IPCC Report.pdf - Adam Curry

Chapter 6National Systems for Managing the Risks from Climate Extremes and Disastersinto the future, some studies recommend the use of pro-adaptation androbust options to deal with climate change uncertainties (Auld, 2008b;Hallegatte, 2009; Wilby and Dessai, 2010). These robust options includeactions that are reversible, flexible, less sensitive to future climateconditions (i.e., no and low regret), and can incorporate safety margins(e.g., infrastructure investments), employ ‘soft’ solutions (e.g., ecosystemservices), and are mindful of actions being taken by others to eitherreduce greenhouse gases (GHGs) or adapt to climate change in othersectors (Hallegatte, 2009; Wilby and Dessai, 2010). Flexible options arethose that provide benefits under a variety of climate conditions orreduce stress on affected systems to increase their flexibility (e.g.,reducing pollution or demand on resources) (Auld, 2008b; Hallegatte,2009; Wilby and Dessai, 2010).Options that allow for incremental changes in, for example, infrastructureover time, or allow incorporation of future change, for example, supportmore flexible systems (Auld, 2008b; Hallegatte, 2009; OECD, 2009).Uncertainties over future risks can also be accounted for through ‘safetymargin’ or over-design strategies to reduce vulnerability and increaseresiliency at low and sometimes null costs (Auld, 2008b; Hallegatte, 2009).These safety margin strategies have been used to manage future risks forsea level rise and coastal defenses, for water drainage management,and for investments in other infrastructure (Hallegatte, 2009). Givenuncertainties, national policies may need to become more adaptableand flexible, particularly where national plans and policies currentlyoperate within a limited range of conditions and are based on certainty(McGray et al., 2007; Wilby and Dessai, 2010). Without flexibility, rigidnational policies may become disconnected from evolving climate risks andbring unintended consequences or maladaptation (Sperling and Szekely,2005; Hallegatte, 2009). Rigid plans and policies that are irreversibleand based on a specific climate scenario that does not materialize canresult in future maladaptation and imply wasted investments or harm topeople and ecosystems that can prove unnecessary.Several studies indicate that national plans and policies for adaptationto climate change and disaster risk management tend to favor optionsthat deal with the current or near-term climate risks and ‘win-win’options that satisfy multiple synergies for GHG reduction, disaster riskmanagement, climate change adaptation, and development issues(World Bank, 2008; Heltberg et al., 2009; Ribeiro et al., 2009;Fankhauser, 2010; Mitchell and Maxwell, 2010). Many of these ‘winwin’options include ecosystem-based adaptation actions, sustainableland and water use planning, carbon sequestration, energy efficiency,and energy and food self-sufficiency. For example, the ecosystemmanagement practices of afforestation, reforestation, and conservation offorests offer co-benefits for disaster risk reduction from floods, landslides,avalanches, coastal storms, and drought while contributing to adaptationto future climates, economic opportunities, increased biomass andcarbon sequestration, energy efficiency, energy savings, as well as energyand food self sufficiency (Thompson et al., 2009).Disaster risk transfer options offer a viable adaptation response to currentand future climate risks and include instruments such as insurance,micro-insurance, and micro-financing; government disaster reservefunds; government-private partnerships involving risk sharing; and new,innovative insurance mechanisms (Linnerooth-Bayer and Mechler, 2006;EC, 2009; World Bank, 2010). Risk transfer options can provide muchneeded, immediate liquidity after a disaster, allow for more effectivegovernment response, provide some relief from the fiscal burden placedon governments due to disaster impacts, and constitute critical steps inpromoting more proactive risk management strategies and responses(Arnold, 2008). Case Study 9.2.13 and Section 6.5.3 provide more detailon risk transfer options.Even with risk transfer instruments and adaptation to climate changeoptions in place, residual losses can be realized when extreme events –well beyond those typically expected – result in high impacts. In spite ofthe evidence, decisions to ignore increasing future risks and evencurrent risks remain common, particularly when uncertainties over thedirections of future climate change impacts are high, when capacity isinitially very limited, adaptation options are not available, or when therisks of future impacts are considered to be very low (Linnerooth-Bayerand Mechler, 2006; Heltberg et al., 2009; World Bank, 2010).The lossesfrom deferring adaptation and disaster risk reduction actions are borneby all actors.Table 6-1 outlines some of the adaptation to climate change and disasterrisk management policy and planning options available nationally forselected sectors and described in the literature. Many of these optionsare incremental actions that complement and reinforce each other. Theactions are organized using the gradations of planning and policyoptions described in this section.6.3.2. Mainstreaming Disaster Risk Managementand Climate Change Adaptation intoSectors and OrganizationsNational adaptation to climate change will involve stand-alone adaptationpolicies and plans as well as the integration or mainstreaming ofadaptation measures into existing activities (OECD, 2009). Mainstreamingof adaptation and disaster risk management actions implies that national,sub-national, and local authorities adopt, expand, and enhance measuresthat factor disaster and climate risks into their normal plans, policies,strategies, programs, sectors, and organizations (Few et al., 2006; UNISDR,2008a; OECD, 2009; Biesbroek et al., 2010; CACCA, 2010).In reality, it can be challenging to provide clear pictures of whatmainstreaming is, let alone how it can be made operational, supported,and strengthened at the various national and sub-national levels (Olhoffand Schaer, 2010). Some studies indicate that the real challenge tomainstreaming adaptation is not planning but implementation(Biesbroek et al., 2010; Krysanova et al., 2010; Tompkins et al., 2010).Some of the barriers to implementation include lack of funding, limitedbudget flexibility, lack of relevant information or expertise, lack ofpolitical will or support, and institutional silos (Krysanova et al., 2010;355