IPCC Report.pdf - Adam Curry

Managing the Risks: International Level and Integration across ScalesChapter 7No agreed outcome was reached at COP15, and no comprehensivedecision was adopted that included these five issues. Instead, the COPdecided to take note of the Copenhagen Accord, a nonbinding documentabout which there was no consensus among Parties, and which providesconsiderably less substance on adaptation than the Bali Action Plan(Bodansky, 2010; Grubb, 2010; Klein, 2010). As mentioned in Section7.4.2, however, the Copenhagen Accord was a milestone toward scaledupfunding for both mitigation and adaptation.In 2010, Decision 1/CP.16 (part of the Cancun Agreements) establishedthe Cancun Adaptation Framework (Cozier, 2011). It invites all Parties toenhance action on adaptation by undertaking nine activities related toplanning, implementation, capacity strengthening, and knowledgedevelopment, including “enhancing climate change related disaster riskreduction strategies, taking into consideration the Hyogo Framework forAction where appropriate; early warning systems; risk assessment andmanagement; and sharing and transfer mechanisms such as insurance,at local, national, sub-regional, and regional levels, as appropriate.” Inaddition, Decision 1/CP.16 established (i) a process to enable leastdevelopedcountries and other developing countries to formulate andimplement national adaptation plans; (ii) an Adaptation Committee thatwill, among other things, provide technical support, share relevantinformation, promote synergies, and make recommendations on finance,technology, and capacity building required for further action; and (iii) awork program in order to consider approaches to address loss and damageassociated with climate change impacts in developing countries thatare particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change.Decision 1/CP.16 also established a Technology Mechanism, consisting ofa Technology Executive Committee and a Climate Technology Center andNetwork. The Technology Mechanism should accelerate action at differentstages of the technology cycle, including research and development,demonstration, deployment, diffusion, and transfer of technology insupport of mitigation and adaptation. Finally, Decision 1/CP.16 establishedthe Green Climate Fund as a new entity operating the financial mechanismof the UNFCCC under Article 11 (see Section 7.4.2).The unfolding of international adaptation policy under the UNFCCC showsthe increasing prominence of adaptation in the negotiations, and theincreasing level of detail and concreteness of the relevant COP decisions.It also shows that adaptation under the UNFCCC is increasingly linkedwith disaster risk reduction, with the Hyogo Framework for Actionexplicitly mentioned in the Cancun Agreements. Yet, this unfolding, fromDecision 5/CP.7 to Decision 1/CP.16, has taken 10 years.7.3.3. Current ActorsA wide range of actors play a role in DRM and CCA at the internationallevel. This section does not attempt a comprehensive review of all ofthese, but instead identifies the broad areas in which the internationalcommunity is providing support at the interface between DRM andCCA, describes some of the main actors under each of these categories,and summarizes, where available, independent assessments of theirstrengths and weaknesses in performing these roles.7.3.3.1. International Coordination in Linking Disaster RiskManagement and Climate Change AdaptationGiven the wide range of actions and actors that are considered necessaryby those involved to carry out DRM and CCA, and to link them to eachother, effective international coordination is essential. Overall, there areweaknesses in the current systems; the 2009 Global Assessment Reporton Disaster Risk Reduction states that: “Efforts to reduce disaster risk,reduce poverty and adapt to climate change are poorly coordinated”(UNISDR, 2009a).The main coordination mechanism for DRR, contributing to DRM, is theUNISDR, designed to develop a system of partnerships to supportnations and communities to reduce disaster risk. These partners includegovernments, intergovernmental and nongovernmental organizations,international financial institutions, scientific and technical bodies andspecialized networks as well as civil society and the private sector.Among the diverse range of stakeholders across scales, the nationalgovernments play the most important roles, including developingnational coordination mechanisms; conducting baseline assessments onthe status of disaster risk reduction; publishing and updating summariesof national programs; reviewing national progress toward achieving theobjectives and priorities of the Hyogo Framework; working to implementrelevant international legal instruments; and integrating disaster riskreduction with climate change strategies. Intergovernmental organizationsplay a supporting role, including, for example, promotion of DRR programsand integration into development planning, and capacity building(UNISDR, 2005b). The fact that the primary roles in planning andimplementation are played by national governments, while the UNISDRSecretariat and other intergovernmental organizations provide supporting,monitoring, and information sharing roles at the regional and globallevel is consistent with the principle of subsidiarity.UNISDR has made specific efforts to link DRR and CCA, through advocacyof the role of DRR in climate change adaptation, and support for scientificreviews of the linkages (including this report). Two evaluations coveringthe effectiveness of UNISDR in linking DRR and CCA have recently beenpublished. The UN Special Representative of the Secretary-General forDisaster Risk Reduction and the main donors to UNISDR requested anindependent evaluation of the performance of the secretariat, whichwas published in 2010 (Dalberg, 2010). This review endorsed the overalleffectiveness of UNISDR, particularly in advocacy and awareness raising,and in establishing global and regional platforms, and specificallyhighlights its strong contribution to mainstreaming DRR into climatechange policy. However, it also highlights difficulties, including lack ofdefinition of comparative advantage within CCA implementation, andthe need to balance the focus and resources spent on DRR in climatechange adaptation versus the broader DRR concept. The same review alsoillustrates challenges in coordination of implementation, particularly the408