IPCC Report.pdf - Adam Curry

National Systems for Managing the Risks from Climate Extremes and DisastersChapter 6effectiveness. There is high agreement but limited evidence to suggestthat a business-as-usual approach to disaster risk management thatfails to take the impacts of climate change into account will becomeincreasingly ineffective. Section 6.6 and other parts of this chapterhave assessed evidence on the different elements involved in such arealignment. A selection of these elements is briefly summarized here.As discussed in Section 6.6.2, there is high agreement but limitedevidence to suggest that flexible and adaptive national systems fordisaster risk management, based on the principle of learning by doing,are better suited to managing the challenges posed by changes inexposure, vulnerability, and weather and climate extremes than staticand rigid systems (see Section 8.6). This ability to be flexible will betested by a systems’ capacity to act on new knowledge generated bythe frequent assessment of dynamic risk needed to capture trends inexposure vulnerability and weather and climate extremes and byinformation on how the costs and benefits of different response measureschange as a result (Section 6.6.1). The accuracy of these assessmentswill be based on the quality of available data (Section 6.5.2.1). Wheresuch assessments generate uncertainty for decisionmakers, tools suchas multi-criteria analysis, scenario planning, and flexible decision pathsoffer ways of supporting informed action (Section 6.6.1).There is high agreement and robust evidence to demonstrate that themainstreaming of disaster risk management processes into developmentplanning and practice leads to more resilient development pathways. Byextension, with climate change and other development processes havingan impact on disaster risk, these changes then need to be factored intodevelopment and economic planning decisions at different scales. Thissuggests an ideal national system for managing the risks from climateextremes and disasters would be designed to be fully integrated witheconomic and social development, environmental, poverty reduction,and humanitarian dimensions to create a holistic approach. The natureof transformational changes in thinking, analysis, planning, approaches,strategies, and actions is the subject of Chapter 8 (particularly Section8.2.2).While there is limited evidence that some countries have begun to factorclimate change into the way disaster risks are assessed and managed(see Sections 6.3 and 6.6.1), few countries appear to have adopted acomprehensive approach – for example, by addressing projected changesin exposure, vulnerability, and extremes as well as adopting a learningby-doingapproach to decisionmaking embedded in the context ofnational development planning processes. Incremental efforts towardimplementing suitable strategies for mainstreaming climate changeresponses into national development planning and budgetary processes,and climate proofing at the sector and project levels (Sections 6.2 and6.3) in the context of disaster risk management appear to be the mostlikely approach adopted by many countries. None of these measures willbe easy to implement, as actors and stakeholders at all levels of societyare being asked to embrace a dynamic notion of risk as an inherent partof their decisions, and continuously learn and modify policies, decisions,and actions taking into account new traditional and scientific knowledgeas it emerges.The knowledge base for understanding changing climate-related disasterrisks and for the way national systems are acting on this understandingthrough modifying practices, altering the nature of relationshipsbetween different actors, and adopting new strategies and policies isfragmented and incomplete. As this chapter has illustrated, incompleteinformation and knowledge gaps do not need to present blockages toaction. As FAQ 6.1 and Section 6.3.1 highlight, there is considerableexperience of governments and other actors investing in measures torespond to existing climate variability and disaster risk that can beconsidered as ‘no or low regrets’ options when taking into account theuncertainty associated with future climate. However, in conducting thisassessment, some knowledge gaps have emerged that, if filled, wouldaid the creation of enduring national risk management systems fortackling observed and projected disaster risk. These gaps include theneed for more research on:• The extent to which efforts to build disaster risk managementcapacities at different scales prepare people and organizations forthe challenges posed by climate change.• Whether the current trend of decentralizing disaster risk managementfunctions to sub-national and local governments and communitiesis effective, given the level of information and capacity requirements,changing risks, and associated uncertainties presented by climatechange.• How the function, roles, and responsibilities of different actorsworking within national disaster risk management systems arechanging, given the impacts of climate change at the national andsub-national level.• The characteristics of flexibility, learning-by-doing, and adaptivemanagement in the context of national disaster risk managementsystems in different governance contexts.• How decisions on disaster risk management interventions are madeat different scales if there is limited context-specific information.• The costs and benefits of different risk management interventionsif the impacts of climate change and other dynamic drivers of riskare factored in.• The benefits and tradeoffs of creating integrated programs andpolicies that seek to manage disaster risk, mitigate GHGs, adapt toclimate change, and reduce poverty simultaneously.380