IPCC Report.pdf - Adam Curry

National Systems for Managing the Risks from Climate Extremes and DisastersChapter 6heartland of China and home to many multinational companies producinga large share of consumer goods globally – is highly exposed to typhoonrisk and will increasingly depend on well-implemented disaster riskreduction mechanisms (Roeth, 2009).6.2.3. Civil Society and Community-Based OrganizationsAt the national level, civil society organizations (CSOs) and communitybasedorganizations (CBOs) play a significant role in developing initiativesto respond to disasters, reduce the risk of disasters, and, recently, adaptto climate-related hazards (see Section 5.1 for a discussion of ‘local’ and‘community’ and Section 5.4.1 for the role of CBOs at the local level).CSOs and CBOs are referred to here as the wide range of associationsaround which society voluntarily organizes itself, with CBO referring tothose associations primarily concerned with local interests and ties. CSOand CBO initiatives in the field of disaster risk management, which mayusually begin as a humanitarian concern, often evolve to also embracethe broader challenge of disaster risk reduction following communityfocusedrisk assessment, including specific activities targeting educationand advocacy; environmental management; sustainable agriculture;infrastructure construction; and increased livelihood diversification(McGray et al., 2007; CARE International, 2008; Oxfam America, 2008;Practical Action Bangladesh, 2008; SEEDS India, 2008; Tearfund, 2008;World Vision, 2008).Recently in some high-risk regions there has been rapid development ofnational platforms of CSOs and CBOs that have been working togetherin order to push for the transformation of policies and practices relatedto disaster risk reduction. This is true in the case of Central America,where at least four platforms are functioning in the same number ofcountries, involving more than 120 CSOs and CBOs (CRGR, 2007a). Theefforts of these platforms have been aimed at advocacy, training,research, and capacity building in disaster risk reduction. In CentralAmerica, the experience is that advocacy on climate policy constructionhas become a new feature of such platforms since 2007 (CRGR, 2009).While beyond the scope of this chapter, on balance the majority of CSOsand CBOs focus efforts at the local level, trying to link disaster riskmanagement with local development goals associated with water,sanitation, education, and health, for example (GNDR 2009; Lavell,2009). Faith-based organizations are also influential in assisting localcommunities in disaster risk management, not only providing pastoralcare in times of disasters but also playing an important role in raisingawareness and training, with many international development partnersoften working with local church groups to build community resilience(see, for example, ADPC 2007; Gero et al., 2011; Tearfund, 2011).In several countries in Latin America, CSOs and CBOs are considered, bylaw, as part of national systems for civil protection (Lavell and Franco,1996; CRGR, 2007b) though participation, with the exception of NationalRed Cross/Red Crescent Societies, remains patchy (UNISDR, 2008c). Insome countries where governments are not able or willing to fulfillcertain disaster risk management functions, such as training, supportingfood security, providing adequate housing, and preparedness, CSOs andCBOs have stepped in (Benson et al., 2001). While CSOs often facechallenges in securing resources for replicating successful initiatives andscaling out geographically (CARE International, 2008; Oxfam America,2008; Practical Action Bangladesh, 2008; SEEDS India, 2008; Tearfund,2008; World Vision, 2008); sustaining commitment to work with localgovernments and stakeholders over the long term and maintainingpartnerships with local authorities (Oxfam America, 2008); andcoordinating and linking local-level efforts with sub-national governmentinitiatives and national plans during the specific project implementation(SEEDS India, 2008), they are particularly well positioned to draw linksbetween disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation giventhat such organizations are currently among the few to combine suchexpertise (Mitchell et al., 2010b).6.2.4. Bilateral and Multilateral AgenciesIn developing countries, particularly where the government is weak andhas limited resources, bilateral and multilateral agencies play asignificant role in supplying financial, technical, and in some casesstrategic support to government and nongovernment agencies totackle the multifaceted challenges of disaster risk management andclimate change adaptation in the context of national developmentgoals (e.g., AusAid, 2009; DFID, 2011). Multilateral agencies are referredto here as international institutions with governmental membershipthat have a significant focus on development and aid recipient countries.Such agencies can include United Nations agencies, regional groupings(e.g., some European Union agencies), and multilateral developmentbanks (e.g., World Bank, Asian Development Bank). Bilateral agencies(e.g., United Kingdom Department for International Development) aretaken here as national institutions that focus on the relationshipbetween one government and another. In the development sphere,this is often in the context of a richer government providing supportto a poorer government. The role of international institutions,including bilateral and multilateral agencies, is discussed extensively inSection 7.3.Bilateral and multilateral agencies have been key actors in advancingmainstreaming of disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptationinto development planning (Eriksen and Næss, 2003; Klein et al., 2007;see Section 6.3). This has primarily been driven by a concern thatdevelopment investments are increasingly exposed to climate- anddisaster-related risks and that climate change poses security concerns(Harris, 2009; Persson and Klein, 2009). As a result, such agencies areinfluencing development policy and implementation at a national levelas they require disaster and climate risk assessments and environmentalscreening to be conducted at different points in the project approvalprocess and in some cases retrospectively when projects are alreadyunderway (Klein et al., 2007; OECD, 2009; Hammill and Tanner, 2010). Arange of tools and methods have been developed, primarily by bilateraland multilateral agencies, to support such processes (Klein et al., 2007;Hammill and Tanner, 2010).348