Línea de Base Comunal de escenarios del KC

Un Modelo de Resiliencia Comunal que tomara en cuenta variables pertinentes debe tomar en cuenta estas proyecciones. Una Matriz de Riesgo Comunal (MARCO) puede tomar éste trabajo del MMA como modelo. Hay otros que seguramente deben ser incorporados pero que no están disponibles. En relación al Programa de Barrios Sustentables, (sin ánimo de insistencia) habría que considerarlos en función del cruce con nuestra actividad previa en Senderos. Al menos como estrategia de "grupos de control". En todo caso, cabe señalar, sobre la información disponible on line, que ella no está actualizada, sino que se presentan como "eventos", los inicios y "talleres" de los programas. Muchas inauguraciones... Éste fenómeno, fácilmente constatable, como casi toda la información que se encuentra en los sitios Gov., adolece de la utilización de la información como propaganda, que hemos tratado en otro lado de acuerdo a la lógica de los primeros estudios sobre las comunicaciones en la historia (ref.) es decir que concibe un emisor y un receptor, sin tomar en cuenta los avances de la web 2.0 y mucho menos de la web semántica, dónde los receptores ellos mismos son productores de contenido y se relacionan libremente entre sí (Ver TED conferencia de Clay Shirky y las organizaciones, pero también, las estrategias de control y las leyes TISA y..) fenómeno puesto de relieve, aunque dramáticamente "capturado" recientemente por la elección de los USA y los "fake news". Uno de los problemas evidentes de éste modelo, más allá de reproducir las estrategias de control monopólico y no participativo de los media, a los que se pretendería políticamente oponer, es precisamente que la información no se actualiza, como programa, sino que no hay nunca seguimiento de ella. Para suplir éste defecto, habría que crear sitios web o sitios específicos, de cada programa a cargo de los propios actores involucrados. Esta lógica por demás comprensible para los usuarios que ya disponen en su mayoría de acceso personal a la red y utilizan sitios independientes, al no existir, sólo aumenta el desfase, la confianza y la "credulidad" entre la gente y las instituciones, tal como se percibe por ejemplo, con la participación de votantes en las elecciones. Nuestro proyecto habría de contribuir a revertir esta situación de las más perversas consecuencias políticas, dando un paso en la transparencia y la participación efectivas. Como además lo plantean los últimos avances en los organismos internacionales. (Particularmente en NU, lo que indicaría una tendencia hegemónica que es necesario considerar en proyectos de la naturaleza del presente. Ver siguiente entrada).

Transparencia en KC y SER...

Center for Climate and Energy Solutions

UNFCCC CLIMATE TRANSPARENCY: LESSONS LEARNED NOVEMBER 2016

The Paris Agreement establishes an “enhanced transparency framework” to build mutual trust and confidence and to promote effective implementation. This framework combines common reporting and review requirements for all parties with “built-in flexibility” for developing countries. The agreement requires that parties, in elaborating the operational details of the transparency framework, build on experience with existing transparency arrangements under the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Over the past year, developed and developing countries have shared their experiences with the existing transparency system in a variety of public forums. This brief highlights key lessons learned that can help inform the design of the Paris transparency framework.

Article 13 of the Paris Agreement requires that all parties report at least every two years on their greenhouse gas emissions and on progress in implementing their nationally determined contributions (NDCs). In addition, developed countries are to report on support provided; and developing countries on support received.

Countries’ reports will undergo a review by technical experts, followed by a “multilateral consideration of progress,” in which parties can ask one another about their respective efforts.

This enhanced transparency framework will build on experience with existing UNFCCC transparency arrangements. Rules, modalities, and procedures for the enhanced framework are to be completed by 2018 and adopted by the agreement’s governing body, known as the Conference of the Parties meeting as the Parties to the Paris Agreement, or the CMA.

Under existing transparency arrangements, all UNFCCC parties are required to submit national communications (NCs) on their mitigation and adaptation actions every four years. Developed countries submit national greenhouse gas inventories annually; developing countries submit them as part of their NCs. Developed country NCs and inventories undergo in-depth review by expert review teams; developing country NCs are not subject to expert review.

In addition to these requirements, the 2010 Cancún Agreements established two parallel processes: one for developed countries, and a less stringent one for developing countries. Under both processes, countries submit biennial reports that update or add to their NCs and describe the steps they are taking to meet their emission reduction goals. (In the case of developing countries, these are known as biennial update reports, or BURs).

These biennial reports are considered by technical experts, and then by other parties, in processes known as International Assessment and Review (IAR) in the case of developed countries, and International Consultation and Analysis (ICA) in the case of developing countries.

Parties began conducting multilateral assessments, the peer review portion of IAR, in 2014. The first facilitative sharing of views (FSV), the peer-review portion of ICA, took place on May 20-21, 2016. Both processes will continue at COP 22 in Marrakech, Morocco.

Over the past year, parties, experts, and the Secretariat have shared experiences and lessons learned at side events and during peer reviews.

 Here are some of the key lessons that have emerged:

International transparency has significant domestic benefits.

One of the most striking lessons shared by parties is that their participation in UNFCCC transparency processes produces many different types of domestic benefits, strengthening engagement across governments and with stakeholders, and contributing to better policymaking.

Many say that the process of gathering and reporting climate data:

• Starts important conversations. Canada and South Africa, for instance, have described how collecting and sharing greenhouse gas and other climate data across sectors and actors serves as a foundation for “conversation” between different levels of government and with and among relevant stakeholders.

• Becomes a whole government effort. Capturing climate action across all levels of government is whatSingapore calls a “whole government” effort. The need to coordinate data collection gives the climate issue greater prominence with non-environmental ministries, such as finance and energy. At the first FSV, Singapore noted the importance of creating the right institutional arrangements to coordinate agencies’ efforts and ensure top-down support from ministers.

• Helps identify mitigation opportunities and challenges. Gathering comprehensive emissions data and tracking it over time helps governments identify emissions trends and areas to focus mitigation efforts.

The resulting conversations among agencies and stakeholders helps to reveal mitigation opportunities and better understand how climate efforts fit with other domestic development priorities. Azerbaijan, for instance, noted that the system it is developing to generate emissions data and share it domestically is helping to identify sectors with significant mitigation potential and inform the development of national priorities.

• Helps track and inform policy implementation. Robust greenhouse gas inventories provide a critical tool for tracking and assessing the effectiveness of domestic climate policies. At a C2ES side event, Canada and the European Commission noted that regular reporting requires parties to continually update information and data, which in turn generates interest in and benefits domestic climate and development policy decision making.

A facilitative approach has helped parties overcome their apprehensions about the transparency process. Developing countries, which historically lack resources and technical experience, may find the prospect of regular, comprehensive reporting and review daunting.

Singapore said it at first found the process intimidating, only to discover that it was very constructive. Parties have come to see that the process is more of a dialogue than an interrogation subjecting them to judgment or criticism. Expert reviewers provide recommendations or suggestions that promote continual improvement in reporting and strengthen the expertise of country experts. Vietnam noted the value of being able to ask expert reviewers clarifying questions on information, data, and methodologies as soon as they arise.

This technical exchange helps parties learn and improve with experience. Bosnia & Herzegovina observed that mistakes actually help parties improve by identifying obstacles and areas for improvement. New Zealand recalled that an expert review team challenged the assumption

in its first greenhouse gas inventory that New Zealand’s forests were neither a source nor a sink. After taking a closer look, New Zealand concluded that its forests were in fact a net sink, and established a better system to track forest cover.

As parties better understand what reviewers are looking for, they learn to more clearly express their domestic policies to an outside audience. Similarly, Tunisia said that its first experience with FSV allowed it to “rediscover” its BUR through “external” eyes. By understanding how experts, policymakers, and other parties could view theirreports, parties learn to more clearly express conclusions drawn from the data and highlight their achievements.

Developing countries also find that technical analysis of their BURs helps to identify capacity-building needs and areas for improvement.

Peer-to-peer sharing of experience also builds capacity and increases parties’ confidence. Azerbaijan, Singapore and others underscored the importance of training workshops to strengthen capacity in developing countries.

Yamil Bonduki, Technical Advisor at UNDP, noted that training also has an incentivizing effect, empowering keynstakeholders to carry out their work and to coordinate amongst themselves.

Building stronger in-country capacity is key to effective developing country participation. Episodic project funding for the preparation and submissionof greenhouse gas inventories makes it difficult for developing countries to maintain ongoing data collection and to provide regular training to experts to prepare those inventories. Senegal noted that financial assistance from the Global Environment Facility (GEF) for the preparation of NCs and BURs is tied to the timing of these reports. As Peru and Azerbaijan related, this often leads developing countries to rely on external consultants whose expertise departs when a report is finished.

Starting the technical analysis process soon after submission of the biennial update report can ensure that the national team of experts is still available to participate in the process. However, sustained support to establish strong institutions and in-country expertise would greatly enhance the ability of developing countries to effectively participate in transparency processes.

Building in-country capacity also helps to incentivize key players and institutions and establish a sense of ownership at the national and institutional level. As South Korea noted, an additional benefit of standing processes and expertise is that a report like the BUR does not feel like an additional burden.

The UNFCCC transparency system is continuously improving itself.Over time, many factors including regular assessment, sharing of experience, training, and periodic updating of guidelines have helped improve the quality of reporting and review. Updating reporting and review guidelines has beencritical to improving inventory data, the quality and timeliness of reporting, and the technical review process for experts. The Secretariat found that in the past gaps in reporting guidelines contributed to a lack of clarity and structure in developed country national communications, making them difficult to understand and to compare. Uruguay said that lack of clarity in the BUR guidance led some developing countries to not reporton support received. Several parties noted that improvements to the guidelines have made it easier for them to report fully, accurately and on time.

Even for expert reviewers, the process is a learning one.

Greenhouse gas inventory lead reviewers meet regularly to share their experiences and draw lessons. A Brazilian expert said lead reviewers often offer suggestions to improve the quality and  efficiency of reviews. A regularly updated Handbook for Review of National GHG Inventories is a useful resource for new and experienced reviewers.And the “Review Practice Guidelines,” an informal, “living” document intended to ensure consistency among reviews, is updated after each review cycle.

The Secretariat itself uses feedback and self-assessment to simplify reporting and review. Jigme, team lead of the International Consultations and Analysis Support Unit, said the Secretariat does its best to make the transparency process more familiar and predictable through its outreach to parties. The Secretariat also learns by doing, using feedback from parties and experts to improve.

Uruguay agreed, pointing to Secretariat support, feedback, and technical clarifications that have helped provide a clearer picture and a schedule of activities for the process. Technology makes reporting and review easier and more effective.

Parties noted that access to cutting-edge software can improve the user-friendliness and effectiveness of the reporting and review process. It can help manage and archive key data, maintain the continuity of the compilation process, and make data available in a user-friendly, searchable format.

Video-teleconference technology allows parties and experts to communicate more easily than ever before, reducing the costs and burdens of more traditional communication. The Secretariat has realized that while an in-person discussion may be ideal, the availability of alternatives such as email and videoconferencing software like Skype have strengthened its engagement with parties. Vietnam noted that Skype made it possible for all its relevant experts to “meet,” which enabled them to formally request the technical support they needed.

CONCLUSIONS

Parties’ experiences with existing UNFCCC transparency processes provide valuable lessons to inform the design of the enhanced transparency framework established by the Paris Agreement.

The overarching lesson shared by parties has been “learning by doing,” and what parties have learned has produced multiple, mutually reinforcing benefits.

Countries not only get better at meeting their international reporting obligations over time, but in  the process, tend to improve their domestic governance, capacity and policymaking as well.

As governments complete the design of, and begin implementing, the Paris transparency framework, a key priority is building the in-country capacity of developing countries. Parties must consider how the newly established Paris Committee on Capacity Building and the Capacity Building Initiative for Transparency can work together to enhance parties’ ability to build and sustain the institutions and technical expertise needed to effectively participate in, and benefit from, transparency mechanisms.

Other priorities are designing the framework in a way that ensures a continued facilitative approach, and investing it with the ability to improve over time.

Building these features into the framework can help ensure that it meets the goals outlined in the Paris Agreement—building mutual trust and confidence, andpromoting effective implementation.

Bosques y Cambio Climático Conclusiones • Existe necesidad de fortalecer la investigación, en particular para determinar la vulnerabilidad y potenciales impactos del CC en la dinámica de los bosques, pero desde una perspectiva “nueva” que involucre a todos los actores de manera sistemática y con foco en la Gobernanza. La perspectiva de SES (Sistemas Eco Socialess) de Ostrom y la noción de Resiliencia deben implementarse de manera sistemática, para hacer frente a los desafíos crecientes que nos está planteando el Cambio Climático • Hay que hacer notar la necesidad de incorporar la historia a las actuales formas que ha asumido el modelo exportador forestal y las condiciones legales que lo permiten. La Adaptación planificada de los bosques al cambio climático es una tarea a abordar en todas las regiones. • Bosques y árboles constituyen una medida clave para la adaptación al cambio climático y el bienestar de las comunidades. Probablemente, debamos pensar en territorios sinérgicos y autosustentables y no a un fraccionamiento productivo que al cabo reproduce la dimensión monoproductora. Probabblemente debamos pensar en Áreas o Territorios. Ellos pueden ser definidos en función de las categorías de riesgo.

El programa SER se articula alrededor de tres ejes fundamentales: Transparencia, participación y sustentabilidad. Resiliencia y Transparencia son los criterios centrales. Un programa de Comunicaciones efectivo,con una Plataforma que permtia la actualización on line, el seguimiento y que posea la incorporación de Mapas es fundamental al éxito del proyecto. Mapas Integrados de Información Múltiple. MIIM,

Built in flexibility.
Establecer un patrón de aprendizaje.
El inicio de conversaciones transparentes e informadas. Corresponde a la instalación de CAS. El estudio y revisión de lo que es el KC, sus elementos y herramientas internacionales asi como el Plan Nacional de Adaptación. Ello permite una revisión evaluativa
Se desarrolla el principio fundamental de la Gobernanza.

Estabamos en una época de acelerados cambiosy una gran incertidumbre, donde los procesos lllevados a cabo en un escenario general que a partir de los "fake news", cambia aún radicalmente las cosas. Si antes los diferentes ámbitos de la realidad, eran estocásticos ahora eso, se agrega ahora una denegación de los hechos, un descreimiento generalizadode de las verdades científicas que el Oxford Dictionary ha caracterizado incorporando la palabra de "post verdad". Dónde las decisiones y la realidad que percibimos, es dominada sobre reacciones emocionales y creencias personales, (Environmental science in a post-truth world Jane Lubchenco. February 2017) .

Área de cobertura: Adaptación, Construcción de Capacidades, Transferencia Tecnológica. Consiste en una convocatoria a la construcción colaborativa de Caminos de Resiliencia (CARE) se sitúa en el centro de una labor de largo aliento que convoca a todos los actores que interactúan en el terreno. Beyond Markets and the State. SER Senderos de Resiliencia. En la perspectiva del Gobierno Policéntrico, cubriremos todas los sectores productivos y educacionales del área de Resiliencia definida. Nuestro trabajo ha de considerar la definición de Áreas de Resiliencia, que no necesariamente serán iguales a las comunas y municipios. Más que una definición administrativa y electoral, el principio será dar cuenta.

Environmental science in a post-truth world

Environmental science in a post-truth world. 

Jane Lubchenko. Oregon University. Feb. 2017

(The Ecological Society of America)

A new year. A fresh start. Sound familiar? Yet this year seems anything but routine. Just when,

thanks in part to US leadership, the world finally began to make tangible progress in addressing

climate change, the US elected a President who labeled climate change a hoax and whose Cabinet

nominees leave little doubt that climate denial will continue.

Equally problematic are the blatant disregard of facts and lack of respect for others and for civil

discourse that were painfully evident in the US elections and around the world. So pervasive was the

dismissal of “truth” that the Oxford English Dictionary named “post-truth”as the 2016 “Word of the

Year”, defining it as “relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief”.

Many of us have worked hard to make scientific information understandable, credible, relevant, and

accessible to help inform (not dictate) decisions. Fortunately, many politicians and others join us in

believing that decisions based on science will be better decisions. We believe that access to information underpins an informed democracy. We value critical thinking. But a post-truth world challenges that worldview. This new world has been deeply unsettling for many scientists, triggering anger, confusion, and angst. Responses have ranged from pledges to stoutly defend science, to talk of moving nabroad, to the temptation to ignore it all and hope it disappears, to despair. 

Like many of you, I’ve pondered, “What can we do?” and “What should I do?”

First of all: take heart! I believe we can rise to this occasion with the boldness, energy, and creativity

it demands. Not in a knee-jerk fashion, but one that responds to some of the underlying causes of our

current dilemma. We must engage more vigorously with society to address the intertwined environmental and social problems that many have ignored, to find solutions, and to help create a better world. We must truly listen to and address the reasons why a post-truth world has emerged.

But we cannot do so from lofty perches above society; we must be more integrated into society. It is no longer sufficient for scientists in academia, government, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), or industry to conduct business as usual. Today’s challenges demand an all-hands-on-deck approach wherein scientists serve society in a fashion that responds to societal needs and is embedded in everyday lives.

Humility, transparency, and respect must characterize our interactions. I suggest three parallel efforts;

(1) Stand up for science by demonstrating its value and our relevance. Science needs to be trusted

and valued, not seen as imperious, threatening, wasteful, or doom-and-gloom. Let’s shed the entitlement rhetoric and show, not just assert, the merits of science. Make science accessible. Speak in plain language, stripped of jargon. Show your warm, caring, human side. Engage citizens in doing science that produces useful knowledge and solutions. Create trust through shared experiences and values.

(2) Provide hope by highlighting the profusion of existing successes. Scale them up. Create more.

There has been impressive progress on multiple fronts: renewable energy, fisheries reform, huge marine reserves, smart coastal planning, working with nature to adapt to climate change, and much more. Few are well known; none is at the scale needed. Look to these successes for hope and models. Focus on changing economic and social incentives to create conditions for durable positive changes. Tackle tangible problems with use-inspired science. Team up with policy-savvy, science-respecting NGOs and businesses with complementary skills and goals.

(3) Modify scientific reward structures and training to meet current needs. Many academic scientists

already do some of the above, or want to, but must do so in addition to teaching, research, and service. We need to change our own incentive structure to recognize and reward engagement as a core responsibility.

Not all scientists will want to (or should!) engage, but all should value and support those who

do. Many of our students want to engage but fear being penalized or losing other opportunities. This

must change. We should train, encourage, and support students to be better communicators and more

engaged. We must fund engagement and training.

Yes, we face rough times ahead, but ecologists and ESA have been moving in the right direction for

years. Now is the time for a quantum leap into relevance. And as we tackle these emerging challenges, don’t forget to carve out time to connect with nature and people so as to recharge our batteries and remind us of what’s important.

Jane Lubchenco. Professor, Oregon State University; Administrator of NOAA (2009–2013); US Science Envoy for the Ocean, State Department (2014–2016); ESA President (1992–1993)