• A co-trainer. Two or three qualified co-facilitators are needed to develop three hazards and impact chains simultaneously.

• It is good to split the participants into groups according to their specific characteristics (gender, age, vulnerability). In that way, one form is enough per group.

• There is flexibility. Managing more than 50 people may become challenging and require more than two co-facilitators. You would need to adjust the work method. The number of people per subgroup would be between 5 and 10.

• Varied responses are good. This illustrates varied perceptions and opinions from individuals with diverse characteristics, including gender, wealth, age, and location. It is important to capture these links as much as possible, consolidate them and mention them in the reporting tables.

• No, you need co-facilitators for this. If you have three hazards, then you will need 2 extra co-facilitators. Every "hazard station" should have its own facilitator, so normally you would have 2-3 facilitators per workshop. This is a demanding part, so facilitators should be well prepared for it.

• The duration of 2 days is necessary to deal with the whole chain of impact and the preparation of an action plan outline. Reducing it to one day does not make it possible to deal with an action plan. (Conclusion of the test done in Tanzania).

• No, these are very different concepts. A value chain focuses on the production of a commercial good, including all the steps and contextual elements. An impact chain, on the other hand, focuses on climate change and how this, following logical steps, may lead to an impact on all human activities, resources, production and quality of life.

• Diseases/insects normally go into “other stresses” unless it is clearly demonstrated that it is climate change-induced. If that is the case, it is a climate hazard.

• Yes, there is an overall confusion in documents on climate change about the word “mitigation”. It is used in two different contexts:

  1. Mitigation of climate change (reducing GHG emissions) refers here to slowing the drivers of climate change. This includes initiatives that reduce emissions of greenhouse gases or activities that absorb GHGs from the atmosphere (e.g., planting trees or managing soils).

  2. In climate risk management, “mitigating the impacts or risks” refers to interventions to reduce the negative impacts of climate change on social and natural systems. This concept is better understood as part of “climate change adaptation”.

• Climate change adaptation encompasses a variety of interventions aimed at reducing vulnerability to climate impacts. These interventions range from preventing climate-related issues—such as reallocating resources away from high-risk areas—to mitigating impacts through improved infrastructure, like enhanced storage facilities or water harvesting systems. Transformative adaptation strategies include diversifying livelihoods, accessing early warning systems, utilising water resources efficiently, and ensuring adequate extension services.

• All these efforts contribute to enhancing the "adaptive capacity" of farmers and agricultural systems, which is the ability of individuals and systems to cope with change—whether climate-related or otherwise.

• Certain activities, such as increasing tree cover in a landscape, have benefits for both mitigation and adaptation. Trees within agroforestry systems, as part of land rehabilitation efforts or as income-generating activities, provide multiple advantages while absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere.

• Providing that the training builds adaptive capacity (e.g., identification and correct use of improved crop varieties), this is a reasonable intervention for adaptation.

• Sensitivity refers to how individuals or systems are affected when being exposed to the same climate hazard (vulnerability). Due to a variety of factors (e.g., gender, social status, location) impacts are not the same among people or production systems. By considering sensitivity factors when defining intervention for building resilience (a.k.a adaptation), it is possible to reduce vulnerability even if exposure remains the same.

• Yes, it is vary wide concept. It involves any action that reduces exposure to the climate hazard, sensitivity, reduces the impact or reduces non-climate factors and stresses. Increasing adaptive capacity also falls under “adaptation”.

• A trigger is the physical change in climate and/or weather patterns: precipitation, temperature, frequency of extreme events or sea-level rise. A climate hazard is how these triggers materialize: floods, droughts, wildfires, landslides etc.

• This is indeed one of the biggest challenges for facilitators. It is therefore important for the facilitator to prepare adequately: change the key concepts into “understandable” words (hazard = danger, exposure = contact, sensitivity = quality), as explained in the facilitator’s manual. The facilitator must also translate these to local language(s) and clarify the concepts.

• Yes, in many cases, climate change creates or increases pests, invasive species, etc. If the participants want to consider a pest as an important climate hazard, then the facilitator should apply the tool methodology on this hazard.

• Conceptually, sensitivity (characteristics) determines the vulnerability of a group/individual, together with its adaptive capacity (ability to act). So, basically, a farmer’s vulnerability is determined by sensitivity and his adaptive capacity towards climate change. In the real world, there is some overlap between these concepts.

Yes, climate change is in general a complex problem. Aggravating sensitivity may lead to an increased climate hazard, creating loopholes. Another example of this is deforestation by smallholder farmers. Degrading forest and forest soils because of less precipitation leads in some regions to increased speed of deforestation, leading to an accelerated degradation of forest and soils, leading to an even higher rate of deforestation.  The BR-Tool, as for almost all tools, makes a simplified analysis of these problems capturing input from farmers. In general, don’t worry about capturing all the complexities of climate change and its effects on humans. The most important is to register important views of farmers on how they are affected, and the solutions they believe are feasible and effective. 

• Make a first selection based on the importance of the livelihood component. Generally, agricultural/economic activities. This may be done by relying on participants’ opinions, the focus of the project. Remember we mainly work on agriculture and food systems with our farmers’ organization.

• It is useful to discuss trends in terms of frequency/duration but also intensity. An event, even a one-off and brief one, can have a strong impact because of its intensity.

• Specific agricultural activities (irrigating, for example), infrastructure, natural resources. Say you have a bridge that’s key to access your field, then you need to look at the sensitivity of that bridge: is it flood-resistant? Will it survive the first small typhoon that comes along?

• More feasible and less feasible

• This will be developed in Part II of the Building Resilience tool, which focuses on FOs and value chains. Indeed, FOs that want to establish an adaptation plan may also have to think about how to follow up the implementation of this plan.

• Yes, even indigenous and ancestral practices. This part belongs to the FO. Feasibility to use adaptive action in the local context should be studied first. You may cause farmers to risk their livelihood if they test an action and it doesn't work. If you can de-risk the trial, it can be included.

• Yes, sometimes the most efficient adaptation activities can actually increase emissions. Although this not always easy to establish, this needs to be taken into account when selecting adaptation options. These are often called “no-regret” actions. Even if AAs and FOs often have enough technical capacity to identify these “no regret” actions, it is a good practice to document and consult in order to draw up a list of adaptation actions for your farming systems and livelihoods.

• Livestock, in some cases, may be a low-emission adaptation option. It depends on what production it replaces, what kind of livestock (poultry, hog, small ruminants, etc.), the intensity of the land-use associated with this production (extensive, intensive), and how the livestock is fed (soy meal, pasture, hay, etc.). In general, livestock production by smallholders is far less GHG-intensive than industrial/intensive meat production.

• Especially for future hazards, it is important for you to document this in the workshop. You can do this either by doing research yourself and making it digestible for the participants; or by inviting a local climate resource person (a public servant, a researcher or a professor). In terms of documents, a good place to start from is the Nationally Declared Contributions (NDCs), which gives an overview of future changes, and national references for this information (National Institute of Meteorology, for example).

• Correct. To make observations on the field of adaptation actions that worked (and failed) is one of the first steps for a facilitator/trainer.

• This is the kind of information that the trainer (you) has to document prior to the workshop. Typhoons and hurricanes are a very important climate hazard for many countries. There are many adaptation measures that can be taken: early warning systems, protecting crops, improving government policies on social safety nets, crop insurance or promoting family savings. If you are facilitating in a typhoon-prone region or country, it is indeed very important to document or to invite a knowledgeable person to your workshop.

• No, it is not always possible. Reaching a consensus or a common view of the problem or solution within different smaller groups might be sufficient. The most important goal in this regard is to capture the different views within the group, or per subgroup (e.g. men think that vegetable production is not that exposed to a climate hazard whereas women think it is very exposed).

• Yes, especially future hazards(s). It is important for you to document this before the workshop. You can do this either by doing research yourself and making it digestible for the participants, or by inviting a local climate resource person (a public servant, a researcher, a professor etc.).

• Livelihood at risk is a broad category. So, you can include everything that is important to your livelihood. E.g. Activities on human resources and ecosystems can be relevant. Then as a facilitator you should list every component of livelihoods prior to the workshop. If you want to change the content, please do so, as long as all the important livelihood components are covered in that list.

• The approach proposed to producers is to assess the probability and importance of the hazard using a rating scale. This is not always easy because everything can appear important to producers. This approach is justified in order to generate discussion on the relative importance of items and specially to see possible differences of opinion among sub-groups of stakeholders. Not all producers are necessarily affected in the same way by a vulnerability factor.  The discussion will thus make it possible to bring out concerns that were not highlighted in the overall vision or that need to be examined in greater depth by different subgroups. This ranking will also facilitate the definition of priorities in the analysis of possible adaptations.

• It is important to work on other stresses if they are very important in the eyes of the producers, as this will be the condition for commitment to adapting to climate change. The different stresses are also complimentary and adaptation efforts must be combined, for example, in the management of natural resources.