IPCC Report.pdf - Adam Curry

National Systems for Managing the Risks from Climate Extremes and DisastersChapter 6Preston et al., 2011). Studies indicate that effective plans, policies, andprograms for adaptation to climate change and disaster risk managementneed to go beyond identifying potential options to include betterinventories of existing assets and liabilities for managing risk andspecific actions for overcoming adaptation barriers (Haasnoot et al.,2009; Preston et al., 2011).Recent studies investigating the success of existing adaptation plansand policies for Australia, the United States, countries in Europe, andmajor river basins in Africa and Asia, for example, indicate that there isa need for mainstreaming of adaptation into existing national policiesand plans and a priority for capitalizing on ‘win-win’ or options thattake advantage of synergies with other national objectives (Biesbroek etal., 2010; Tompkins et al., 2010; Preston et al., 2011). The studies foundthat many strategies and institutions were focused to a greater extenton lower-risk actions dealing with science and outreach (knowledgeacquisition) and capacity building rather than moving forward onspecific, more costly and difficult to implement adaptation and disasterrisk management actions and managing at-risk public goods (Tompkinset al., 2010; Preston et al., 2011).Preston et al. (2011) found in their studies from Australia, the UnitedStates, and the United Kingdom that most national adaptation strategieswere based on vulnerability assessments informed by broad internationaland national climate change guidance, rather than any consistent orsystematic use of scenarios, and favored bottom-up approaches forcoordination across sectors and multiple government scales. Biesbroeket al. (2010) noted similar results for nine countries in Europe. Tompkinset al. (2010) and Krysanova et al. (2010) found that the sectors with thehighest levels of adaptation implementation in the United Kingdom werethose that tended to be most affected by current weather variability andextremes and that specific government initiatives had been successfulin stimulating adaptation and disaster risk reduction (e.g., mandatoryplanning for flood-prone areas, ISO 14001). Tompkins et al. (2010) alsofound that successful implementation frequently resulted from multipletriggers, that few of these adaptation actions were solely initiated inresponse to climate change, and that the relative impact of weather oncore business and organizational culture encouraged an ability andwillingness to proactively act on climate change information.Adaptation to climate change and disaster risk management needs totypically identify more adaptation options than most countries canreasonably implement in the short term due to resource constraints,requiring that actions be prioritized (OECD, 2009; Krysanova et al., 2010).Initially, actions that remove the existing barriers to managing disasterrisks from today’s climate variability can help to reduce the even greaterbarriers to managing future climate risks (UNDP, 2002, 2004a; CCCD,2009; Prabhakar et al., 2009; Tompkins et al., 2010). As a result, a keychallenge, and an opportunity for mainstreaming adaptation and disasterrisk management, lies in building bridges between current disaster riskmanagement actions for existing climate vulnerabilities and the additionalrevised efforts needed for future vulnerabilities (Few et al., 2006; Krysanovaet al., 2010; Olhoff and Schaer, 2010; Wilby and Dessai, 2010).An important prerequisite for informed decisions on adaptation toclimate change and disaster risk management is that they should bebased upon the best available information (OECD, 2009; Biesbroek et al.,2010; Lu, 2011). Preston et al. (2011) noted that many of the specificadaptation plans from Australia, the United States, and the UnitedKingdom indicated a need for improved gathering and sharing of climateand climate change science information prior to or in conjunction withthe delivery of adaptation actions, perhaps reflecting a preference fordelaying adaptation actions until greater certainty or better informationon different adaptation actions was known. As noted in Chapter 3(Section 3.2.3 and Box 3-2), many extreme events occur at smalltemporal and spatial scales, where climate change models, even whendownscaled, cannot provide simulations at such spatial and temporalresolutions. A number of studies also contend that increased and betterinformation on climate change scenarios and projections and potentialimpacts will accomplish little on their own to mainstream and alteron-the-ground decisions, policies, and plans unless the informationprovided can directly meet decisionmakers’ needs (Stainforth et al.,2007; Auld, 2008b; Haasnoot et al., 2009; Krysanova et al., 2010;Mastrandrea et al., 2010; Wilby and Dessai, 2010). Users requirerelevant climate risk information that is accessible, can be explained inunderstandable language, provides straightforward estimates ofuncertainties, and is relevant or tailored to their managementfunctions (Stainforth et al., 2007; Mastrandrea et al., 2010; Lu, 2011).Increasingly, studies are showing that this is best accomplishedthrough sustained interactions between scientists and stakeholders andpolicymakers, usually maintained through years of relationship- andtrust-building (Mastrandrea et al., 2010; Wilby and Dessai, 2010; Lu,2011).Studies generally indicate that the most essential means for effectivelymainstreaming both adaptation and disaster risk management nationallyinvolve ‘whole of government’ coordination across different levels andsectors of governance, including the involvement of a broad range ofstakeholders (Few et al., 2006; Thomalla et al., 2006; OECD, 2009; alsoSection 6.4.2). In spite of the strong interdependencies, governments havetended to manage these issues in their ‘silos’ with environment or energyauthorities and scientific institutions typically responsible for climatechange adaptation while disaster risk management authorities mayreside in a variety of national government departments and nationaldisaster management offices (Sperling and Szekely, 2005; Thomalla etal., 2006; Prabhakar et al., 2009). Progress in planning for adaptation anddeveloping and implementing strategies within government agenciesusually depends on political commitment, institutional capacity, and, insome cases, on enabling legislation, regulations, and financial support(Few et al., 2006; OECD, 2009; Krysanova et al., 2010; see Section 6.4).Nationally, studies indicate that it may be important to clearly identifya lead for disaster and climate risk reduction efforts where that lead hasinfluence on budgeting and planning processes (Few et al., 2006; OECD,2009). In some cases, countries and regions may be able to build onphases of raised awareness and increased attention to disaster risk inorder to develop and strengthen their responsible institutions (Few etal., 2006; Krysanova et al., 2010).356