IPCC Report.pdf - Adam Curry

National Systems for Managing the Risks from Climate Extremes and DisastersChapter 6Primary Actors“BOTTOM-UP” Functions“TOP-DOWN” FunctionsINTERNATIONAL• Bilateral and multilateralpartners• Intergovernmental organizationsGLOBALGoalINTERNATIONALPrinciplesAgreementsCommitmentFinancial resourcesGlobal ClimateProjectionsNATIONAL / SUB-NATIONAL• National government andstatutory agencies• Civil society organizations• Private sector• Research and communicationbodies• Local government agenciesNATIONALVisionDevelopment goalSectoral objectivesNATIONALPoliciesStrategiesLegislation & other instrumentsFinancial resourcesRegional / NationalClimate ProjectionsScientific and LocalExperientialKnowledgeLOCAL• Individuals, households, andcommunities• Private sector• Community-based organizations• Faith-based organizationsLOCALNeedsAspirationCultureLOCALActivitiesProjectsVulnerability,Risk, and AdaptationAssessmentsFigure 6-1 | National system of actors and functions for managing disaster risk and adapting to climate change.actions across the country, supported by scientific information andtraditional knowledge.6.2.1. National and Sub-National GovernmentsThe national level plays a key role in governing and managing disasterrisks because national governments are central to providing riskmanagement-related public goods as they maintain organizational andfinancial authority in planning and providing such goods. Nationalgovernments have the moral and legal responsibility to ensureeconomic and social well-being, including safety and security of theircitizens from disasters (UNISDR, 2004). It is also argued that it isgovernment’s responsibility to protect the poorest and most vulnerablecitizens from disasters, and to implement disaster risk management thatreaches all (McBean, 2008; O’Brien et al., 2008; CCCD, 2009). In termsof risk ownership, government and public disaster authorities ‘own’ alarge part of current and future extreme event risks and are expected togovern and regulate risks borne by other parts of society (Mechler,2004). Various normative literature sources support this. As oneexample, literature on economic welfare theory suggests that nationalgovernments are exposed to natural disaster risk and potential lossesdue to their three main functions: provision of public goods and services(e.g., education, clean environment, and security); the redistribution ofincome; and stabilizing the economy (Musgrave, 1959; Twigg, 2004;White et al., 2004; McBean, 2008; Shaw et al., 2009). The risks faced bygovernments include losing public infrastructure, assets, and nationalreserves. National-level governments also redistribute income acrossmembers of society and thus are called upon when those are in need(Linnerooth-Bayer and Amendola, 2000), or when members of societyare in danger of becoming poor, and in need of relief payments tosustain a basic standard of living, especially in countries with low percapita income and/or that have large proportions of the population inpoverty (Cummins and Mahul, 2009). Finally, it can be argued thatgovernments are expected to stabilize the economy, for example, bysupply-side interventions when the economy is in disequilibrium.National-level governments are often called ‘insurers of last resort’ asthe governments are often the final entity that private households andfirms turn to in case of need, although the degree of compliance andability to honor those responsibilities by governments differs significantlyacross countries. Nonetheless, in the context of a changing climate, it isargued that governments have a particularly critical role to play in relationto not only addressing the current gaps in disaster risk management butalso in response to uncertainties and changing needs due to increasesin the frequency, magnitude, and duration of some climate extremes(Katz and Brown, 1992; Meehl et al., 2000; Christensen et al., 2007; alsorefer to Chapter 3).346