IPCC Report.pdf - Adam Curry

Chapter 6National Systems for Managing the Risks from Climate Extremes and Disastersvulnerability; and financing for food security (Brooks et al., 2009;Ericksen et al., 2009; FAO, 2010). Other coping strategies may includeincreased non-farm incomes, migration, government and other financialassistance, microfinance, social protection, other safety nets, andvarious insurance products (Barrett et al., 2007; Heltberg et al., 2009;FAO, 2010). The Sustainable Livelihoods Approach or Framework has beenused internationally for rural and coastal development to holisticallydescribe the variables that impact livelihoods locally and to define thecapacity, assets (both natural and social), and policies required forsustainable living, poverty reduction, and recovery from disasters(Brocklesby and Fisher, 2003; Yamin et al., 2005). Sections 2.3, 2.4.3,2.6.1, 5.2.3, and 5.4, and Case Studies 19.2.1 and 19.2.2, also discusssustainable livelihood approaches that can be considered inbuilding adaptive capacity and resilience to climate hazards and climatechange.Early identification of populations at risk can enable timely andappropriate actions needed to avert widespread impacts. Reliable anddetailed information on the current and future climates and theirimpacts can play an important role in the recognition of the need toadapt and the successful evolution of effective adaptation strategies(Ikeme, 2003; Verdin et al., 2005; Heltberg et al., 2009; Wilby et al., 2009;and as discussed in Section 6.5.1). Some studies claim that one of thepotential barriers for identifying the most vulnerable regions and peoplein developing countries under future climate change is the limitedhuman resource capacity regionally to downscale global and regionalclimate projections to a scale suitable to support national-level planningand programming processes (Ikeme, 2003; Verdin et al., 2005; CCCD,2009; Wilby et al., 2009). Not all of the climate variables of importancefor development can be projected and downscaled with confidence,particularly given that many development activities are especiallysensitive to changes in climate extremes (Agrawala and van Aalst,2008). Even when downscaled results are available, their use can belimited by a lack of understanding and interpretation of how thesedownscaled projections can be translated to highlight vulnerabilitieswith certainty (Agrawala and van Aalst, 2008; Heltberg et al., 2009).Agrawala and van Aalst (2008) argue that development practitionersand climate scientists should join forces to make climate informationmore accessible, relevant, and usable.Because the risks posed by climate change can affect the long-termefficiency with which development resources can be invested anddevelopment objectives achieved, studies indicate that it remainsimportant to integrate or mainstream disaster risk management andclimate change adaptation into a range of development activities(Agrawala and van Aalst, 2008; Halsnaes and Traerup, 2009; Heltberget al., 2009; Mitchell et al., 2010a). Lack of awareness within thedevelopment community of the many implications of climate changeand limitations on resources for implementation are frequently citedreasons for difficulties in mainstreaming adaptation and disaster riskmanagement (Agrawala and van Aalst, 2008; Heltberg et al., 2009; alsosee Section 6.3.2). Adaptation to climate change and disaster riskmanagement actions can be considered to be successfully mainstreamedwhen they reduce the vulnerability of susceptible populations to existingclimate variability and are also able to strengthen the capacity of thepopulation to prepare for and respond to further changes (Yamin et al.,2005; Manuel-Navarrete et al., 2007; Mertz et al., 2009). Studies indicatethat national policies can increase this capacity (Ikeme, 2003; Heltberget al., 2009). Policies and measures such as the establishment of anLDC fund, Special Climate Fund, Adaptation Fund, climate change Multi-Donor Trust Fund, etc., have all been developed to address the specialadaptation and risk reduction issues of vulnerable countries (seeSections 7.4.2 and 7.4.3.3 for more details).In spite of recommendations to target assistance to the most vulnerablein the developing world, practical ‘on the ground’ examples have beenlimited (Yamin et al., 2005; Ayers and Huq, 2009; Heltberg et al.,2009). Nonetheless, some developing countries have implementedsuccessful policies and plans. Nationally, good progress is being madein strengthening some disaster reduction capacities for disasterpreparedness and early warning and response systems and in addressingsome of the underlying risk drivers in many developing country regionsand sectors (Manuel-Navarrete et al., 2007; UNISDR, 2009c). For example,social safety nets and other similar national-level programs, particularlyfor poverty reduction and attainment of the Millennium DevelopmentGoals, have helped the poorest to reduce their exposure to current andfuture climate hazards (Yamin et al., 2005; Tanner and Mitchell 2008;Heltberg et al., 2009). Some examples of social safety nets are cashtransfers to the most vulnerable, versions of weather-indexed cropinsurance, employment guarantee schemes, and asset transfers (Yaminet al., 2005; CCCD, 2009; also see Section 6.6.3). A national policy tohelp the vulnerable build assets should incorporate climate screening inorder to remain resilient under a changing climate (UNISDR, 2004;Tanner and Mitchell, 2008; Heltberg et al., 2009). Other measures, suchas social pensions that transfer cash from the national level to vulnerablepeople, provide some buffers against climate hazards (Davies et al., 2008;Heltberg et al., 2009). However, lack of capacity and good governancehas remained a major barrier to efficient and effective delivery ofassistance to the most vulnerable (Yamin et al., 2005; CCCD, 2009;Heltberg et al., 2009; Warner et al., 2009).National Adaptation Programme of Actions (NAPA) under the UNFCCCprocess have helped least-developed countries assess the climatesensitivesectors and prioritize projects to address the most urgentadaptation issues of the most vulnerable regions, communities, andpopulations. The NAPA process has proven instrumental in increasingawareness of climate change and its potential impacts in the poorestcountries. The proposed adaptation projects under the NAPA usuallycover small areas and address a few components within a given sectorwith a view to addressing urgent and immediate needs. The choice ofprojects is based on the urgency of the actions as well as cost-effectivenessin cases where delays would increase the costs of later addressing theissue. Assessment of completed NAPAs show different national andregional priority sectors such as health, food security, infrastructure,coastal zone and marine ecosystem, insurance, early warning and disastermanagement, terrestrial ecosystem, education and capacity building,369