Harmonising Climate Risk Management - International Institute for ...

ENV/WKP(2011)6strategies that address current vulnerabilities and development priorities while also trying to ensure theirlong-term sustainability through a basic understanding of future projections. In addition to different climatetimescales, however, this hybrid approach should also build on a solid understanding of vulnerability, byidentifying what makes societies more exposed, sensitive and unable to cope with climate hazards.However, there is only limited consistency across the nine tools analysed for this paper regarding anoperational approach to this hybrid approach of climate risk management. To some extent this reflectsdifferent user needs and contexts. The NGO tools generally incorporate more bottom-up perspectives,echoing the more field-based nature of much of their work. They are also more focused on existing climatevariability, impacts, and vulnerabilities than on future projections, but at the same time combine scientificinformation with local experiences and evidence. Donor programmes are often at a much greater scale or indifferent sectors – ADB, for example, is more focused on large scale infrastructure investments than onother donors.The conceptual starting point for all of the (pre-) screening tools/steps (ADB, USAID, GTZ) and theDANIDA assessment process is climate change impacts; that is understanding how climate parametersmay change in a given area and its potential impacts. Among these, only the USAID Guidance Manualexplicitly prompts users to consider historical and current climate conditions in the screening step byestablishing a ‘rule of thumb’ that if a project is already sensitive to climate variability, it will likely remainso with climate change. The GTZ approach emphasises the need to improve understanding of climateinformation and its use, and provides parallel guidance on climate information (GTZ, 2010). However,among donor screening tools, there is no similar guidance on access and use of vulnerability informationabout exposure and sensitivity to climate shocks and stresses.Analytical steps: Consistency for screening, significant variation for assessmentEach of the nine tools was broken down into its specific analytical steps to reveal similarities anddifferences in approaches and intended outputs. This was useful for understanding the desired knowledge,resources, and procedural relevance of each of the tools. Overall, the analytical steps are largely consistentfor screening, but exhibit a range of approaches in assessment. The (pre-) screening process typicallyconsists of users identifying:• The geographic location and/or sector of a given development strategy;• The different climate-related hazards (events and trends) that do or will affect this area;• The (direct and indirect) impacts of these climate-related events and trends on the area and/orsector in question.This is usually the extent of the (pre-) screening analysis, since the aim is primarily to establishrelevance. In other words, reviewing the information above should help users answer the question ‘do Ineed to worry about climate change?’ Because it is a relatively rapid analysis, all of the screening tools(steps) use quick processes such as checklists (GTZ), scoring exercises (ADB), or ‘simple rules’ (USAID).Technically, USAID’s ‘screening’ step is a two-part analysis, where users are first asked to answer thisquestion regarding relevance using two ‘simple rules’ 1 and then are prompted to describe the impacts ofclimate change on a given development sector or activity, identifying both maladaptations and current orproposed adaptations in development activities. Thus, USAID’s self-labelled ‘screening’ approach goes1 USAID’s Guidance Manual provides ‘two rules of thumb’ when determining how climate variability or changecould compromise the integrity, effectiveness, or longevity of a project, and therefore if risk management /adaptation measure are required: 1) If a project is sensitive to climate variability, it is likely to be sensitive toclimate change, and 2) Long-term climate changes can introduce other risks to projects.28