ACCESS4ALL Group

The approach involves engaging community members to identify their main climate-related challenges, assess which groups and livelihoods are most vulnerable, and develop practical responses based on local knowledge. Similar work across Northern Ghana has used Climate Risk and Vulnerability Assessments, Community Adaptation Action Plans, consultations, and demonstration activities to ensure that adaptation measures reflect local realities.

Does it represent community values?

Yes. Community members contribute their knowledge of local weather patterns, farming practices, natural resources, and livelihood needs. This makes the adaptation measures more relevant than solutions designed entirely from outside the community.

Does it address community challenges?

Yes. The plans respond to issues such as unpredictable rainfall, drought, declining agricultural productivity, and water challenges. Measures such as livelihood diversification, improved farming practices, water management, and climate-smart agriculture directly address these concerns.

Does it adequately assess vulnerability?

The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) used its abundant natural resources, particularly its rainforests and oil reserves, as strategic assets in international climate negotiations. The Congo Basin rainforest is an important global carbon sink, so the DRC emphasized the value of protecting its forests while also seeking international financial support for conservation and climate action. At the same time, the 2022 oil and gas auction demonstrated the tension between using fossil-fuel resources for economic development and protecting the environment.

Multilateral coordination strengthened the DRC’s position by connecting it with initiatives such as REDD+ and the Coalition for Rainforest Nations, as well as cooperation with countries such as Brazil and Indonesia. Working with other rainforest countries allowed the DRC to present shared concerns and seek greater international recognition and climate finance for protecting forests.

The concept of loss and damage is also important to the DRC because climate-vulnerable countries can experience serious economic…

Justification for my rating:

3 – Neutral

I would rate my satisfaction with the outcomes on loss and damage as 3 (Neutral) because the last five COPs have produced important progress, but the response is still not sufficient compared with the scale of the problem faced by vulnerable countries.

Historically, loss and damage negotiations were difficult because developing countries, particularly small island states and vulnerable developing countries, had long pushed for stronger recognition and financial support for climate-related losses that cannot be avoided through adaptation. A major institutional step came at COP19 in 2013, when the Warsaw International Mechanism (WIM) was established to address loss and damage from both extreme events and slow-onset impacts.

The biggest breakthrough came at COP27 in 2022, when countries finally agreed to establish new funding arrangements and a dedicated Fund for responding to Loss and Damage. This was significant because the issue had been debated internationally…

I agree with your observation that “the people who have the most power are not the ones who are most affected.” This was also one of the main conclusions I reached from my stakeholder mapping. My mapping similarly placed government agencies, international donors and key project management institutions in the Manage Closely quadrant because of their ability to influence funding, policy, regulations and project implementation.

One difference in our perspectives is that I gave slightly more emphasis to the distinction between formal power and influence. I placed local communities, NGOs and researchers primarily under Keep Informed, because although they may have limited formal decision-making power, they can have considerable influence through local knowledge, advocacy, community mobilisation and technical expertise. Your description of communities as both “implementers and beneficiaries” highlights why their influence can sometimes be greater than the formal mapping initially suggests.

I also agree with your point about the interdependence between stakeholders.…