IPCC_Managing Risks of Extreme Events.pdf - Climate Access

Chapter 6National Systems for Managing the Risks from Climate Extremes and DisastersBox 6-5 | Some Examples of EcosystemBased Adaptation Strategies andDisaster Risk ManagementInterventions Taking into Accountthe Role of Ecosystem Services• Vietnam has applied strategic environmental assessments toland use-planning projects and hydropower development forthe Vu Gia-Thu Bon River basin, including climatic disasterrisks (OECD, 2009; SCBD, 2009).• European countries affected by severe flooding, notably theUnited Kingdom, The Netherlands, and Germany, have madepolicy shifts to ‘make space for water’ by applying moreholistic river basin management plans and integratedcoastal zone management (DEFRA, 2005; Wood and VanHalsema, 2008; EC, 2009; ONERC 2009).• At the regional level, the Caribbean Development Bank hasintegrated weather and climatic disaster risks into itsenvironmental impact assessments for new developmentprojects (CDB and CARICOM, 2004; UNISDR, 2009c).• Under the Amazon Protected Areas Program, Brazil hascreated a more than 30 million hectare mosaic ofbiodiversity-rich forests reserve of state, provincial, private,and indigenous land, resulting in a potential reduction inemissions estimated at 1.8 billion tonnes of carbon throughavoided deforestation (World Bank, 2009).• Swiss Development Cooperation’s four-year project inMuminabad, Tajikistan adopted an integrated approach torisk through reforestation and integrated watershedmanagement (SDC, 2008).associated with weather and climatic extremes as an integral elementof national and sectoral development decisions (see Box 6-5).Ecosystem-based adaptation strategies, often considered as part of ‘soft’options, are a widely applicable approach to climate change adaptationbecause they can be applied at regional, national, and local levels, atboth project and programmatic levels, and benefits can be realized overshort and long time scales. They can be a more cost-effective adaptationstrategy than hard infrastructure and engineering solutions, as alsodiscussed in Section 6.5.2.1, and produce multiple benefits, and are alsoconsiderably more accessible to the rural poor than measures based onhard infrastructure and engineering solutions (Sudmeier-Rieux and Ash,2009). Communities are also able to integrate and maintain traditionaland local knowledge and cultural values in their risk reduction efforts(SCBD, 2009).In the choice of ecosystem-based adaptation options, decisionmakersmay at times require making judgements about the tradeoffs betweenparticular climatic risk reduction services and other ecosystem servicesalso valued by humans. Such decisions benefit from information resultingfrom risk assessments, scenario planning, and adaptive managementapproaches that recognize and incorporate these potential tradeoffs.This might be the case, for example when deciding to use wetlands forcoastal protection that requires emphasis on silt accumulation andstabilization possibly at the expense of wildlife values and recreation(SCBD, 2009), particularly when achieving a full complement ofbiodiversity values is highly complex and long-term in nature (UNEP,2006).However, countries would need to overcome many challenges if they areto be successful in increasing investment in ecosystem-based solutions,including for example:• Insufficient recognition of the economic and social benefits ofecosystem services under current risk situations, let alone underpotential changes in climate extremes and disaster risks (Vignolaet al., 2009).• Lack of interdisciplinary science and implementation capacity formaking informed decisions associated with complex and dynamicsystems (Leslie and McLeod, 2007; OECD, 2009).• Ability to estimate economic values of different ecosystem servicessupported by nature (TEEB, 2009).• Lack of capacity to undertake careful cost and benefit assessmentsof alternative strategies to inform choices at the local level. Suchassessments could provide the total economic value of the full rangeof disaster-related ecosystem services, compared with alternativeuses of the forested land such as for agriculture (see, e.g., Balmfordet al., 2002).• Where they exist, data on and monitoring of ecosystem status andrisk are often dispersed across agencies at various scales and arenot always accessible at the sub-national or municipal level whereland use-planning decisions are made (UNISDR, 2009a).• The mismatch in geographic scales and mandates between theadministration and responsibilities for disaster reduction, and thatof ecosystem extent and functioning, such as in water basins(Leslie and McLeod, 2007; OECD, 2009).6.5.3. Transferring and Sharing ‘Residual’ RisksNot all risk can be reduced, and a residual, often sizeable risk willremain. Mechanisms for sharing and transferring residual risks forhouseholds and businesses have been introduced in Section 5.5.2.2 inthe context of managing local-level impacts and risks. Chapter 5 alsodiscusses the incentive and disincentive aspects provided by insurancefor risk management and adaptation to climate change at the local level.This section sets out the role of national-level institutions, especiallygovernments, in enabling and regulating practices at national scales. Italso discusses the need on the part of some governments to transfertheir own risks.Markets offer risk-sharing and transfer solutions, most prominentlyproperty and asset insurance for households and businesses, and cropinsurance for farmers. Insurance markets are generally segregated and371