333.7 Natürliche Ressourcen, Energie und Umwelt
Refine
Document Type
- Working Paper (5) (remove)
Language
- English (5) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (5)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (5)
Keywords
- Angola (1)
- Coping capacity (1)
- Drought (1)
- Namibia (1)
- Risk (1)
- Southern Africa (1)
- Vulnerability (1)
- Water and food security (1)
Droughts threaten millions of people in Sub-Saharan Africa, leading to famines, water shortages, migration and casualties. Climate change will most probably exacerbate the devastating consequences as exceptional droughts are expected to occur more frequently. Conventional drought risk assessments however, do not provide adequate tools, as they often limit their focus to environmental parameters, ignoring social vulnerabilities. Integrated strategies are required to carry out holistic drought risk assessments that serve to find adapted technological and institutional solutions to ensure water and food security. This will contribute to the Sustainable Development Goals 1 “No Poverty”, 2 “Zero Hunger” and 6 “Clean Water and Sanitation”.
Transforming the current rather centralized electricity generating system into a climate neutral system based on renewable energy is an important approach to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and thus mitigate climate change. Stakeholders have each of them their own perception of the best strategies to achieve such a transformation. All perspectives are equally legitimate and needed for developing a specific transformation strategy suited for the region in focus....
The anthropocene – the epoch of humankind – is currently a topic of great interest. What consequences does the idea of humanity as a geological force have for the undertaken path of sustainable development? What new questions are arising for sustainability science? Diagnosing contemporary society from an anthropocene perspective could change the relationship between natural and social sciences, as well as between society and science: science will be needed even more as a critical authority and must be organized to an even greater extent in a transdisciplinary manner. New forms of social participation in the process of producing scientifically legitimated knowledge are indispensable.∗
More than ten years ago the Dutch chemist and Nobel laureate Paul Crutzen coined the term “Anthropocene” to describe the period during which humans have begun to significantly influence biological, geological and atmospheric processes, thus becoming a relevant geological force on planet Earth (Crutzen and Stoermer 2000, Crutzen 2002). In the earth sciences the anthropocene represents nothing less than a transition to a new epoch and is therefore being discussed intensively. Until 2016 data have been collected by geologists from the International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS) to provide evidence that might help answer the question whether a turning point has been reached in the history of the Earth (Zalasiewicz et al. 2011). A decision will be made as to whether and when a new epoch in Earth history has begun.
The significance and consequences outside the geoscientific discourse of identifying an “epoch of humans” (Zalasiewicz 2013) has, so far, only been understood to a small extent. Yet this change of perspective is one of the most important in the last 100 hundred years, for it means society and nature have become so closely intertwined that they can no longer be studied independently of each other. Natural spheres and societal spheres have merged into one large system (Guillaume 2015, Becker und Jahn 2006). A well-founded acceptance of the concept of the anthropocene, however, has been lacking, especially where transitions to a sustainable development are being researched. It remains unclear whether the concept of the Anthropocene will lead to a new fundamental understanding of the relationships between nature and society and, if so, what opportunities this new understanding might open for shaping these relationships in a more sustainable manner. And lastly, and equally importantly, it is still unclear whether science’s role and responsibilities will change in the course of developing visions of the future. With this article we hope to stimulate further discussions of these issues.
Science is under pressure. In times when it is a matter of nothing less that a transformation toward sustainable development, society and politics are demanding not just reliable knowledge but above all useful knowledge. In order to be able to produce such knowledge science must change its structures and ways of working. A renewed understanding of critique can provide guidance to the process of change that must be actively shaped by science itself.* The “Great Transformation” in the direction of sustainable development is a global challenge for society (WBGU2011). All involved have stressed that this transformation, if it succeeds, will lead to profound changes in all parts of society (see PIK 2007). This applies to science as well, which after all is a part of society (WBGU2011, pp. 341 f.). For in view of an unprecedented social-ecological crisis science is coming increasingly under pressure to provide knowledge that is not only methodically reliable but also useful for dealing with the challenges ahead. It is obvious this pressure can strike at the very core of the scientific project: Any orientation toward nonscientific criteria with respect to what is to count as relevant knowledge threatens to undermine the reflexive and cooperative search for “true knowledge.”
In this situation we believe it to be crucial that science does not allow itself to become a plaything of calls for change, but rather that it itself shapes its own response to the new historical challenges. In the following, we argue that a renewed understanding of critique should be the starting point for such an endeavor.1 We will illustrate what a renewed understanding of critique might look like by posing nine theses.2 We see these theses as a contribution to the ongoing discourse on sustainability science or research for sustainable development.
This assessment concept paper provides a methodological approach for the formative assessment and summative assessment of GIZ’s International Water Stewardship Programme (IWaSP) and its component partnerships. IWaSP promotes partnerships between the private sector (corporations and SMEs), the public sector and the society to tackle shared water risks and to manage water equitably to meet competing demands. This evaluative assessment concept describes the generic approach of the assessment, the cycle for the assessment of partnerships, the country coordination and the programme.
The overall goal of the assessment is to provide evidence for taxpayers in the donor countries and for citizens in the partnership countries. It also aims to examine the relevance of the programme’s approach, its underlying assumptions, and the heterogeneity of stakeholders and their specific interests. Since the assessment is also formative feedback to GIZ and IWaSP stakeholders, it aims to guide the future implementation of the partnerships and the programme.
The assessment is guided by several generic principles: assessing for learning (formative assessment); assessment of learning (summative assessment); iteration; structuring complex problems; unblocking results; and conformity with other assessment criteria set out by the OECD the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) and GIZ’s Capacity Works success factors (GTZ 2010).
These generic criteria are adapted to the three levels of the IWaSP structure. First, the assessment cycle for partnerships includes the validation of stakeholders (mapping), the analysis of secondary literature, face-to-face interviews and a process for feeding back the findings. Generic tools are provided to guide the assessment, such as a list of key documents and an interview guide. Partnerships will undergo a baseline, interim assessment and final assessment. As progress varies across individual IWaSP partnerships, the steps taken by each partnership to assess shared water risks, prioritise and agree interventions, are expected to differ slightly. In response to these differences the sequencing and content of the assessment may need to be adapted for the different partnerships.
Second, the country-level assessment considers issues such as the coordination of partnerships within a country, scoping strategies, and interaction between partnership and the programme. Information gathered during the partnership assessment feeds into the country-level assessment.
Third, the assessment cycle for the programme involves a document and monitoring plan analysis, reflection on the different perspectives of the programme staff, country staff and external stakeholders.
The final section is concerned with reporting. Several annexes are provided relating to the organisation and preparation of the assessment, including question guidelines and analysis procedures.