The indicators and assumptions for the Oldonyiro ward ToC in Fig. 15.3 are
shown in Table 15.2.
14
The communities were asked to discuss the assumptions described in Table 15.2
in order to develop options for risk management. These included; the legalization of
traditional natural resource by-laws by the County Assembly which would assist in
the enforcement of sound water resource management and would also raise the
profile of the water management committees; and the strict vetting and supervision
of potential sand dam contractors to enhance minimize the risk of poor dam
construction.
For Track 1, Brooks et al. (2012) proposed a scoring system where each CRM
indicator is scored against five questions to which the answer is yes, partially, or no,
and scored 0, 1 or 2 respectively. The answers to these questions can be aggregated
to yield an overall score out of 10 for each indicator, so that changes in the extent
and quality of CRM over the various dimensions the indicators represent can be
tracked over short time scales e.g. annually by policy and decision makers. However the scoring parameters can be changed by the users of the score card. Thus in
Isiolo, the County officials changed the proposed Brooks scoring to percentages
which they are more conversant with. The percentages presented in Table 15.3
15
against each CRM parameter were agreed upon by the county officials.
The county scored an average of 59.3 % for climate risk management measures
with highest scores around public participation in planning and decision making in
climate change adaptation as well as coordination of climate change interventions
in the county. These scores provided a baseline for climate risk management
activities. Subsequently they were used to develop activities needed to strengthen
climate risk management and adaptation activities at county level and also formed
the basis of the county’s theory of change.
15.5 Track 1 Score Card Outputs
From the score card process, the county government had prioritised strengthening
early warning systems, improving climate finance and budgeting and improving
county coordination and planning. The CAPC was able to implement activities
within two of the activity areas. The first activity involved purchasing a transmitter
for the Isiolo radio station to enhance dissemination of weather and climate
information. The expected output indicators for this intervention were on the
types and number of information communication products and the percentage of
the population reached with climate information within the whole county. Against a
baseline figure of 10 % of the population coverage by the transmitter, after the
intervention it was reported that the transmitter managed to enhance the coverage to
50 % of the population. However during this feasibility testing, it was not possible
14 Ibid.
15 See note 11.
15 Using Participatory Approaches in Measuring Resilience and Development in. . .
281
shown in Table 15.2.
14
The communities were asked to discuss the assumptions described in Table 15.2
in order to develop options for risk management. These included; the legalization of
traditional natural resource by-laws by the County Assembly which would assist in
the enforcement of sound water resource management and would also raise the
profile of the water management committees; and the strict vetting and supervision
of potential sand dam contractors to enhance minimize the risk of poor dam
construction.
For Track 1, Brooks et al. (2012) proposed a scoring system where each CRM
indicator is scored against five questions to which the answer is yes, partially, or no,
and scored 0, 1 or 2 respectively. The answers to these questions can be aggregated
to yield an overall score out of 10 for each indicator, so that changes in the extent
and quality of CRM over the various dimensions the indicators represent can be
tracked over short time scales e.g. annually by policy and decision makers. However the scoring parameters can be changed by the users of the score card. Thus in
Isiolo, the County officials changed the proposed Brooks scoring to percentages
which they are more conversant with. The percentages presented in Table 15.3
15
against each CRM parameter were agreed upon by the county officials.
The county scored an average of 59.3 % for climate risk management measures
with highest scores around public participation in planning and decision making in
climate change adaptation as well as coordination of climate change interventions
in the county. These scores provided a baseline for climate risk management
activities. Subsequently they were used to develop activities needed to strengthen
climate risk management and adaptation activities at county level and also formed
the basis of the county’s theory of change.
15.5 Track 1 Score Card Outputs
From the score card process, the county government had prioritised strengthening
early warning systems, improving climate finance and budgeting and improving
county coordination and planning. The CAPC was able to implement activities
within two of the activity areas. The first activity involved purchasing a transmitter
for the Isiolo radio station to enhance dissemination of weather and climate
information. The expected output indicators for this intervention were on the
types and number of information communication products and the percentage of
the population reached with climate information within the whole county. Against a
baseline figure of 10 % of the population coverage by the transmitter, after the
intervention it was reported that the transmitter managed to enhance the coverage to
50 % of the population. However during this feasibility testing, it was not possible
14 Ibid.
15 See note 11.
15 Using Participatory Approaches in Measuring Resilience and Development in. . .
281