital,
access, social processes, and agency. As vulnerability and resilience are discussed
significantly in other chapters of this book (see Chap. 16), they are not included in
the discussion here.
In a broad sense, vulnerability assessments have dominated as the method in
which to establish climate change impacts identify target areas, sites or populations for designing adaptation strategies and programming (Downing et al. 2005).
The assessments determine the outcomes in terms of the information generated and
the options identified. However, the process of undertaking assessments in itself
determines how this occurs and how strongly the assessments link with adaptation decision-making and actions (Miller and Bowen 2013). Top-down approaches
are generally based on the projected future climate scenario impact projections and
models developed on global or regional circulation models. They tend to become
less accurate as they are downscaled to more detailed spatial scales, due to the
uncertainties embedded in socio-economic factors, as well as in climate systems
and biophysical and socio-economic impacts (Hinkel et al. 2010). These types of
57
in Gunung Kidul District in 2007 with funding from the Ministry of Agriculture
whose implementation was in collaboration with the Institute for Agricultural Technological Assessment (BPTP) in the Yogyakarta Region. These results discuss the
CFS programme, which focused on teaching farmers to start recording data on a
quantitative basis in order to transform agroclimatic tacit knowledge into explicit
knowledge. Together, the sets of farmer experiences taken from both cases provide
examples of how climate change adaptation programming activities, internationally
framed, nationally programmed and then implemented at the village level, in practice
combine the priorities of international climate policy and finance with the priorities
and processes of village governance and community-devised strategies of adaptation. The longitudinal results of research conducted under the two case studies are
used to show how current approaches to climate change adaptation interventions
have influenced changes to adaptive capacity to climate change over time and their
interactions with local village processes in doing so.
Conceptual Underpinnings in Determining the Approaches
of Farmer Engagement in Adaptation Programming
This section of the chapter outlines a framework of adaptation and the key-related
terms, to be able to describe how these concepts, central to the local adaptation activities in programming are developed and translate from universal principles under international climate change commitments, through national climate adaptation planning
apparatus, into interpretations applied at the local village scale. We set out definitions of adaptation as an ongoing social process to discuss how interpretations
of adaptation conceptually determine ways that programmes engage participants.
We discuss adaptive capacity and how the processes of building capacity in the case
studies, pivots on the assumptions of capacity being enhanced by assets,social capital,
access, social processes, and agency. As vulnerability and resilience are discussed
significantly in other chapters of this book (see Chap. 16), they are not included in
the discussion here.
In a broad sense, vulnerability assessments have dominated as the method in
which to establish climate change impacts identify target areas, sites or populations for designing adaptation strategies and programming (Downing et al. 2005).
The assessments determine the outcomes in terms of the information generated and
the options identified. However, the process of undertaking assessments in itself
determines how this occurs and how strongly the assessments link with adaptation decision-making and actions (Miller and Bowen 2013). Top-down approaches
are generally based on the projected future climate scenario impact projections and
models developed on global or regional circulation models. They tend to become
less accurate as they are downscaled to more detailed spatial scales, due to the
uncertainties embedded in socio-economic factors, as well as in climate systems
and biophysical and socio-economic impacts (Hinkel et al. 2010). These types of