Lessons Learned Report

on the

Regional Training on Climate Vulnerability Assessments

14 – 15 September 2011

Struga, Macedonia

The report was electronically issued in November 2011.

Authors

Katarina Banicevic, Milena Miladinovic

Advisors

Sonja Greiner, Fritz Petroczi

Acknowledgements

Slobodanka Curic, Vaska Cvetanoska Panova, Oleksandra Kovbasko, Fleur Monasso,

Magde Nikolovska, Eduard Trampusch

2

Contents

1. Foreword ......................................................................................................................................... 3

2. Background ...................................................................................................................................... 3

3. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 4

4. Methodology ................................................................................................................................... 6

5. Results Achieved and Lessons Learned ........................................................................................... 6

6. Overall lessons learned ................................................................................................................. 12

7. Annex ............................................................................................................................................. 13

Executive Summary

The regional training on climate vulnerability assessments met the most important objectives, which

was providing general knowledge and understanding on climate vulnerability assessments, the

elaboration of draft terms of reference for the climate vulnerability assessments and enhanced

dialogue and networking among national CSO (Civil Society Organisations) network members.

Further, the unique multi-stakeholder and cross-border approach of the training enabled a gathering

and exchange of stakeholders from very different spheres of work and four different countries in the

region of South East Europe (SEE). The training was a meaningful instrument for the CSO network

members to plan their national climate vulnerability assessments and a crucial moment for network

members to get active in concrete activity planning.

Through the lectures provided in the plenary sessions, capacity-building took place on a more

general level, which was not perceived as sufficient enough. This can be traced back to the

heterogeneity of participants with different background knowledge and expectations and the

consequent difficulty of trainers to find an appropriate training level. Further the training could have

been better used for cross-country networking and regional exchange.

However, the project and its staff profited a lot from this gathering, as it fostered the team building

within national CSO networks. Further it became apparent that for future regional project activities

more active input from SEE countries is required in the preparation phase already in order to adapt

to regional needs and ensure high-quality work.

3

1. Foreword

South East Europe is highly vulnerable to climate change, a fact that might bring along a number of

socio-economic, humanitarian and environmental challenges, depending how well countries of this

region are prepared. Regional and cross-sectoral cooperation in the field of climate change

adaptation and disaster risk reduction is therefore of utmost importance. In this context, it is also

necessary to strengthen capacities of CSOs in the region, in order to allow for increased cooperation

between public stakeholders and civil society to facilitate participation in the implementation of the

EU socio-economic acquis.

Against this backdrop, the EU funded IPA (Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance) project “South

East European Forum on Climate Change Adaptation” was developed by the Austrian, Croatian,

Macedonian and Montenegro Red Cross with the main aim to raise awareness about the

humanitarian consequences of climate change in the region.

2. Background

The main aim of elaborating the lessons learned report at hand was to analyze an international

training on developing climate vulnerability assessments, which was organized in the framework of

the project “South East European Forum on Climate Change Adaptation”. Within this project, Red

Cross National Societies and CSOs active in humanitarian, social, economic and environmental, fields

have formed national networks on climate change adaptation in Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro

and Serbia. With support of the Red Cross/Red Crescent Climate Centre (RCCCC) and the World Wide

Fund for Nature (WWF), these networks face the task of conducting national climate vulnerability

analysis, aimed at identifying major climate challenges and elaborating recommendations for

solutions on policy level. These analyses shall build upon existing national and regional initiatives in

the public and non-governmental sector and will be brought together on a regional level in view of

ensuring linkages between national, regional and international advocacy and awareness raising

initiatives in climate change.

Given the heterogeneity of the training`s participants coming from various CSOs, public institutions

and research institutes from four different countries in SEE, the diversity of their field of interest

ranging from environmental, economic, social to humanitarian priority areas and the complex

process of developing national climate vulnerability assessments per se, it was deemed necessary to

develop a lessons learned report, which shall summarize potentials and challenges of such a training.

Besides this multi-stakeholder and cross-border approach, the training also tended to include the

civil society in a structured manner when developing multi-sectoral climate vulnerability assessments

in view of using CSO knowledge and experience. In the past few years progress was made in the

development and inclusion of the civil society sector in the SEE region. However, the latest Progress

Reports from the European Commission show that further efforts are needed, in particular as regards

the regularity and quality of CSO consultation. Further it is deemed necessary to strengthen

institutional capacities and inter-institutional cooperation in the field of climate change, as only little

progress has been made on aligning with and implementing the EU climate change acquis.

4

The main objectives of the lessons learned report can be summarized as follows:

• Illustrating potentials and challenges of such a regional climate vulnerability assessment

training in general, which might help Red Cross/Red Crescent National Societies and

other organisations in planning similar activities

• Analyzing what impact the training could have on the institutional capacity building of

participating organisations and the empowerment of the established CSO networks

• Analyzing whether the training enables a learning process within participating

organisations and whether this lessons learned are subsequently shared with other Red

Cross/Red Crescent National Societies and organisations that are not directly involved in

the project

Furthermore results of this report shall feed into a “Climate Training Kit”, currently being developed

by the RCCC. This kit shall consist of a number of modules which cover different topics within climate

risk management, such as health and care, disaster management, youth, policy dialogues and basic

science.

3. Introduction

The regional training on climate vulnerability assessments was held from 14-15 September 2011 in

Struga (Macedonia) with the main purpose to strengthen CSO networks capacities to conduct

national climate vulnerability assessments and to prepare them to formulate well-founded policy

recommendations for further action. The workshop was organized by the Macedonian Red Cross and

expertise was provided by the Austrian Red Cross, the RCCCC and the WWF. Over 40 participants,

members of the national CSO networks from Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia, attended

the training and had the opportunity to find out more about climate vulnerability assessments1.

Overall the training gathered representatives from Red Cross National Societies, CSOs from the

environmental, ecological and social field, hydro-meteorological institutes, governmental

representatives responsible for national protection and disaster management, institutes for public

health, the WWF and the International Federation of Red Cross /Red Crescent Societies (IFRC). The

country-teams from Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia differed from each other to the

extent that their composition was not coherent and that not each delegation had representatives

from the ecological or economic sector. The Croatian delegation, for example, included

representatives from the Red Cross, public health institutions, the meteorological forum and the

national protection and rescue directorate, but there was not even one CSO from the environmental

field. In contrast to this, the composition of the Montenegrin, Macedonian and Serbian teams were

more balanced in the sense that CSO stakeholders from the humanitarian, environmental and social

sphere were present, even though among the Serbian country-team far more representatives from

environmental and ecological organisations participated. All in all, the economic sector was under-

represented.

1 The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change defines vulnerability as the degree to which a system is susceptible to, and unable to

cope with, adverse effects of climate change, including climate variability and extremes. Therefore a vulnerability assessment is an

evaluation of a given system's susceptibility to adverse climate impacts or in other words an analysis of how climate change is currently

affecting or might affect some object of interest.

5

Overall the regional training aimed to achieve the following objectives:

1. Transferring general knowledge and understanding on climate vulnerability

assessments, including the definition of relevant terms, purposes and limits of climate

vulnerability assessments, as well as their added-value

2. Equipping participants with knowledge on tools and methods to carry out national

climate vulnerability assessments in order to elaborate country-specific terms of

references for the assessment process

3. Fostering networking and teambuilding within the national CSO networks through

4. Using a variety of interactive training methods

In order to meet these aims, an expert from the RCCC provided a presentation on the various

purposes climate and vulnerability assessments could have at the very beginning of the training. It

was made clear that climate vulnerability assessments can be used for advocacy work, awareness-

raising and communication, educational work within an organization and concrete activity

planning. Further, inputs on experience and best practice in climate vulnerability assessments

provided by the RCCCC and the WWF deepened the participants understanding on the topic and

provided definitions of frequently used terms, such as vulnerability, exposure and adaptive capacity.

Within this session the RCCC presented five steps2 on how to conduct the vulnerability assessment

process, which meant to serve as methodological basis for the CSO networks to prepare their own

national assessments focusing on sectoral vulnerabilities.

Subsequent working group sessions, which were organized for each national country team in view of

mapping existing and missing information necessary for the assessments, enabled a forum for

discussion on available know-how, such as advocacy work or campaigning. At the same time existing

gaps, such as the availability of scientific data were addressed and potential synergies discussed.

Through the discussions in the country groups, which were moderated by external facilitators, and

the subsequent presentations in the plenary, participants got a clearer picture on the complex

process of climate vulnerability assessments, on the conditions and requirements in their country

and on the overall situation in neighboring countries. This session, enabling exchange of regional

expertise, was followed by a more scientific input on climate change and climate variability in the SEE

region. The main aim of this presentation was to bridge the gap between scientific data and practical

work of CSOs and to inform participants how to use the work of hydro-meteorological institutes for

their assessments. In its presentation the SEE Virtual Climate Change Centre (SEEVCCC) provided

among others information on where scientific data for the SEE region is available, explained climate

models and recommended national action plans of the CSO networks to include even those sectors

for which information is missing, pointing out that further research on a specific topic could be

lobbied for.

2 (1) Describing the current situation in the country, (2) Gathering available climate information, (3) Answering questions related to

projections for the future and expected climate impacts in the country, (4) Considering existing services (RC/RC, early warning systems) and

(5) Prioritizing

6

The second day of the training started with a short introduction on the template for the terms of

reference (ToR)3 to be used for planning the national climate vulnerability assessment process. In

general the ToR shall serve as supporting document for the assessment process, describing the main

objective and structure of the assessment, as well as the methodology, roles and responsibilities and

the timeline. Following this preface, the ToR templates were distributed and participants worked in

country teams, elaborating draft ToR for their country-specific vulnerability assessments, which were

afterwards presented and discussed in the plenum. This session was meant to demonstrate possible

challenges, as well as differences in planning the process and support CSO networks to move forward

in shaping action plans. In a final session, the RCCC expert provided practical information and tips on

writing climate vulnerability assessments, topped off by a quiz on climate change questions.

4. Methodology

For the present analysis various sources of information were collected, compared and summarized,

ranging from the written minutes of the seminar, evaluation sheets filled out by participants,

feedback from workshop facilitators and individual participants, as well as from observations during

the training. Furthermore the results of a feedback session, which took place one day after the

meeting, were taken into account. The results of this discussion contributed to great extent, even

though only focal points and network coordinators of the CSO networks took part.

5. Results Achieved and Lessons Learned

In the subsequent paragraphs the analysis of the training is described, structured along the expected

objectives of the training. At the beginning a short description on achieved results is presented.

Subsequently findings on what worked well and on what did not work out are described, including a

description of possible factors for the success respectively for the failure. This is followed by a short

paragraph comprising main lessons learned.

5.1 Knowledge and understanding on climate vulnerability assessments

One aim of the training was to inform participants on general aspects climate vulnerability

assessments encompass as prerequisite for the planning the national vulnerability assessments.

Results achieved

The training provided a general understanding on climate vulnerability assessments, an insight into

the process of assessing climate risks and vulnerabilities and necessary steps that are to be taken in

this regard. Participants learned about the added value climate vulnerability assessments comprise

and about different ways these assessments can be used. Further, terms such as vulnerability or

exposure are now better understood, and have a clear common definition. However, the general

level of interaction in the plenary sessions was rather low and varied according to the participants`

knowledge on climate change adaptation, ranging from no knowledge up to expert know-how on the

topic.

3 The ToR template can be found in annex B.

7

Findings on what worked well and factors that promoted this success

In this regard the inputs by the RCCC, WWF and the SEEVCCC were deemed helpful and played a part

in contributing to enhanced understanding. Furthermore, and in particular through the open design

of the sessions, discussions on what is happening on the EU level

emerged, which can be seen as added-value. A more scientific input

by the SEEVCCC, providing information on where scientific data is

available and how it can be used for the climate vulnerability

assessments, proved to be helpful for a majority of participants.

Findings on what did not work well and responsible factors

Many participants missed more detailed scientific information on

climate vulnerability assessments, as the following quotations

illustrate: “I think there could be more details and information and

more lectures.” or “It should be more scientific, more concise.” Some

participants also missed more information on the structure of climate

vulnerability assessments and would have preferred longer sessions,

going through an example of such an assessment in order to better

understand the design. Even though further input on the assessment`s structure was provided on the

second day of the training, there remained some unanswered questions on the design, the

methodology and the timeframe of vulnerability assessments. A reason for that critical feedback

could lie within the composition of training participants. Coming from various CSOs, public

institutions and research institutes from four different countries in SEE, being active in diverse areas

and having different background knowledge climate change, they probably all expected a different

level.

Lessons learned

In order to receive more background knowledge on the participants in advance, which might

facilitate the content-related planning process, it is recommended to circulate short questionnaires

before the training, scanning participants’ expectations, their field of work and interest. Further one

could think about organizing parallel lectures for more similar groups, which would allow for more

regional exchange on expert level (e.g. hydro-meteorological institutes) and enable fitted lectures for

the more practical oriented CSOs. Following the feedback of participants it would be good to include

more lectures on the topic as such, encompassing hard facts and more scientific information. In this

regard also the order of presentations could be changed, starting with a general presentation on

climate change trends and impacts and subsequently approaching the area of climate vulnerability

assessments. Altogether the critical feedback on the content level shows that more input and

feedback from the SEE region is necessary when planning such a workshop.

SEEVCCC presentation

8

5.2 Tools and methods to elaborate country-specific ToR for the national climate vulnerability

assessments

As one of the main aims of the training was to get participants familiar with tools and methods to

carry out climate vulnerability assessments and to elaborate country-specific ToR for this process, it

was examined whether the information, necessary for the process was provided and well-received by

participants.

Results achieved

Within the training it was made clear that there is no “fit-all” methodology for assessing climate

vulnerabilities, but that the way of how the analysis is being conducted, relies on the concrete topics

to be covered and the target group of the assessment. Concrete steps how to conduct a climate

vulnerability assessment, developed and presented by the RCCC, were intensively discussed by

participants of the training and enabled a debate on whether these steps are aligned with the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

(IPCC) and the EU White Paper on Climate

Change. Country-specific group work on existing

expertise and potential knowledge gaps for

developing climate vulnerability assessments

enabled mapping of know-how and relevant

national contacts, as well as an in depth

examination with the process of climate

vulnerability assessments. Within country-specific

working groups, participants discussed and

drafted the ToR for their national climate

vulnerability assessments in broad strokes, which

were presented in the plenary. The tips for writing

the assessments and possible tools to be used

here (e.g. story-telling) were well-perceived and

encouraged discussion in the plenary.

Findings on what worked well and factors that promoted this success

The working groups on exchange of experience and the development of ToR for the assessments

offered a relaxed atmosphere, which lead to a high involvement of participants and to the

achievement of the training`s objective to define four national ToR for the vulnerability assessments.

These working sessions were highly interactive workshops, with a great deal of exchange of

knowledge and expertise and feedback from evaluation sheets showed that these working group

went very well with participants. Within the group discussions, the Croatian network participants

realized that a glossary on the definition of terms is necessary for further work, as terms are being

used differently. For the Serbian participants it got clear that the process of developing a climate

vulnerability assessment does not necessarily include new research, but more a collection of already

existing research data.

Working group of the Macedonian network

9

Findings on what did not work well and responsible factors

A greater input from the facilitators was expected upon the presentations of the results of the group

work. Further the ToR template and the used terms in it needed a more detailed introduction, as

some working groups had difficulties in clarifying the sense of the terms used (e.g. objective,

purpose, scope), which can be understood in different ways. This created a degree of confusion

among the participants of working groups and to some extent a time loss. At the same time the

examination of the ToR template lead to a more intense reflection on the structure and that again

proved to be helpful for the whole process. For the Serbian CSO network this working group part on

the elaboration of ToR was insofar challenging, as it was the only network that had not defined its

thematic priority areas by that time, which would have been essential for the discussions and the

subsequent work on the ToR4. Furthermore there were far more representatives from environmental

organisations among the Serbian delegation, which might have different priorities in the climate

vulnerabilities than for example CSOs active in humanitarian fields. The composition in the other

delegations was more balanced in the sense that stakeholders from the humanitarian, environmental

and social sphere were present, even though the economic sector was under-represented.

Lessons learned

For similar trainings it is recommended to keep the interactive part of working groups, which proved

to be a meaningful way to activate participants to elaborate their national plans for the climate

vulnerability assessments through intense discussions and exchange of experience. However it is

deemed necessary to dedicate more time to the introduction part, to clearly inform participants

what is being expected by them and clarify ambiguous terms that are further being used. Bringing

results from the working group back into the plenary, and therefore allowing regional exchange and

better understanding on challenges in neighboring countries, was a very useful instrument, as it was

shown that there are similar potentials and challenges in the SEE region, which might be solved on a

regional level. This part would have been even more successful, if the workshop comprised a

structured feedback round, allowing for a regional discussion.

5.3 Networking and teambuilding

Since the training was among others aimed-at strengthening teambuilding within the present country

teams, being part of the national CSO networks, and to enable networking and enhanced regional

communication, the attention in the analysis below was put on whether this result was reached and

which conditions could have contributed to that.

Results achieved

According to the evaluation sheets and oral feedback by focal points of the CSO networks,

participants of the training benefited from the exchange of experience and networking possibilities

at the training and the entire gathering was seen was extremely useful for the teambuilding within

CSO networks.

4 In the project “SEE Forum on Climate Change Adaptation” each national CSO network has defined joint policy priorities subsequent to the

network formation. These priority areas shall serve as basis for their future actions, the climate vulnerability assessments and subsequent

advocacy work.

10

Findings on what worked well and factors that promoted this success

The beautiful venue of the training at the Ohrid Lake and

the facilities of the training centre of the Macedonian

Red Cross, contributed to a good and relaxed working

atmosphere. Participants had the possibility to get in

touch with each other on a more informal way very

easily, as everything was located in one place. Further

and outlined above, nearly half-of the training time was

organized in a very interactive-working group style,

which contributed to intense dialogue and networking.

In particular the country-teams linked well within their

networks. This was extremely helpful when discussing

the issue where to find necessary data for the

assessments, as participants had different backgrounds

and therefore different state of knowledge and contacts to relevant institutions. Besides that, the

training provided enough room for broader discussions on the role of CSOs in the region and their

particular relationship to public institutions, which was considered essential for the development of

the vulnerability assessments, as information on national strategies and research data, often only

available for public institutions, needs to be shared. Besides that discussions showed that climate

change is still not perceived the top priority in SEE countries and that the role of CSOs in this regard

remains weak.

Findings on what did not work well and responsible factors

During the presentations of the working group results and the emerging discussions on how each

CSO network is planning to progress in the climate vulnerability assessment, it got clear that country

teams are facing similar challenges, such as the lack of available research data. However there was

not enough time and willingness to address these common problems and find joint regional

solutions. Reasons for that might be that CSO network members still need more time to better get to

know members within their own network than others from outside. Further, and in the specific

project framework, no regional platform for broader discussions on a specific topic was provided so

far. Further it was observed that the country-groups stuck together even outside the training and

that there was not much through-mixing, which could have brought further value to the training.

Lessons learned

In order to enable enhanced regional exchange in similar workshops it could be helpful to spare

more time of the training for regional exchange among stakeholders with similar background, who

could for example elaborate concrete questions for the vulnerability assessments, and for tackling

similar challenges on a regional level. Furthermore the training could have been used more

intensively to activate and motivate national CSO networks in their work on climate change related

issues in this particular project context. Nonetheless the training enabled fostered exchange and

links within national CSO networks which is why the design shall be kept for similar workshop goals.

Working group of the Serbian network

11

5.4 Training methods and other issues

The regional training encompassed plenary sessions on (1) applications and added value of climate

vulnerability, (2) experiences and best practices in climate vulnerability assessments, (3) climate

change and climate variability in the SEE region and (4) practical aspects of writing a climate risk

assessment report, which were to a great extent held on the first day the training. These sessions

provided expert input, as well as room for questions and discussion. Half of the training time was

organized in a very interactive-working group style, which contributed to intense dialogue and

networking and was deemed as very useful for the elaboration of country specific ToR for the climate

vulnerability assessments.

At the beginning of the training a speed dating session, in which participants had 45 seconds to

introduce themselves to each other, was facilitated by

the RCCCC expert. This session was meant to be an

interesting ice-breaking activity and to encourage

participants to get in touch with CSO network members

from other countries. Even though this method was a

time-efficient way to meet a large number of training

participants, some perceived this session as exhausting.

Nonetheless there were also positive reactions to this

“energizer”, which contributed to a good working

atmosphere in the subsequent session.

Taking into consideration the high level of knowledge on climate change of particular participants

(e.g. experts from hydro-meteorological institutes) and some vague respectively wrong answers in

the game, the quiz on climate change, which was organized in two separate groups and meant to

catch the attention of participants, was not as successful as it could have been. A better selection of

questions, and placement towards the middle or beginning of the program could improve this

activity.

In view of further strengthening communication within the national CSO networks it could be helpful

to organize the working sessions without external facilitators. Instead a network member could take

over the role of the facilitator, which would on the one side require more preparatory work and a

very intense briefing, but foster the tram building process on the other side.

Furthermore a few participants criticized the use of plastic cups during the training, which should be

avoided, in particular when dealing with ecological questions and climate change. A more

sustainable and eco-friendly catering would be recommended, which would reflect the seminar

topics on the organizational level and could encompass also food, transport, training material etc.

Speed dating session

12

6. Overall lessons learned

1. Climate Vulnerability Assessments

Given the heterogeneity of training participant`s and the complex topic as such, it is

recommended to provide more comprehensive and scientific expert input on climate change and

its consequences. Besides that more time shall be scheduled for explaining the structure, the

contents and the development of climate vulnerability assessments, ideally examining an

example of such an assessment profoundly.

2. Diversity of training methods

For similar trainings it is recommended to keep the interactive part of working groups, which

proved to be a meaningful way to elaborate ToR for the national climate vulnerability

assessments. An added-value of the working group discussions was the discussion of specific

network topics and ideas that lead to the mobilization of networks. Plenary sessions with

comprehensive lectures on climate change related topics shall be kept and should start with

more general inputs on climate change trends and impacts, subsequently moving to the area of

climate vulnerability assessments. The so called “energizers” to activate training participants can

be also included and would ideally be discussed with country representatives in the planning

process already in order to avoid possible cultural barriers.

3. Networking and teambuilding

Altogether, the training was a valuable means for networking and it contributed to a great extent

to the team building process within the country networks. Through the variety of interactive

training methods and the facilities of the training center this was made possible.

4. Participatory approach and regional ownership

In sum, such a regional training on climate vulnerability assessments can be a valuable means for

strengthening capacities of RC/RC National Societies and other CSOs in developing climate

vulnerability assessments and putting ideas in concrete terms, provided that participants

respectively country representatives get involved in the preparatory phase already and give

concrete feedback on the training agenda, ensuring true regional ownership and participatory

cooperation. The more background information organizers have on the profile of participants,

the better they can plan the training contentwise and adapt to participants needs and interests.

5. Regional exchange and cooperation

In order to enable enhanced regional exchange and cooperation it would be helpful to spare

more time of the training for structured regional discussions in view of tackling similar challenges

as a region and jointly finding adequate solutions.

13

6. Sustainable use of natural resources

When dealing with questions of climate change and its consequences, people automatically get

confronted with questions on how to use natural resources more sustainably. In this context it is

recommended to reflect the topic of the training also on an organizational level and provide

sustainable and eco-friendly catering, transport, training material etc.

7. Inclusion of economic expertise

Due to lack of representatives from the business sector, which are also under-represented in the

established CSO networks, the economic perspective and expertise was missing in the training,

which could have been an enriching component, contributing to broader discussions. An

inclusion of the economic sector is considered as valuable means and shall be targeted for similar

trainings.

7. Annex

Annex A Agenda

Annex B Terms of Reference for the climate vulnerability assessments

Annex C Report Structure for the climate vulnerability assessments

Annex D Evaluation

Annex E List of participants