IPCC Report.pdf - Adam Curry

Managing the Risks: International Level and Integration across ScalesChapter 7the major global environmental change research funders to assess theinternational research capability required to respond to the challengeof delivering knowledge to support human action and adaptationto regional environmental change, concluded by calling for a highlycoordinated and collaborative research program to deliver integratedknowledge required to identify and respond to hazards, risks, andvulnerability, and develop mitigation and adaptation strategies.Similarly, ICSU and the ISSC carried out a wide consultative processto rethink the focus and framework of Earth system research. Thisconsultation came out with four Grand Challenges that require a balancedmix of disciplinary and interdisciplinary research to address critical issuesat the intersection of Earth systems science and sustainable development(Reid et al., 2010):• Improve the usefulness of forecasts of future environmentalconditions and their consequences for people.• Develop, enhance, and integrate observation systems to manageglobal and regional environmental change.• Determine how to anticipate, avoid, and manage disruptive globalenvironmental change.• Determine institutional, economic, and behavioral changes to enableeffective steps toward global sustainability.Both the Belmont Challenge and the Grand Challenges are setting aninternational tone for an integrative approach to challenges such asDRR, CCA, and development. There is no shortage of policy proposalsdesigned to integrate disaster risk reduction and climate changeadaptation for their common strengthening and benefit.Official reports also list many reasons why more movement in thisdirection has been slow to develop. One constraint is the difficulty ofintegration across scales, which is addressed in Section 7.6. Two othersets of constraints are described as ‘the normative dimension’ and ‘theknowledge dimension’ (Birkmann et al., 2009). The extensive list ofchallenges and constraints identified includes the following:• Normative Dimensions (adapted from Birkmann et al., 2009)– Absence of uniform methods, standards, and procedures invulnerability and capacity assessment and also in the design,formulation, and implementation of adaptation plans, programs,and projects. Lack of clear norms when applying vulnerabilityand capacity assessment and when designing and implementingadaptation measures– The desire for stability and the tendency to rapidly restorenormalcy limit the scope to explore and to take advantage of theopportunity after disaster and recover in an adaptive way bytaking account of future climate change. The notion and desirefor stability may hamper the chance to take advantage of changeand dynamics – after disasters, the chance to use the opportunityand build back in an adaptive way considering future climatechange is in most cases not taken – more commonly, infrastructureis rapidly built back to the pre-disaster condition• Knowledge Challenges (adapted from Birkmann et al., 2009)– Differences in the form of terminology used – that is, the differentterms and definitions framed by both DRR and CCA communities– Unavailability of information about the concrete effects ofclimate change at the local level (see Section 7.4.5.1)– Limited census-based information on relevant census data(social and economic parameters) especially in dynamic areaswith, for example, high fluctuations of people and/or economicinstability– Scientific knowledge on climate change acquired by the scientificcommunity has not been translated or trickled down topractitioners or it is communicated in a way that is hard tounderstand and derive practical knowledge (see Section 7.4.5.2.2)– Absence or lack of appropriate indicators for assessment thatcould measure successful adaptation and which could also beincorporated into funding guidelines as well as monitoring andevaluation strategies (ICSU, 2010).For the purposes of this Special Report, the question has been formulatedin terms of what can be learned from the practice of DRR to advanceCCA. It is clear from the literature, however, that cooperation betweenthe DRR and CCA communities is a two-way process. This has given riseto questions about how ‘integration’ in practice at local and nationallevels might best be facilitated by change at the international level.7.6. Integration across Scales7.6.1. The Status of IntegrationThe literature reflects three different perspectives on the integration ofdisaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation. One viewcommon among the community of experts and practitioners is thatclimate change adaptation should be integrated into disaster riskreduction (CCD, 2008a,b,c; Prabhakar et al., 2009, p. 26). It has evenbeen suggested that climate change adaptation is a case of ‘reinventingthe wheel’ (Mercer 2010) since disaster risk reduction covers much of thesame ground and is “already well-established within the internationaldevelopment community” (Lewis, 1999; Wisner et al., 2004).Practitioners in disaster risk reduction tend to have the view that climatechange is one of a number of factors contributing to vulnerability anddisasters (Mercer, 2010), and that therefore climate change adaptationneeds to be taken on board.A second view is adopted by many in the climate change adaptationcommunity. They recognize a diversity of cross-cutting risks that can beassociated with the impacts of climate change and consider disaster riskto be one of these (Birkmann and von Teichman, 2010). They concludethat disaster risk reduction should be integrated into climate changeadaptation.A third and perhaps more widespread view is that both disaster riskreduction and climate change adaptation should be more effectivelyintegrated into wider development planning (Glantz, 1999; O’Brien etal., 2006; Lewis, 2007; CCD, 2009; Christoplos et al., 2009; UNISDR,2009a).426