Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
First draft of CSDRM approach
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Introducing the official SlideShare app

Stunning, full-screen experience for iPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

First draft of CSDRM approach

1,160
views

Published on


0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,160
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
21
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Framework for Resilience in a Changing Climate – DRAFT NOT FOR CIRCULATION Maggie Ibrahim (m.ibrahim@ids.ac.uk); ODI - Susanne Jaspars (s.jaspars@odi.org.uk) Introduction The challenge of managing risks posed by disasters is becoming more difficult as experience suggests climate change is affecting the frequency, scale, severity and exposure to hazards as well as vulnerability, thereby increasing disaster risk and uncertainty. This Resilience in a Changing Climate Framework aims to contribute to increasing the ability of governments, civil society organisations and communities to manage disaster risks more effectively in a changing climate. In order to ensure that development approaches and interventions reduce people’s vulnerabilities and contribute to resilience in a changing climate, we must understand how to promote resilience and ‘climate smart’ programming, including ‘climate smart’ disaster risk management’ (CS-DRM), humanitarian assistance, social protection and other livelihood support programmes. Climate smart approaches are expected to enhance the resilience of vulnerable people to climate change. Our evolving approach aims to build a Resilience in Changing Climate Framework which development practitioners and policy makers can use to guide them and select the relevant aspects of the framework for their practice. Developing a Resilience in a Changing Climate Framework – an iterative process The development of the Resilience in a Changing Climate Framework, has been informed by four literature reviews:  Review of the Concepts of Resilience: how can a better understanding of the concepts of resilience help to inform and shape development policy and practice? What are the characteristics and indicators of resilient development practice?  Climate-Smart Disaster Risk Management: we have elaborated the concept of ‘climate-smart disaster risk management’ (CS-DRM) to describe the additional elements of managing disaster risk and uncertainty that need to be considered in the context of climate change. To what extent can CS-DRM contribute or enhance resilient development in a changing climate?  A comparison of concepts and frameworks of Disaster Risk Management, Climate Change Adaptation, Social Protection and livelihoods concepts in relation to vulnerability to climate change and resilience 1
  • 2.  In country literature reviews of key policies and practices related to vulnerability to climate change and resilience in 3 countries: Ethiopia, Uganda, and Mozambique. The Resilience in A Changing Climate Framework consists of two elements: 1. An analytical approach which has been informed by the literature reviews, which integrates the different areas of analysis. 2. Two tools to help us interrogate whether development interventions and specifically projects and programmes to manage disaster risks and uncertainties can contribute to resilience and be ‘climate smart’. These two tools are Table A and Table B. 1. An Analytical Approach to Understanding a Process of Resilience in a Changing Climate How do we analyse resilience in relation to disaster risk management (DRM), climate change adaptation (CCA), social protection and livelihoods approaches? There are clearly similarities and overlaps between the different approaches, as DRM and CCA share common objectives of reducing vulnerability and building resilience to shocks and hazards, but perhaps take slightly different approaches at project level and timeframes. Social protection and livelihood support measures have similar objectives. The literature underscores the importance of understanding resilience as a process and not interventions to achieve equilibrium. Furthermore, resilience highlights the need for a system wide approach which encourages holistic understanding of connections between different components of a system. This process can be understood as having three central components: drivers of change, people’s or communities’ assets or capital, and disaster risk management strategies. Together these three components provide an analytical approach in which we can explore evidence from the field. Drivers of change include political, social, economic, climatic, environmental, conflict, militarization, and securitisation processes. These drivers of change can promote vulnerability and affect populations differently. Vulnerability is also determined by the reach and accountability of institutions which impact on resilient development, the policies that influence them, as well as the assets that people have. The functioning of institutions, as well as people’s access to them, will have a major influence on the livelihood strategies that people and communities choose to pursue and the level of disaster risk they face. Key institutions in relation to resilient development in a changing climate might include: government institutions responsible for the provision of assistance or basic services (e.g. Social protection, DRM, safety nets, public works), legislation concerned with DRM and CCA in particular but also land rights and natural resource management. Markets are also likely to be a key institution as well as informal institutions such as customary law around the management of resources and social networks. A governments’ policies, in relation to disaster management, resource management and for example land rights, will also have a major impact on vulnerability and resilience. Assets include: human (including knowledge or access to information), social, physical, natural, financial. It may also include
  • 3. political assets, which includes access to those with power over decision making on resource allocation or to political authorities. Climate change will have differentiated impacts on livelihoods assets for different groups. In response to these different risks and vulnerabilities, people will have developed a number of different disaster risk management strategies which can consist of a variety of ways in managing uncertainty, reducing risk, sharing and transferring risk, and managing impact. Together these components must be considered in a specific governance context and spatial location. Furthermore, they must be seen as dynamic and changing over time. 2. Concepts of Resilience Increasingly, concepts of resilience are being applied to development policy and practice. It is important that we gain a better understanding of how the concepts of resilience can help to inform our approach and design of the Resilience in a Changing Climate Framework. In order to do so we have asked:  What are the components of a resilient system?  What are the principles/characteristics of resilience?  What indicators can be used to evaluate these characteristics? In addition to understanding how to promote resilience in a changing climate, this will help us to identify how “climate smart” programming or approaches contribute to the promotion of resilience. Through a review of the resilience literature (Bahadur Forthcoming), we (IDS) have come up with a working definition of resilience: The capacity of a system to anticipate, prepare for, respond to, learn from and quickly recover from changes in the system – be it climate shock and stresses or other drivers of change (Adapted from Mayunga 2007). What are the components of a resilient system? There is little clarity as to what components make up a resilient system. Understanding the fact that there are relationships between components is the key, rather than knowing exactly which components contribute to the system. The only components which are clearly highlighted within the resilience literature are the Five Capitals - human, social, physical, natural, financial (Mayunga 2007) and the governance system (Ostrom 2009). In response to this gap in the literature, we have turned to the frameworks relating to DRM and have come up with the following components from the sustainable livelihoods approach: human, social, physical, natural, financial, political assets– which are described in more detail below:  Human assets represent the skills, knowledge, information, education, ability to work and good health that enable people to pursue diversified, less exposed or more lucrative livelihood strategies to increase resilience
  • 4. Social assets refer to access to an extended family and other social networks, such as membership of more formalised groups. These are linked to social status and leverage power, which may positively affect resilience to climate shocks and stresses  Natural assets comprise natural resource stocks and environmental assets such as agricultural land, forest and water resources, which people may access and use to build their livelihoods while recognising that these natural assets are part of a dynamic ecosystem.  Physical assets include livestock, land, shelter, tools and equipment, and may also include community-owned assets, e.g. water points, road infrastructure, communication networks.  Financial assets include income, access to credit and investments. Emergency livelihood frameworks have added a sixth asset - political assets or capital. This can be most easily interpreted as proximity to individuals or institutions with power over resources such as political authorities or armed actors. Characteristics of a Resilient System In contrast to lack of description of the components of a resilient system, the literature describes numerous characteristics. Through a synthesis of the literature, we have identified nine key characteristics of a resilient system which include: I. 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 and Effective Institutions: 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). III. Cross Scalar Perspective: interconnectedness between various components of the system through networks which transcend scale (Nelson 2007). IV. 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). V. 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). VI. Promoting Equity: gauging, sharing and distributing risk from disturbances (shocks/stresses) (Nelson et al. 2007). VII. Accepting Non- Equilibrium: disturbances may cause change in the relationship between components of the system and the aim is to maintain relationships among components of the system. This persistence of relationship becomes a measure of the systems’ resilience (Folke 2006).
  • 5. VIII. 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). IX. Preparedness, Planning and Readiness: accepting that change and disturbances will occur and preparing and planning for failure through system failure scenarios (Rockefeller Foundation 2009). These characteristics, along with a review of the existing frameworks relating to DRM have informed the design of Table A- Promoting Resilience through Assets, Characteristics, Institutions and Indicators Assets in the table below describe the different livelihood building blocks and strengths from which one can pursue sustainable livelihoods. Characteristics of resilience describe (characterise) how the assets within the system can promote resilience. The social arrangements and rules column within the table highlight which rules/ agreements/ social arrangements one might engage with in order to promote resilience. The indicator column of the table describes how one would know/see that the characteristic which is to support resilience is indeed in place . The main difference between the characteristic and indicator column is that the indicator is indicative of the presence of these characteristics. A perhaps useful addition will be guiding questions to ask in order to assess whether the characteristics are present. The table then aims to provide an overview of the various assets which make up a resilient system, to offer guidance on what type of characteristics these assets could aim to have and to also provide indicators for each characteristic in order to know that they are promoting resilience. The point of the table below is to help practitioners and policymakers think through which assets do their activities contribute to and whether their development approach and intervention is demonstrating the type of characteristics which can promote resilience to the system. There may be overlaps between characteristics and many of the same institutions may be needed/suggested under the various assets.
  • 6. Table A- Promoting Resilience: Assets, Characteristics and Indicators Characteristics of Resilient assets Rules of the Game and Social Indicators of resilient systems Assets Arrangements 1. Human  Adaptive learning - able to incorporate risk  Government  Information of Risk & Uncertainty incorporated and uncertainty - Schools into systems. For example:  Understanding of own dynamic in relation to - Health services - Education – includes teaching programme on a resilient system - Safety nets resilience and climate change. Modules  Knowledge of climate change impacts include vulnerability assessments and how to  Health systems are continually learning and  Civil society (gov) contact local meteorological office for data. adapting to change - DRM training - Human Resources across sectors & industries  Local, Traditional Knowledge considered incorporate vulnerability assessments and alongside climate and meteorological  Media climate science into their policy and information  Social Clubs procedures.  Access to information is prioritised and - Health Systems have used vulnerability decentralised assessments & structured climate scenarios in  Historical information accessibleLow disease their planning and assessments. prevalence?  Local, Traditional Knowledge considered alongside Skills climate and meteorological information Level of education??  Access to information is prioritised and Availability of labour in the household decentralised  Local, traditional knowledge and climate science and meteorological information is appropriated in systems. Government promotes information access through e-governance programmes, travelling information hubs. 2.Social  Inclusive networks which cross scale and  Social networks  High degree of coordination & cooperation in the disciplines  Safety nets community  Legitimacy and trust in institutions and  Systems of claims and  Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships (in)formalised groups obligations  Networks that scale from local to international  Values and norms promote sustainability  CBOs or other community  Codes of conduct that foster reciprocity and through a diversity of institutions groups (and committees pluralism  Social norms encourage cooperation, set up for humanitarian pluralism and participation programmes)  High diversity of stakeholders  Church networks  Communication networks  Security
  • 7.  Transport networks 3.Financial  Flexible and tailored financial services  Employment regulations  Saving & credit schemes are based on demand.  Diverse financial institutions in place which  Labour conditions (unions,  Diverse financial institutions are responsive to demand professional associations?)  Integrated market system and access by producers  Ownership decentralised  Rules which set wages for and consumers??  Risk shared through insurance schemes casual labour  Access to insurance  Remittance systems   Markets  Credit and savings systems  Banks  Informal credit mechanisms (loans)  Investments: can include livestock 4.Physical  Adaptive Infrastructure which is able to  Existence of building standards which reduce risk withstand natural hazards  Road infrastructure from natural hazards. For example:  System failures considered and planned for  Dams/dykes etc - Coastal defence structures in place based on  Shelter vulnerability and risk analysis.  Communication systems tested and improved  Land rights based on risks and climate scenarios  Grazing rights and routes  System failure scenarios in response plans created through decentralised organisational structures 5.Natural  Co-management/ownership of ecosystem  Presence& Participation of divergent interests in assets as part (building on lessons from adaptive co-  Natural resource platforms for managing natural Resources within a of a dynamic management with local community, management systems system ecosystem government and private sector). (state and customary).  High biodiversity; low level rates of soil erosion;  Diversity of use of nature Water, forestry products, high amount of wetland acreage land  Land rights and ownership
  • 8.  Environmental services  Conflict resolution mechanisms (over natural resources). 7.Political  Legislation for rights and accountability  Systems of election and  Local institutions enable participation in decision  Representation and Equity representation making processes and are seen to be legitimate  Accountability  Corruption  Needs assessments of local communities and  Legitimacy of institutions based on local  Nepotism budget control through local government engagement  Decision making   Decentralised decision making systems  Modify policies as new learning occurs  Promote persistent relationships across scales and functions  Gauging, sharing and distributing risk through policies and procedures 3. Climate Smart Characteristics and Indicators for Disaster Risk Management Practitioners and policy makers have been managing disaster risks across development sectors by tackling vulnerability, reducing, transferring and sharing risks and enhancing preparedness and response mechanisms. This task is becoming more difficult as climate change appears to be altering the magnitude and frequency of hazard events and contributing to a change in the underlying vulnerability caused by more subtle shifts in average climatic condition. These changes force disaster risk managers to reflect on how they can better manage disaster risks and uncertainties in a changing climate and as a result, what they need to do differently to ensure they are being effective. We aim to gather evidence against our hypothesis of what ‘climate smart’ disaster risk management includes ( 4 key characteristics below) and sets out to discover whether a ‘climate smart’ approach to disaster risk management enhances the resilience of vulnerable people to climate change. In doing so, it will create an evidence base of ‘climate smart disaster risk management’ approaches that demonstrate an ability to strengthen resilience in a changing climate.
  • 9. Through a synthesis of case studies on CS-DRM this table identifies four key characteristics of climate smart disaster risk management. These characteristics can be applied at different scales – from the local, sub-national, national, to regional. Descriptions of good practice will differ depending on the scale. As of yet, no case study we have experience of demonstrates all four characteristics. Development practitioners and policymakers are encouraged to integrate these characteristics into their understanding and approach to DRM. Can these characteristics be also applied to social protection and livelihoods? Climate Smart DRM Characteristic Descriptions of Good Practice Country Examples Enable Communities to Adapt Livelihoods  Diversification of livelihood strategies North-eastern Bangladesh: a intervention to through Addressing & Transforming  Accountability measures Implemented - address the vulnerability of communities Underlying Drivers of Vulnerability i.e. Publish what you Spend affected by river erosion and flooding through  Advocacy for participatory decision building capacity in: Flood-friendly agriculture, making systems Fisheries and livestock resource management;  Legislation that ensures rights for access Flood-resistant housing and multi-purpose to natural resources (i.e. land, forest use). shelter; Development of alternative income generation through light engineering training; Small enterprise development through small businesses, and Agro-processing for added value which has created better access to common property resources, ensuring legal rights. Promote Iterative Learning which  Learning circles which bring together Brazil: Traditional knowledge and climatic incorporates climate and weather vulnerability assessments, weather and science was consolidated in groups of information, as well as traditional knowledge climate change data and oral history into yapuchiris who were supported by development intervention planning and Intercooperation to sell technological and evaluation. financial services to local farmers. This has  Innovative local technologies developed resulted in a significant reduction of crop
  • 10. based on understanding local vulnerability losses from drought, hail, frost and flooding, and climate science, such as floating and has also led to the stabilisation of market gardens for flood prone area. access for local crops.  Iterative learning undertaken at the individual and organisational level which values experimentation; monitoring of results; update assessments; modification of policies and practice as new knowledge is gained. Foster Integration & Networks  Multi –sectoral approach to national Vietnam: preparation of Disaster Risk (Coordination & Linkages Across Sectors, Scales poverty reduction plans. Management Plans at community and school and Stakeholders)  Inclusion of diverse stakeholders in the levels, along with the promotion of diversified decision making, conceptualisation and income sources to minimise the livelihood implementation of development impact of losing crops or fishing equipment in interventions. extreme weather events.  Networks which bring together a range of Nepal: disaster risk management planning and stakeholders from local to national level risk assessments were integrated into for information sharing and learning for livelihood approaches. Following a climate smart DRM. vulnerability and needs assessment, the communities themselves identified the small size of their land holdings, their dependence on adequate and timely rain, and the impact of drought as major constraints to both their ability to earn a living, and to survive the impacts of natural hazards such as seasonal flooding. Do not contribute to the Causes of Climate  Conduct carbon foot print of proposed Change interventions.  Conduct environmental impact assessment of development intervention.