IPCC_Managing Risks of Extreme Events.pdf - Climate Access

Chapter 7Managing the Risks: International Level and Integration across Scalesof these relatively new facilities such as PreventionWeb will, amongother things, depend on accessibility and assimilation of ICT in thedaily operations of institutions across the globe. Evidence shows thatinformation alone is not adequate to address disaster risk reduction; rather,other factors such as availability of resources, effective managementstructures, and social networks are critical (Glik, 2007; Lemos et al.,2007; Maibach et al., 2008; Chagutah, 2009).A major constraint in climate change risk management results from thefact that communities working in disaster management, climate change,and development operate separately and this increases vulnerability toclimate extremes leading to disasters (Schipper and Pelling, 2006;Lemos et al., 2007). For example, emphasis on humanitarian assistancehas been attributed to development agendas that do not adequatelyintegrate risk reduction leading to increased vulnerability (Benson andTwigg, 2007), while development community members are, for example,better equipped with the use of insurance but fail to link this to climaterisk reduction thus exposing communities to vulnerability to climateextremes. Similar observations have been made about cities whereurban developers have no link with the climate risk managementcommunity (Wamsler, 2006). But in fact both the development and climateadaptation communities are concerned with vulnerability to disasters.This could be a common point of focus facilitating collaboration inresearch, information sharing, and practice as part of global security(Schipper and Pelling, 2006; Lemos et al., 2007).Communication gaps between professional groups often result fromdifferent language styles and jargons. Heltberg et al. (2008) havesuggested a need for establishing universally shared basic operationaldefinitions of key terms such as risk, vulnerability, and adaptationacross the different actors as a basis for dissemination of knowledge.This has also been noted by others, for example, for better coordinationamong numerous humanitarian organizations (Saab et al., 2008) and inthe FAO guide for disaster risk management (Baas et al., 2008; also seeChapter 1). The move toward establishment of national disaster riskreduction institutions that link to similar regional and internationalstructures by, for example, UNISDR, provides a framework for bringingdifferent stakeholders together including the climate change anddevelopment communities at the national level, culminating in greaterintegration of risk management at the international level. Other effortsinclude international initiatives to integrate, at the national level, disasterrisk reduction with poverty reduction frameworks (Schipper and Pelling,2006).In conclusion, there is high agreement in the literature indicating thatefforts are being made internationally to build information and knowledgebases that support the shift in emphasis by the HFA from reactiveemergency relief to proactive DRR (high confidence). Conventional mediaand ICT are major factors in facilitating the required internationalexchange and dissemination of information on disaster response, CCA,and DRR (high confidence). This in turn stimulates generation of newknowledge and will over time lead to greater integration of DRR and CCA,which at the present moment is still limited (medium confidence). Thelimitation of relying heavily on ICT is that there is still a large part of theworld where the ICT infrastructure is not adequately developed. There isalso high agreement in the literature that an increase in the exchangeof data and information at the international level on its own is not acomplete solution to risk reduction. Resources to generate and supplyinformation and experience in a usable form for each unique case so asto translate this to knowledge and action are a critical dimension in riskreduction (high confidence). Further, more attention is required for theinternational community to identify what information is essential fordifferent stages of climate change risk management, and how it shouldbe captured and used by different actors under different risk reductionscenarios. Data gathering, information, and knowledge acquisition andmanagement for disaster relief has a longer history. The process ofbuilding integrated information resource tools that brings togetherexperiences from CCA, DRR, and the development community is stillweak, yet these tools hold the promise for reducing vulnerability todisasters in the future (high confidence).7.5. Considerations forFuture Policy and ResearchHow best can experience with disaster risk reduction at the internationallevel be used to help or strengthen climate change adaptation? Thecharacteristics of the DRR regime (as exemplified chiefly by the UNISDRand the Hyogo Framework for Action) and the CCA regime (chiefly theUNFCCC and the IPCC) have been described in detail and assessed tothe extent that the literature allows. One frequently made assumptionis that the DRR world has much to learn from CCA and vice versa (IPCC,2009). It is widely proposed in the literature that disaster risk reductionand climate change adaptation should be ‘integrated’ (Birkmann and vonTeichman, 2010).The call for integration of disaster risk reduction with climate changeadaptation goes much further, however (UNISDR, 2009a). It is arguedthat both disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation remainoutside the mainstream of development activities (UNISDR, 2009a). TheUnited Nations Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reductioncalls for “an urgent paradigm shift” in disaster risk reduction to addressthe underlying risk drivers such as vulnerable rural livelihoods, poorurban governance, and declining ecosystems (UNISDR, 2009a). Thereport also calls for the harmonization of existing institutional andgovernance arrangements for disaster risk reduction and climatechange adaptation (p. 181), and presents a 20-point plan to reduce risk(pp. 176-177).These conclusions come from an official UN report (UNISDR, 2009a),and they are widely supported in the scientific literature (O’Brien et al.,2006; Schipper, 2009) as well as in other government reports (DFID,2005; Birkmann et al., 2009; CCD, 2009) and in the advocacy literature(Venton and La Trobe, 2008). More recently, the widely reviewed ICSU(2010) report (called the Belmont Challenge) on Regional EnvironmentalChange: Human Action and Adaptation, which was commissioned by425