Maurice Onyango: Climate Smart Disaster Risk Management - an approach for climate compatible development

Editor's Notes

• #9: Bringing these areas together, we have come up with 5 main areas to consider: Make climate-smart disaster risk management a priority Assess changing risk and vulnerability patterns Use knowledge of climate impacts on different parts of society and of changing disaster risks and uncertainties to reduce exposure of peopple’s livelihoods Increase public awareness of climate change and disaster risks Reduce exposure of physical environment to changing risks
• #10: These characteristics are nothing new, but perhaps integrating uncertainty and accepting non-equilibrium are newer to the socio-economic disciplines in contrasts to ecological and technological innovations. The ten characteristics of resilience in promoting adaptive capacity also share characteristics with first and third pillar and so have pulled out 4 key charactertics under the Enhancing Adaptive Capacity Pillar. -Creating Flexible and Effective Institutions Promoting Learning Adopting a multi-level perspective Considering greater uncertainty High Levels of Diversity : ecological diversity; stakeholder diversity; livelihood diversity; diversity in planning, response and recovery activities ( Folke 2006; Holling 1973; Resilience Alliance, Carpenter et a. 2001). II. Flexible, Effective Institutions which III) Accept non-equilibrium : institutions must be seen as legitimate, inclusive and effective in delivering goals. Furthermore they must be flexible and reflect the needs of the local community, provide opportunities for learning and experimentation (Folke 2006, Rockerfeller 2009; Ostrom 2009, Dover and Handmer 1992; Osbahr 2007). Similarly, institutions must Accept Non- Equilibrium as disturbances may cause change in the relationship between components of the system (Folke 2006). IV. Cross Scalar Perspective: interconnectedness between various components of the system through networks which transcend scale (Nelson 2007). V. Integrating Uncertainty : through a memory of past disturbances (shocks/stresses) and the existence of protocols that determine action in the face of disturbance (Holling 1973). VI. Ensuring Community Involvement: participation in decision making, ownership of resources and use of indigenous and local knowledge (Manyena 2006; Mayunga 2007; Ostrom 2009; Nelson et al. 2007; Dover and Handmer 1992; Berkes 2007, Osbahr 2007). VII. Promoting Learning : iterative processes and organisational learning that promote adaptive capacity. Consider a range of plausible hypotheses about future change in the system, weigh range of possible strategies and favour actions that are robust to uncertainty (Gunderson and Holling 2001). VIII. Promoting Equity : gauging, sharing and distributing risk from disturbances (shocks/stresses) (Nelson et al. 2007). IX . Social values and structures : moral and ethical standards regarding how to behave in groups, norms of reciprocity, sufficient trust lead to lower transaction costs in reaching agreements and lower costs of monitoring ( Ostrom 2009). X. Preparedness, Planning and Readiness : accepting that change and disturbances will occur and preparing and planning for failure through system failure scenarios (Rockefeller Foundation 2009).
• #11: We have boiled down addressing poverty, vulnerability and their causes into four Main components: Promote Equitable Economic systems Promote Access to education and health care Promote access to structures, power and accountability Promote Sensible Carbon Stewardship
• #12: Research carried out in Cambodia, India and Sri Lanka tested the CSDRM approach at regional, sub-national and local levels and in trans-boundary and post-conflict settings. Cases were chosen because they reflected at least one of the three pillars of the CSDRM approach in context of multiple, changing hazards. in Cambodia, the climate-smart DRM efforts of the Mekong River Commission are investigated. profiles of the Orissa State Disaster Management Authority and the ‘Watershed Plus’, or Western Orissa Rural Livelihood Programme (WORLP), provide learning on different ways to tackle CSDRM at state level. Finally, post-disaster housing reconstruction in the conflict-affected District of Batticaloa, Sri Lanka, provides inspiration on how it is possible to work ‘climate-smart’ despite a climate information vacuum. Fieldwork in Cambodia, India and Sri Lanka has demonstrated that, despite challenges, government and non-government actors are already making real efforts to manage disaster risks with a ‘climate-smart’ approach. The institutional basis is there. Making the final shift to CSDRM, it seems, is largely reliant on an increasingly collaborative and strategic approach to traditional DRM, both at an individual and institutional level. The case studies highlight the flexibility of CSDRM as an analytical and evaluative tool at different scales: Integrating climate scenarios, whether at the regional, sub-national or local level, requires access to climatological information and data. This can be fraught with challenges and can be highly political. Making connections with independent intermediaries – such as universities - that can process climate data and interpret findings at various levels is a way to overcome this challenge. There are numerous entry points for a CSDRM approach. Building on existing programmes and policies offers opportunities to identify champions for the approach and to create tools and procedures that are grounded in local realities.