IPCC Report.pdf - Adam Curry

Chapter 5Managing the Risks from Climate Extremes at the Local Level(Waugh and Streib, 2006; Schneider, 2008). Moynihan (2009) suggests anetworked collaboration as a solution and posits that even a hierarchicaldisaster management structure such as the incident command system inthe United States operates on the network principles of negotiation, trust,and reciprocity.Although government actors play a key role, it is evident that partnershipsbetween public, civic, and private actors are crucial in addressing climatehazards-related adaptation (Agrawal, 2010). While international agencies,the private sector, and NGOs play a norm-setting agenda at provincial,state, and national levels, community-based organizations (CBOs) oftenhave greater capacity to mobilize at the local scale (Milbert, 2006). NGOand CBO networks play a critical role in capturing the realities of locallivelihoods, facilitating sharing information, and identifying the role oflocal institutions that lead to strengthened local capacity (Bull-Kamanga et al., 2003). Strong city-wide initiatives are often based onstrategic alliances, and local community organizations are essential tomaking city planning operational (Hasan, 2007). This can be seen in thecase of the New York City Panel on Climate Change that acted as ascientific advisory group to both Mayor Bloomberg’s Office of LongtermPlanning and Sustainability and the New York City Climate ChangeAdaptation Task Force, a stakeholder group of approximately 40 publicagencies and private sector organizations that manage the criticalinfrastructure of the region (Rosenzweig et al., 2011). The Panel andstakeholders separated functions between scientists (knowledgeprovision) and stakeholders (planning and action) and communicatedclimate change uncertainties with coordination by the Mayor’s office(Rosenzweig et al., 2011).Many nongovernment actors charged with managing climate risks usecommunity risk assessment tools to engage communities in risk reductionefforts and influence planning at district and sub-national levels (vanAalst, 2006; Twigg, 2007). NGO engagement in risk managementactivities ranges from demonstration projects, training and awarenessraising,legal assistance, alliance building, small-scale infrastructure,and socioeconomic projects, to mainstreaming and advocacy work (Luna,2001; Shaw, 2006). Bridging citizen-government gaps is a recognizedrole of civil society organizations and NGOs often act as social catalystsor social capital, an essential for risk management in cities (Wisner,2003). Conversely, the potential benefits of social capital are not alwaysmaximized due to mistrust, poor communications, or lack of functioningeither within municipalities or nongovernment agencies. This has majorimplications for risk reduction (Wisner, 2003) and participation of themost vulnerable in nongovernment initiatives at municipal or subnationallevel is not guaranteed (Tanner et al., 2009).This section highlighted mechanisms for building capacity for localadaptation to climate extremes ranging from empowerment fordecisionmaking to utilization of social networks. A balanced portfolio ofapproaches that capture local knowledge, proactive behaviors, andgovernmental and nongovernmental initiatives and practices will provemost successful in managing the risk of climate extremes at the locallevel.5.5. Challenges and OpportunitiesAs illustrated earlier in the chapter, disaster risk management actionsincrease the coping capacity of local places to disasters in the shortterm and benefit a community’s resilience in the long term. Differencesin coping, risk management, and adaptation along with the costs ofmanaging disaster risk at the local level present challenges andopportunities for adaptation to climate extremes. They not onlyinfluence human security, but the scale and context of the differenceshighlight opportunities for proactive actions for risk reduction andclimate change adaptation, and also identify constraints to suchactions.5.5.1. Differences in Coping and Risk ManagementThere are significant differences among localities and populationgroups in the ability to prepare for, respond to, recover from, and adaptto disasters and climate extremes. During the last century, social scienceresearchers have examined those factors that influence coping responsesby households and local entities through post-disaster field investigationsas well as pre-disaster assessments (Mileti, 1999; NRC, 2006). Amongthe most significant individual characteristics are gender, age, wealth,ethnicity, livelihoods, entitlements, health, and settlements. However, itis not only these characteristics operating individually, but also theirsynergistic effects that give rise to variability in coping and managingrisks at the local level.5.5.1.1. Gender, Age, and WealthThe literature suggests that at the local level gender makes a differencein vulnerability (Section 2.4) and in the differential mortality fromdisasters (Neumayer and Plümper, 2007). The evidence is robust withhigh agreement. In disasters, women tend to have different copingstrategies and constraints on actions than men (Fothergill, 1996;Morrow and Enarson, 1996; Peacock et al., 1997). These are due tosocialized gender factors such as social position (class), marital status,education, wealth, and caregiver roles, as well as physical differences instature and endurance. At the local level for example, women’s lack ofmobility, access to resources, lack of power and legal protection, andsocial isolation found in many places across the globe tend to augmentdisaster risk, and vulnerability (Schroeder, 1987; IFRC, 1991; Mutton andHaque, 2004; UNIFEM, 2011). Relief and recovery operations are ofteninsensitive to gender issues (Hamilton and Halvorson, 2007), and so theprovision of such supplies and services also influences the differentialcapacities to cope (Enarson, 2000; Ariyabandu, 2006; Wachtendorf etal., 2006; Fulu, 2007), especially at the local level. However, the activeparticipation of women has been shown to increase the effectivenessof prevention, disaster relief, recovery, and reconstruction, therebyimproving disaster management (Enarson and Morrow, 1997, 1998;Fothergill, 1999, 2004; Hamilton and Halvorson, 2007; Enarson, 2010;see Box 5-5).313