| 1 |
Table 1. Resilience Attributes and Illustrative Markers |
| 2 |
Table 2. Revised Resilience Markers |
| 3 |
robustness |
| 4 |
self-organisation |
| 5 |
learning |
| 6 |
redundancy |
| 7 |
rapidity |
| 8 |
scale |
| 9 |
diversity |
| 10 |
flexibility |
| 11 |
equality |
| 12 |
Resilience benchmarking |
| 13 |
Resilience impact a***essment |
| 14 |
Table 1 |
| 15 |
RABIT – the Resilience a***essment Benchmarking and Impact Tool |
| 16 |
Friday 1st November 2013 |
| 17 |
Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) (5) |
| 18 |
transformation (2) |
| 19 |
change (2) |
| 20 |
‘The Future We Want’ |
| 21 |
Rio+20 conference |
| 22 |
role of ICTs |
| 23 |
Rio+20 outcome doc***ent |
| 24 |
five key areas of action |
| 25 |
a) ICTs and Multi-stakeholder Engagement |
| 26 |
enabling public engagement |
| 27 |
access to ICT |
| 28 |
b) ICTs, Knowledge Exchange and Capacity Building |
| 29 |
knowledge exchange, |
| 30 |
capacity building (2) |
| 31 |
c) ICTs, Food Security and Sustainable Agriculture |
| 32 |
empower farmers, fishers and foresters |
| 33 |
to choose |
| 34 |
d) ICTs and Energy Efficiency |
| 35 |
energy-efficient technologies |
| 36 |
e) ICTs and Youth Education |
| 37 |
youth education |
| 38 |
enhance learning outcomes |
| 39 |
Why is this important? |
| 40 |
empowerment, engagement |
| 41 |
multi-stakeholder partic****tion |
| 42 |
awareness |
| 43 |
understanding |
| 44 |
Rio+20 (7) |
| 45 |
Where do we go from here? |
| 46 |
policy instruments of governance |
| 47 |
management |
| 48 |
enabling environment |
| 49 |
concrete targets |
| 50 |
specific ‘roadmap’ |
| 51 |
bridge the gap |
| 52 |
ICT practice |
| 53 |
transformative potential |
| 54 |
ICTs, the Foundation of Our Sustainable Future”. |
| 55 |
“Broadband and ICTs for Smart, Inclusive and Sustainable Societies”. |
| 56 |
“The Future We Want with ICT and Innovation”, |
| 57 |
balance |
| 58 |
traditional |
| 59 |
novel approaches |
| 60 |
information |
| 61 |
International Telecommunication Union (ITU) |
| 62 |
Emerging initiatives |
| 63 |
research |
| 64 |
advocacy |
| 65 |
Conference |
| 66 |
opportunities for innovation |
| 67 |
ICTs (4) |
| 68 |
explicit inclusion (2) |
| 69 |
‘zero draft’ |
| 70 |
acknowledges the role |
| 71 |
ICTs’ potential (2) |
| 72 |
holistic and innovative |
| 73 |
COP 18 |
| 74 |
ICT for development |
| 75 |
‘design-reality gaps’ |
| 76 |
key factors |
| 77 |
decision makers |
| 78 |
‘design-reality gaps’ (2) |
| 79 |
ICT implementation |
| 80 |
Information Appropriateness: |
| 81 |
Stakeholder Diversity and Partic****tion: |
| 82 |
Resource Allocation and Monitoring |
| 83 |
Ensuring ICT Policy Coherence: |
| 84 |
finding a balance |
| 85 |
sustainable future |
| 86 |
redefine |
| 87 |
development challenges |
| 88 |
food security |
| 89 |
food security (3) |
| 90 |
connect the dots |
| 91 |
ICTs, |
| 92 |
resilience |
| 93 |
Sub-sector |
| 94 |
Examples of |
| 95 |
ICT POTENTIAL |
| 96 |
Expected Impact on |
| 97 |
FOOD SECURITY |
| 98 |
AGRICULTURE |
| 99 |
Radio programs |
| 100 |
improved land management practices |
| 101 |
text messages |
| 102 |
integrated nutrient management |
| 103 |
Internet-based applications |
| 104 |
agricultural planning |
| 105 |
reduce risks |
| 106 |
Partic****tory videos |
| 107 |
traditional and new seed varieties |
| 108 |
raise awareness raising |
| 109 |
new capacities |
| 110 |
monitoring |
| 111 |
support |
| 112 |
inform farmers’ decision-making |
| 113 |
ICTs can foster crop diversification |
| 114 |
LIVESTOCK |
| 115 |
Videoconferences |
| 116 |
access to information, knowledge and technical advice |
| 117 |
complement local knowledge |
| 118 |
animal productivity |
| 119 |
FISHERY |
| 120 |
Internet |
| 121 |
community radio |
| 122 |
fisheries codes |
| 123 |
regulations |
| 124 |
aquaculture management |
| 125 |
regulatory content |
| 126 |
productivity and sustainability. |
| 127 |
AGROFORESTRY |
| 128 |
Mobile technologies |
| 129 |
Web 2.0 |
| 130 |
social media |
| 131 |
increase |
| 132 |
farm incomes |
| 133 |
diversify production |
| 134 |
knowledge infomediaries’ |
| 135 |
building capacity |
| 136 |
local stakeholders |
| 137 |
raising awareness |
| 138 |
policy makers |
| 139 |
access |
| 140 |
connectivity |
| 141 |
not |
| 142 |
reach |
| 143 |
appropriated |
| 144 |
apply it |
| 145 |
decision-making |
| 146 |
strengthen their capacity |
| 147 |
new bridges of collaboration |
| 148 |
resilient, |
| 149 |
—————————————————————————————– |
| 150 |
Inst**utions |
| 151 |
cope with |
| 152 |
adjust |
| 153 |
key determinants |
| 154 |
How can ICTs help to strengthen the role of inst**utions within climate change adaptation processes? |
| 155 |
key inst**utional functions |
| 156 |
ICT’s potential |
| 157 |
Inst**utional Functions Towards Climate Change Adaptation |
| 158 |
Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) Potential |
| 159 |
1. a***essments to Inform Decision-Making |
| 160 |
open consultation processes |
| 161 |
models and projections |
| 162 |
2. Prioritisation of Adaptation Actions |
| 163 |
key |
| 164 |
issues, areas, sectors or pop****tions |
| 165 |
3. Coordination of Efforts at Multiple Levels |
| 166 |
horizontal coordination |
| 167 |
vertical coordination |
| 168 |
inter-sectoral coordination |
| 169 |
4. Information Management |
| 170 |
gathering, systematizing, analysing and disseminating |
| 171 |
new channels |
| 172 |
5. Climate Risk Reduction |
| 173 |
identification of risks and development priorities |
| 174 |
traditional knowledge |
| 175 |
Table 1. |
| 176 |
inst**utional functions |
| 177 |
‘reaching out’ |
| 178 |
Internet-based tools |
| 179 |
First, |
| 180 |
USE |
| 181 |
Second, |
| 182 |
knowledge brokers (2) |
| 183 |
human infomediaries |
| 184 |
‘hybrid’ |
| 185 |
climate change knowledge brokers |
| 186 |
raise awareness |
| 187 |
engage diverse stakeholders |
| 188 |
identification of local priorities |
| 189 |
climate change vulnerabilities |
| 190 |
viable responses |
| 191 |
widening the set of informational and human resources |
| 192 |
share and discuss lessons learned |
| 193 |
local empowerment |
| 194 |
Experiences |
| 195 |
hybrid approaches |
| 196 |
traditional knowledge brokering |
| 197 |
ICT tools (2) |
| 198 |
key factors: |
| 199 |
appropriate and relevant |
| 200 |
not limited to climate change |
| 201 |
beyond the provision of access |
| 202 |
inclusiveness |
| 203 |
trust and credibility |
| 204 |
two-way information flows, |
| 205 |
‘last mile’ approach |
| 206 |
irreplaceable |