Reliance on subsistence agriculture means the impact of stresses and shocks (such as droughts or floods) are felt keenly by rural poor people, who depend directly on food system outcomes for their survival, with profound implications for the security of their livelihoods and welfare. However, such stresses and shocks will not necessarily lead to negative impacts, as risks and uncertainties, often associated with seasonality, are embedded in the practice of agriculture and there is considerable experience of coping and risk management strategies among people working in this sector. With climate change, the magnitude and frequency of stresses and shocks is changing and approaches such as social protection, disaster risk reduction (DRR) and climate change adaptation (CCA) will be needed to bolster local resilience and supplement people's experience. This study examines the opportunities for linking social protection, CCA and DRR in the context of agriculture and rural growth, exploring whether linking these three approaches together will help enhance resilience to shocks and stresses in agriculture-dependent rural communities. The study does this by (i) reviewing conceptual and policy-related similarities and differences between the three disciplines, by (ii) collecting evidence from case studies where climate change-resilient social protection approaches have been trialled and by (iii) developing an adaptive social protection framework that highlight opportunities better coordination. This paper suggests social protection and DRR measures designed to limit damages from shocks and stresses may not be sufficient in the longer term. For social protection to be resilient to climate change impacts, it will need to consider how reducing dependence on climate sensitive livelihood activities can be part of adaptive strategies. Similarly, CCA and DRR cannot effectively address the root causes of poverty and vulnerability without taking a differentiated view of poverty, something that further integration with social protection can help with.

SummaryRapidly expanding urban settlements in the developing world face severe climatic risks in light of climate change. Urban populations will increasingly be forced to cope with increased incidents of flooding, air and water pollution, heat stress and vector-borne diseases. This research, undertaken with a set of partner research institutes, examines how to manage climate-related impacts in an urban context by promoting planned and autonomous adaptation in order to by improve resilience in a changing climate. It investigates the linkages between the characteristics of propoor good urban governance, climate adaptation and resilience, and poverty and sustainable development concerns. The paper develops an analytical framework by combining governance literature with rapid climate resilience assessments conducted in ten Asian cities. Based on this empirical data, we argue that a number of key characteristics can be identified to assess and build urban resilience to climate change in a way that reduces the vulnerability of the citizens most at risk from climate shocks and stresses. These characteristics form the basis of a climate resilient urban governance assessment framework, and include (1) decentralisation and autonomy, (2) accountability and transparency, (3) responsiveness and flexibility, (4) participation and inclusion and (5) experience and support. This framework can help to assist in the planning, design and implementation of urban climate change resilience-building programmes in the future.Keywords: climate change; adaptation; urban governance; resilience; Asia. IDS WORKING PAPER 315 04Thomas Tanner is a Research Fellow at IDS specialising in climate change adaptation and its relation to development theory, policy and practice. His work focuses on international climate policy, linking poverty and climate change; childcentred approaches to disaster risk reduction and adaptation; organisational responses to climate change; and networks and knowledge services for adaptation. He has previously worked for the UK Department for International Development and the United Nations Development Programme on climate change adaptation policy and programmes, and has been a negotiator for the UN conventions on climate change and desertification.

No abstract

Sixteen years have passed since the last global volcanic event and more than 25 since a volcanic catastrophe that killed tens of thousands. In this time, volcanology has seen major advances in understanding, modelling and predicting volcanic hazards and, recently, an interest in techniques for reducing and mitigating volcanic risk. This paper provides a synthesis of literature relating to this last aspect, specifically the communication of volcanic risk, with a view to highlighting areas of future research into encouraging risk-reducing behaviour. Evidence suggests that the current 'multidisciplinary' approach within physical science needs a broader scope to include sociological knowledge and techniques. Key areas where this approach might be applied are: (1) the understanding of the incentives that make governments and communities act to reduce volcanic risk; (2) improving the communication of volcanic uncertainties in volcanic emergency management and long-term planning and development. To be successful, volcanic risk reduction programmes will need to be placed within the context of other other risk-related phenomena (e.g. other natural hazards, climate change) and aim to develop an all-risks reduction culture. We suggest that the greatest potential for achieving these two aims comes from deliberative inclusive processes and geographic information systems.

No abstract

Table of Contents This chapter assesses how countries are managing current and projected disaster risks, given knowledge of how risks are changing with observations and projections of weather and climate extremes [Table 3-2, 3.3], vulnerability and exposure [4.3], and impacts [4.4]. It focuses on the design of national systems for managing such risks, the roles played by actors involved in the system, and the functions they perform, acknowledging that complementary actions to manage risks are also taken at local and international level as described in Chapters 5 and 7. National systems are at the core of countries' capacity to meet the challenges of observed and projected trends in exposure, vulnerability, and weather and climate extremes (high agreement, robust evidence). Effective national systems comprise multiple actors from national and sub-national governments, private sector, research bodies, and civil society, including community-based organizations, playing differential but complementary roles to manage risk according to their accepted functions and capacities. These actors work in partnership across temporal, spatial, administrative, and social scales, supported by relevant scientific and traditional knowledge. Specific characteristics of national systems vary between countries and across scales depending on their socio-cultural, political, and administrative environments and development status. [6.2] The national level plays a key role in governing and managing disaster risks because national government is central to providing risk management-related public goods as it commonly maintains financial and organizational authority in planning and implementing these goods (high agreement, robust evidence). National governments are charged with the provision of public goods such as ensuring the economic and social wellbeing, safety, and security of their citizens from disasters, including the protection of the poorest and most vulnerable citizens. They also control budgetary allocations as well as creating legislative frameworks to guide actions by other actors. Often, national governments are considered to be the 'insurer of last resort'. In line with the delivery of public goods, national governments and public authorities 'own' a large part of current and future disaster risks (public infrastructure, public assets, and relief spending). In terms of managing risk, national governments act as risk aggregators and by pooling risk, hold a large portfolio of public liabilities. This provides governments responsibility to accurately quantify and manage risks associated with this portfolio-functions that are expected to become more important given projected impacts of climate change and trends in vulnerability and exposure. [6.2.1] In providing such public goods, governments choose to manage disaster risk by enabling national systems to guide and support stakeholders to reduce risk where possible, transfer risk where feasible, and manage residual risk, recognizing that risks can never be totally eliminated (high ...

This article lays the foundation for this special issue on social protection and climate change, introducing and evaluating the ways in which the individual articles contribute to our understanding of the subject.

No abstract