National Systems for Managing the Risks from Climate Extremes and Disasters

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 ...

Examining the challenges in mainstreaming climate change adaptation into local land-use planning: The case of Albay, Philippines

“…This is because information is lacking on how mainstreaming CCA can be applied on-ground, which consequently highlights a knowledge deficit regarding the mainstreaming process (Lal et al 2012;Ayers et al 2014;Picketts et al 2014). This condition is aggravated by the lack of understanding about the barriers or challenges in the operationalisation of mainstreaming CCA at the local scale (Huq & Ayer 2008;OECD 2009;Mangoyana et al 2012;Mimura et al 2014).…”

“…Meanwhile, local planners in the Philippines found it difficult to mainstream CCA due to the lack of "formally issued implementing policy that would outline a clear methodology, procedure and standards on the integration of CCA and DRRM into local plans" (Mercado 2011, p. 7 (Lhendup 2012;Sinh & Toan 2012;Chinvanno & Kerdsuk 2013). Thus, in practice, the operationalisation of mainstreaming has not advanced as fast as its conceptualisation due to the barriers or challenges that affect the mainstreaming process (Huq & Ayer 2008;Lal et al 2012;Uittenbroek et al 2013;Ayers et al, 2014;Revi et al 2014;Lehmann et al 2015;Rauken et al 2015).…”

“…The rising popularity of mainstreaming CCA is influenced largely by international funding mechanisms supporting the adaptation approach 1 (Measham et al 2011;Lal et al 2012). For example, the Least Developed Countries Fund, established under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, provides financial support to the formulation and implementation of the National Adaptation Programs of Action (NAPA) (Biagini & Dobardzic 2011).…”

“…Advancement in mainstreaming CCA is likewise shaped by the advocacy of the donor, bilateral, and multilateral agencies (Agrawala 2006;Olhoff & C. Schaer 2010;Lal et al 2012). International funding agencies are concerned with (1) the impacts of climate change on the operationalisation of the agencies' respective projects and investments; and (2) the climate risks in the countries' own development efforts.…”

“…Hence, these agencies "push" for the mainstreaming approach. Lal et al 2012). These handbooks and related documents provide generic guidance for mainstreaming at the national, sectoral, programme and project levels.…”