Catalyzing Climate and Disaster Resilience: Processes for Identifying

6
Catalyzing Climate and Disaster Resilience: Processes for
Identifying Tangible and Economically Robust Strategies
analyses, the data required to conduct an accurate evaluation are not available or
are difficult to generate. As a result, such analyses depend very heavily on the
assumptions and estimates of project staff and other experts. Because these
assumptions often are hidden deeply in models and technical discussions they are
unlikely to be evident to any but the most engaged of users.
6. Given the high levels of data required along with the uncertainties inherent in relation
to climate change, in most contexts limited financial and project analyses are likely to
be more useful than attempts to conduct full cost-benefit analyses. Simplified
methodologies that enable analysts to identify key cost and benefit areas along with
their general magnitudes, coupled with methods for comparing the cost effectiveness
of different strategies for reaching similar risk reduction outcomes are essential
complements to less frequently applicable full cost-benefit methodologies. In many
cases, the costs of a full cost-benefit analysis will exceed the benefits.
Overall, the case studies in this volume demonstrate both the high economic returns
that can be achieved by investing in risk reduction and the importance of methodologies
for analyzing the viability of different approaches under often highly uncertain future
conditions. Cost-benefit analysis is one such methodology. In many cases, however,
more simplified approaches that identify, but do not fully quantify, major costs and
benefits and also highlight key externalities, uncertainties and assumptions may generate
as much information as a full cost-benefit analysis.
In addition to the role of cost-benefit analysis in evaluating the economic returns from
investments in risk management, the cases in this volume also demonstrate the importance
of process. The process of conducting a cost-benefit analysis encourages individuals and
organizations to move beyond rhetoric and identify very tangible sets of interventions. It
also helps them to evaluate the relationship between perceived risks, vulnerable groups
and proposed responses in ways that can highlight underlying assumptions and hidden
social or other consequences. Where climate change is concerned, conducting a costbenefit
analysis of risk management measures also forces organizations to translate, as
far as possible, global scientific information into local contexts. Finally, when conducted
in an open, transparent and participatory manner, the process can serve as a major tool
for bringing diverse groups of stakeholders and perspectives together, thus generating
broad-based ownership and understanding of proposed strategies.
The processes outlined in this volume proceed from qualitative engagement and analysis
through quantitative analysis and then back to qualitative. Risks are first identified
through qualitative shared learning processes. These are then quantified and evaluated
where possible in economic terms. The results of this evaluation are, however, recognized
as inherently partial; they reflect the factors that can be quantified and not the numerous
social or other considerations that cannot. As a result, the final step in the process, a
return to qualitative evaluation, is central to its accuracy. This qualitative-quantitativequalitative
sequence enables stakeholders to understand not just the overall economic
returns from a risk management intervention but also its distributional and other
potential consequences. This, we believe, is central to understanding who bears the
costs and who benefits from interventions to manage disaster and other risks. As a result,
the process is of far more utility for both the identification of effective strategies for risk
management and the targeting of such strategies in ways that address the needs of poor
or particularly vulnerable communities than the formal results of the economic evaluation.