IPCC_Managing Risks of Extreme Events.pdf - Climate Access

More documents

Recommendations

Info

National Systems for Managing the Risks from Climate Extremes and DisastersChapter 6Preston et al., 2011). Studies indicate that effective plans, policies, andprograms for adaptation to climate change and disaster risk managementneed to go beyond identifying potential options to include betterinventories of existing assets and liabilities for managing risk andspecific actions for overcoming adaptation barriers (Haasnoot et al.,2009; Preston et al., 2011).Recent studies investigating the success of existing adaptation plansand policies for Australia, the United States, countries in Europe, andmajor river basins in Africa and Asia, for example, indicate that there isa need for mainstreaming of adaptation into existing national policiesand plans and a priority for capitalizing on ‘win-win’ or options thattake advantage of synergies with other national objectives (Biesbroek etal., 2010; Tompkins et al., 2010; Preston et al., 2011). The studies foundthat many strategies and institutions were focused to a greater extenton lower-risk actions dealing with science and outreach (knowledgeacquisition) and capacity building rather than moving forward onspecific, more costly and difficult to implement adaptation and disasterrisk management actions and managing at-risk public goods (Tompkinset al., 2010; Preston et al., 2011).Preston et al. (2011) found in their studies from Australia, the UnitedStates, and the United Kingdom that most national adaptation strategieswere based on vulnerability assessments informed by broad internationaland national climate change guidance, rather than any consistent orsystematic use of scenarios, and favored bottom-up approaches forcoordination across sectors and multiple government scales. Biesbroeket al. (2010) noted similar results for nine countries in Europe. Tompkinset al. (2010) and Krysanova et al. (2010) found that the sectors with thehighest levels of adaptation implementation in the United Kingdom werethose that tended to be most affected by current weather variability andextremes and that specific government initiatives had been successfulin stimulating adaptation and disaster risk reduction (e.g., mandatoryplanning for flood-prone areas, ISO 14001). Tompkins et al. (2010) alsofound that successful implementation frequently resulted from multipletriggers, that few of these adaptation actions were solely initiated inresponse to climate change, and that the relative impact of weather oncore business and organizational culture encouraged an ability andwillingness to proactively act on climate change information.Adaptation to climate change and disaster risk management needs totypically identify more adaptation options than most countries canreasonably implement in the short term due to resource constraints,requiring that actions be prioritized (OECD, 2009; Krysanova et al., 2010).Initially, actions that remove the existing barriers to managing disasterrisks from today’s climate variability can help to reduce the even greaterbarriers to managing future climate risks (UNDP, 2002, 2004a; CCCD,2009; Prabhakar et al., 2009; Tompkins et al., 2010). As a result, a keychallenge, and an opportunity for mainstreaming adaptation and disasterrisk management, lies in building bridges between current disaster riskmanagement actions for existing climate vulnerabilities and the additionalrevised efforts needed for future vulnerabilities (Few et al., 2006; Krysanovaet al., 2010; Olhoff and Schaer, 2010; Wilby and Dessai, 2010).An important prerequisite for informed decisions on adaptation toclimate change and disaster risk management is that they should bebased upon the best available information (OECD, 2009; Biesbroek et al.,2010; Lu, 2011). Preston et al. (2011) noted that many of the specificadaptation plans from Australia, the United States, and the UnitedKingdom indicated a need for improved gathering and sharing of climateand climate change science information prior to or in conjunction withthe delivery of adaptation actions, perhaps reflecting a preference fordelaying adaptation actions until greater certainty or better informationon different adaptation actions was known. As noted in Chapter 3(Section 3.2.3 and Box 3-2), many extreme events occur at smalltemporal and spatial scales, where climate change models, even whendownscaled, cannot provide simulations at such spatial and temporalresolutions. A number of studies also contend that increased and betterinformation on climate change scenarios and projections and potentialimpacts will accomplish little on their own to mainstream and alteron-the-ground decisions, policies, and plans unless the informationprovided can directly meet decisionmakers’ needs (Stainforth et al.,2007; Auld, 2008b; Haasnoot et al., 2009; Krysanova et al., 2010;Mastrandrea et al., 2010; Wilby and Dessai, 2010). Users requirerelevant climate risk information that is accessible, can be explained inunderstandable language, provides straightforward estimates ofuncertainties, and is relevant or tailored to their managementfunctions (Stainforth et al., 2007; Mastrandrea et al., 2010; Lu, 2011).Increasingly, studies are showing that this is best accomplishedthrough sustained interactions between scientists and stakeholders andpolicymakers, usually maintained through years of relationship- andtrust-building (Mastrandrea et al., 2010; Wilby and Dessai, 2010; Lu,2011).Studies generally indicate that the most essential means for effectivelymainstreaming both adaptation and disaster risk management nationallyinvolve ‘whole of government’ coordination across different levels andsectors of governance, including the involvement of a broad range ofstakeholders (Few et al., 2006; Thomalla et al., 2006; OECD, 2009; alsoSection 6.4.2). In spite of the strong interdependencies, governments havetended to manage these issues in their ‘silos’ with environment or energyauthorities and scientific institutions typically responsible for climatechange adaptation while disaster risk management authorities mayreside in a variety of national government departments and nationaldisaster management offices (Sperling and Szekely, 2005; Thomalla etal., 2006; Prabhakar et al., 2009). Progress in planning for adaptation anddeveloping and implementing strategies within government agenciesusually depends on political commitment, institutional capacity, and, insome cases, on enabling legislation, regulations, and financial support(Few et al., 2006; OECD, 2009; Krysanova et al., 2010; see Section 6.4).Nationally, studies indicate that it may be important to clearly identifya lead for disaster and climate risk reduction efforts where that lead hasinfluence on budgeting and planning processes (Few et al., 2006; OECD,2009). In some cases, countries and regions may be able to build onphases of raised awareness and increased attention to disaster risk inorder to develop and strengthen their responsible institutions (Few etal., 2006; Krysanova et al., 2010).356
Chapter 6National Systems for Managing the Risks from Climate Extremes and DisastersWhile developed countries may be more financially equipped to meetmany of the challenges of mainstreaming adaptation and disaster riskreduction into national plans and policies, the situation is often morechallenging in developing countries (Krysanova et al., 2010). Nonetheless,there are examples from developing countries where adaptation toclimate change and disaster risk management mainstreaming issueshave been priorities for many years and significant progress inmainstreaming has been noted (e.g., the Caribbean MainstreamingAdaptation to Climate Change project, which was implemented from 2004to 2007; Case Studies 9.2.9 and 9.2.12). In other cases, internationalfunding mechanisms such as the Least Developed Countries (LDC) Fund,the Special Climate Change Fund, the Multi-donor Trust Fund on ClimateChange, and the Pilot Programme for Climate Resilience under theClimate Investment Fund are making funding and resources available todeveloping countries to pilot and mainstream changing climate risksand resilience into core development and as an incentive for scaled-upaction and transformational change, although needs exceed availabilityof funds (O’Brien et al., 2008; Krysanova et al., 2010; see Sections7.4.3.3 and 7.4.2 for additional discussion).6.3.3. Sector-Based Risk Management and AdaptationThe challenge for countries is to manage short-term climate variabilitywhile also ensuring that different sectors and systems remain resilientand adaptable to changing extremes and risks over the long term(Füssel, 2007; Wilby and Dessai, 2010). The requirement is to balance theshort-term and the longer-term actions needed to resolve the underlyingcauses of vulnerability and to understand the nature of changing climatehazards (UNFCCC, 2008a; OECD, 2009). Achieving adaptation anddisaster risk management objectives while attaining human developmentgoals requires a number of cross-cutting, interlinked sectoral anddevelopment processes, as well as effective strategies within sectorsand coordination between sectors (Few et al., 2006; Thomalla et al.,2006; Biesbroek et al., 2010). Climate change is far too big a challengefor any single ministry of a national government to undertake (CCCD,2009; Biesbroek et al., 2010).Sector-based organizations and departments play a central role innational decisionmaking and are a logical focus for adaptation actions(McGray et al., 2007; Biesbroek et al., 2010). The impacts of changingclimate risks in one sector, such as tourism, can affect other sectors andscales significantly, especially since sectoral linkages operate bothvertically and horizontally. Sector plans, policies, and programs arelinked vertically from national to local levels within the same sector aswell as horizontally across different sectors at the same level (Urwinand Jordan, 2008; UNFCCC, 2008b; CCCD, 2009; Biesbroek et al., 2010).While the case and need for integration within sectors and levels maybe clear, the issue of how to integrate or mainstream nationally acrossmultiple sectors and multiple levels still remains challenging, requiringgovernance mechanisms and coordination that can cut acrossgovernments and sectoral organizations (UNISDR, 2005; UNFCCC,2008b; CCCD, 2009; ONERC, 2009; Biesbroek et al., 2010). Typically,multi-sector integration tends to deal with the broader national scale(e.g., entire economy or system) and aims to be as comprehensive aspossible in covering several affected sectors, regions, and issues (UNFCCC,2008b). Studies from organizations and academia indicate that effectiveadaptation and risk reduction coordination between all sectors mayonly be realized if all areas of government are coordinated from thehighest political and organizational level (Schipper and Pelling, 2006;UNFCCC, 2008b; CCCD, 2009; Prabhakar, 2009). Even when ‘politicalchampions’ at the highest levels encourage mainstreaming across sectorsand departments, competing national priorities will remain an impedimentto progress.Table 6-1 (Section 6.3.1) outlines adaptation to climate change anddisaster risk management options for several selected sectors. As thetable indicates, adaptation and disaster risk management approachesfor many development sectors benefit jointly from ecosystem-basedadaptation and integrated land, water, and coastal zone managementactions. For example, conservation and sustainable management ofecosystems, forests, land use, and biodiversity have the potential to createwin-win disaster risk protection services for agriculture, infrastructure,cities, water resource management, and food security. They can alsocreate synergies between climate change adaptation and mitigationmeasures (SCBD, 2009; CCCD, 2009), as well as produce many cobenefitsthat address other development goals, including improvementsin livelihoods and human well being, particularly for the poor andvulnerable, and biodiversity conservation, and are discussed further inSection 6.5.2.3 and in Case Studies 9.2.3, 9.2.4, 9.2.5, 9.2.7, 9.2.8, and9.2.9. Likewise, water resource, land, and coastal zone managementoptions deal with many sectors and issues and jointly provide disasterrisk management and adaptation solutions, as mentioned in Case Studies9.2.6 and 9.2.8 (WHO, 2003; Urwin and Jordan, 2008; UNFCCC, 2008b;CCCD, 2009; WWAP, 2009). Human health is a cross-cutting issueimpacted by actions taken in many sectors, as indicated in Table 6-1 anddiscussed in Case Studies 9.2.2 and 9.2.7.6.4. Strategies including Legislation,Institutions, and FinanceNational systems for managing the risks of extreme events and disastersare shaped by legislative provision, compliance mechanisms, the natureof cross-stakeholder bodies, and financial and budgetary processes thatallocate resources to actors working at different scales. These elementshelp to create the technical architecture of national systems and are oftenled by national government agencies. However non-technical dimensionsof good governance, such as the distribution and decentralization ofpower and resources, processes for decisionmaking, transparency, andaccountability are woven into the technical architecture and are significantfactors in determining the effectiveness of risk management systemsand actions (UNDP, 2004b, 2009). These technical and non-technicalaspects of risk governance vary between countries as governancecapacity varies (and, as detailed in Section 6.3, are critical in shapinginvestment in particular adaptation and disaster risk management357
Page 1:
MANAGING THE RISKS OF EXTREMEEVENTS
Page 5:
Managing the Risks of Extreme Event
Page 9 and 10:
I Foreword and Preface
Page 12 and 13:
Prefacein understanding and managin
Page 17 and 18:
Summary for PolicymakersBox SPM.1 |
Page 19 and 20:
Summary for PolicymakersB.or sub-na
Page 21 and 22:
Summary for PolicymakersIt is likel
Page 23:
Summary for Policymakersmicro-insur
Page 27 and 28:
Summary for PolicymakersIt is very
Page 29 and 30:
Summary for PolicymakersOther low-r
Page 31 and 32:
Summary for PolicymakersTable SPM.1
Page 33 and 34:
Summary for PolicymakersBox SPM.2 |
Page 35:
III Chapters 1 to 9
Page 38 and 39:
Climate Change: New Dimensions in D
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Determinants of Risk: Exposure and
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Changes in Climate Extremes and the
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
138much of the continental United S
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
Page 208 and 209:
Page 210 and 211:
Page 212 and 213:
Page 214 and 215:
Page 216 and 217:
Page 218 and 219:
Page 220 and 221:
Page 222 and 223:
Page 224 and 225:
Page 226 and 227:
Page 228 and 229:
Page 230 and 231:
Page 232 and 233:
Page 234 and 235:
Page 236 and 237:
Page 238 and 239:
Page 240 and 241:
Page 242 and 243:
Page 244 and 245:
Changes in Impacts of Climate Extre
Page 246 and 247:
Page 248 and 249:
Page 250 and 251:
Page 252 and 253:
Page 254 and 255:
Page 256 and 257:
Page 258 and 259:
Page 260 and 261:
Page 262 and 263:
Page 264 and 265:
Page 266 and 267:
Page 268 and 269:
Page 270 and 271:
Page 272 and 273:
Page 274 and 275:
Page 276 and 277:
Page 278 and 279:
Page 280 and 281:
Page 282 and 283:
Page 284 and 285:
Page 286 and 287:
Page 288 and 289:
Page 290 and 291:
Page 292 and 293:
Page 294 and 295:
Page 296 and 297:
Page 298 and 299:
Page 300 and 301:
Page 302 and 303:
Page 304 and 305:
Managing the Risks from Climate Ext
Page 306 and 307:
Page 308 and 309:
Page 310 and 311:
Page 312 and 313:
Page 314 and 315:
Page 316 and 317:
Page 318 and 319: Managing the Risks from Climate Ext
Page 352 and 353: National Systems for Managing the R
Page 406 and 407: Managing the Risks: International L
Page 418 and 419:
Managing the Risks: International L
Page 420 and 421:
Page 422 and 423:
Page 424 and 425:
Page 426 and 427:
Page 428 and 429:
Page 430 and 431:
Page 432 and 433:
Page 434 and 435:
Page 436 and 437:
Page 438 and 439:
Page 440 and 441:
Page 442 and 443:
Page 444 and 445:
Page 446 and 447:
Page 448 and 449:
Page 450 and 451:
Toward a Sustainable and Resilient
Page 452 and 453:
Page 454 and 455:
Page 456 and 457:
Page 458 and 459:
Page 460 and 461:
Page 462 and 463:
Page 464 and 465:
Page 466 and 467:
Page 468 and 469:
Page 470 and 471:
Page 472 and 473:
Page 474 and 475:
Page 476 and 477:
Page 478 and 479:
Page 480 and 481:
Page 482 and 483:
Page 484 and 485:
Page 486 and 487:
Page 488 and 489:
Page 490 and 491:
Page 492 and 493:
Page 494 and 495:
Page 496 and 497:
Page 498 and 499:
Page 500 and 501:
Case StudiesChapter 9Table of Conte
Page 502 and 503:
Case StudiesChapter 99.1. Introduct
Page 504 and 505:
Case StudiesChapter 9••••
Page 506 and 507:
Case StudiesChapter 99.2.1.2.3. Hea
Page 508 and 509:
Case StudiesChapter 9preparedness c
Page 510 and 511:
Case StudiesChapter 99.2.2.5. Outco
Page 512 and 513:
Case StudiesChapter 9practices at b
Page 514 and 515:
Case StudiesChapter 9to implement s
Page 516 and 517:
Case StudiesChapter 9lined by the w
Page 518 and 519:
Case StudiesChapter 94.5 million af
Page 520 and 521:
Case StudiesChapter 9are typically
Page 522 and 523:
Case StudiesChapter 9heightens vuln
Page 524 and 525:
Case StudiesChapter 9multi-hazard r
Page 526 and 527:
Case StudiesChapter 9Bank, 2005b).
Page 528 and 529:
Case StudiesChapter 9Some federal-l
Page 530 and 531:
Case StudiesChapter 9develop in a m
Page 532 and 533:
Case StudiesChapter 9Most states ha
Page 534 and 535:
Case StudiesChapter 9reduction legi
Page 536 and 537:
Case StudiesChapter 9countries. Thr
Page 538 and 539:
Case StudiesChapter 99.2.14. Educat
Page 540 and 541:
Case StudiesChapter 9to be removed
Page 542 and 543:
Case StudiesChapter 9can help to ad
Page 544 and 545:
Case StudiesChapter 9CRED, 2009: EM
Page 546 and 547:
Case StudiesChapter 9Hallegatte, S.
Page 548 and 549:
Case StudiesChapter 9Linnerooth-Bay
Page 550 and 551:
Case StudiesChapter 9O’Neill, M.S
Page 552 and 553:
Case StudiesChapter 9Skaff, M. and
Page 554 and 555:
Case StudiesChapter 9Visser, R. and
Page 557 and 558:
ANNEXI Authors and Expert Reviewers
Page 559 and 560:
Annex IAuthors and Expert Reviewers
Page 561 and 562:
Page 563 and 564:
Page 565 and 566:
Page 567 and 568:
ANNEXIIGlossary of TermsThis annex
Page 569 and 570:
Annex IIGlossary of Termswater vapo
Page 571 and 572:
Annex IIGlossary of Termsdrought, a
Page 573 and 574:
Annex IIGlossary of TermsImpactsEff
Page 575 and 576:
Annex IIGlossary of Termsforcing is
Page 577 and 578:
ANNEXIIIAcronyms565
Page 579 and 580:
Annex IIIAcronymsNAMNAONAPANaTechND
Page 581 and 582:
ANNEXIVList of Major IPCC Reports56
Page 583 and 584:
Annex IVList of Major IPCC ReportsC
Page 585 and 586:
Index573
Page 587 and 588:
Indexresilience building, 378touris
Page 589 and 590:
IndexEM-DAT database, 364Emissions
Page 591 and 592:
Indextransformation and, 324See als
Page 593 and 594:
IndexRisk sharing, 10-11, 397, 523i
show all

IPCC_Managing Risks of Extreme Events.pdf - Climate Access

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?