IPCC Report.pdf - Adam Curry

Chapter 6National Systems for Managing the Risks from Climate Extremes and DisastersExecutive SummaryThis chapter assesses how countries are managing current and projected disaster risks, given knowledge of how risksare changing with observations and projections of weather and climate extremes [Table 3-2, 3.3], vulnerability andexposure [4.3], and impacts [4.4]. It focuses on the design of national systems for managing such risks, the rolesplayed by actors involved in the system, and the functions they perform, acknowledging that complementary actionsto manage risks are also taken at local and international level as described in Chapters 5 and 7.National systems are at the core of countries’ capacity to meet the challenges of observed and projectedtrends in exposure, vulnerability, and weather and climate extremes (high agreement, robust evidence).Effective national systems comprise multiple actors from national and sub-national governments, private sector,research bodies, and civil society, including community-based organizations, playing differential but complementaryroles to manage risk according to their accepted functions and capacities. These actors work in partnership acrosstemporal, spatial, administrative, and social scales, supported by relevant scientific and traditional knowledge. Specificcharacteristics of national systems vary between countries and across scales depending on their socio-cultural, political,and administrative environments and development status. [6.2]The national level plays a key role in governing and managing disaster risks because national governmentis central to providing risk management-related public goods as it commonly maintains financial andorganizational authority in planning and implementing these goods (high agreement, robust evidence).National governments are charged with the provision of public goods such as ensuring the economic and social wellbeing,safety, and security of their citizens from disasters, including the protection of the poorest and most vulnerablecitizens. They also control budgetary allocations as well as creating legislative frameworks to guide actions by otheractors. Often, national governments are considered to be the ‘insurer of last resort’. In line with the delivery of publicgoods, national governments and public authorities ‘own’ a large part of current and future disaster risks (publicinfrastructure, public assets, and relief spending). In terms of managing risk, national governments act as riskaggregators and by pooling risk, hold a large portfolio of public liabilities. This provides governments responsibility toaccurately quantify and manage risks associated with this portfolio – functions that are expected to become moreimportant given projected impacts of climate change and trends in vulnerability and exposure. [6.2.1]In providing such public goods, governments choose to manage disaster risk by enabling national systemsto guide and support stakeholders to reduce risk where possible, transfer risk where feasible, and manageresidual risk, recognizing that risks can never be totally eliminated (high agreement, robust evidence). Thebalance between reducing risk and other disaster risk management strategies is influenced by a range of factors,including financial and technical capacity of stakeholders, robustness of risk assessment information, and culturalelements involving risk tolerance. [6.2.1, 6.2-6.5]The ability of governments to implement disaster risk management responsibilities differs significantlyacross countries, depending on their capacity and resource constraints (high agreement, robust evidence).Smaller or economically less-diversified countries face particular challenges in providing the public goods associatedwith disaster risk management, in absorbing the losses caused by climate extremes and disasters, and in providingrelief and reconstruction assistance. [6.4.3] However, there is limited evidence to suggest any correlation between thetype of governance system in a country (e.g., centralized or decentralized; unitary or federal) and the effectiveness ofdisaster risk management efforts. There is robust evidence and high agreement to suggest that actions generatedwithin and managed by communities with supporting government policies are generally most effective since they arespecific and tailored to local environments. [6.4.2]In the majority of countries, national systems have been strengthened by applying the principles of theHyogo Framework for Action to mainstream risk considerations across society and sectors, althoughgreater efforts are required to address the underlying drivers of risk and generate the political will toinvest in disaster risk reduction (high agreement, robust evidence). The Hyogo Framework for Action has341