|
|
DRAFT
Statement to be used as a basis for an intervention by the Inter-Agency
Secretariat for the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction
(ISDR) on behalf of the ISDR system |
|
|
Download
document |
|
|
SBSTA agenda
item 11(b)
Statement structure: |
|
|
Introduction |
Question
1: Please provide specific comments
on the structure of the statement
Question
2: (Please be aware that this
is the third time the ISDR addresses UNFCCC Parties)
Are there other background elements to be added
or expanded in the introduction, such as the
ISDR system, the Conference preparations and
holding, or Yokohama and its review?
|
- The
ISDR was established by the UN General Assembly in
the year 2000 and it builds on the experience of
the International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction
(IDNDR), which ran from 1990 to 1999. The ISDR’s
task force established a Working Group on Climate
Change and Disaster Risk Reduction, co-chaired by
UNDP and WMO, of which the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) secretariat
is a member. The Working Group focuses on the promotion
of an integrated approach to climate risk. To take
stock of progress in disaster risk reduction, the
General Assembly convened a World Conference on Disaster
Reduction (WCDR), which took place from 18 to 22
January 2005 in Kobe-Hyogo, Japan. The WCDR yielded
important outcomes regarding climate change adaptation
here highlighted.
- Coming
after the dramatic shock caused by the tsunami tragedy,
the WCDR could not have been more timely. It assumed
an unprecedented level of significance with regard
to disaster risk reduction. It is qualified as a
landmark in worldwide understanding and commitment
to implement a disaster risk reduction agenda.
back
to the question for this section
|
|
|
|
|
Political
recognition and technical analysis of the link between adaptation
to climate change and disaster risk reduction |
Question
3: Are there other elements/events
to be included to reinforce the case for the political
acceptance of the links between adaptation to climate
change and disaster risk reduction?
|
- At
the tenth session of the Conference of the Parties
(COP-10) last year, an exchange of views on activities
of the UNFCCC relevant to WCDR took place. As requested
by the COP, the UNFCCC secretariat reported to the
WCDR on these activities, in particular the adoption
of the Buenos Aires programme of work on adaptation
and response measures contained in decision 1/CP.10.
The secretariat conveyed the support expressed by
COP 10 for the successful outcome of the Conference
and stated that the implementation of the Buenos
Aires programme would undoubtedly benefit from a
successful outcome of the WCDR.
- The
WCDR furthered political recognition of the importance
of climate variability and change as important contributors
to patterns of risk, which threaten hard-won development
gains. As a result, the Hyogo Framework for Action
2005-2015: Building the resilience of nations and
communities to disasters strongly supports the integration
of adaptation to climate change and disaster risk
reduction in the context of sustainable development.
- This
year also G-8 leaders strongly supported disaster
risk reduction, the strategy and the development
of early warning as a means to reduce disaster risks.
back
to the question for this section
|
Question
4: Taking account of the next section,
should more be said on the technical aspects of the
link in this paragraph? |
- In
order to concretise action to develop a comprehensive
approach that addresses current and future hazards
and environmental risks, a discussion paper 'Disaster
Risk Management in a Changing Climate' was produced
by the Vulnerability and Adaptation Resource Group
(VARG) for WCDR and presented at the twenty-second
session of the subsidiary bodies of the Convention.
The paper provides the analytical and technical basis
for effective and practical coordination of action
to address both existing and new challenges faced
by adaptation to climate change and disaster risk
reduction in the context of sustainable development.
back
to the question for this section
|
|
|
|
Nature
of the link between disaster risk reduction and adaptation
to climate change |
Question
5: Please comment on the clarity/logic
of the explanation of the nature of the link. Are
elements missing or redundant?
|
- The
outcomes of WCDR underline that present disasters
remain a major impediment to sustainable development
and poverty eradication. In addition it states that
development investments that fail to consider disaster
risks can increase vulnerability. This very much
applies to climate-related disasters, owing that
two-thirds of all disasters are climate or weather-related.
The challenges posed by disasters are further exacerbated
through changes in climate, which are already happening
as reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC).
- The
impacts of climate change on natural hazards and
underlying risk factors include changes in the magnitude
and frequency of climatic extremes and in average
climatic conditions and climate variability. In addition
to such an exacerbation or alteration of existing
threats, some impacts may be new to a region in recent
history for which no experience in dealing with such
impacts exists.
- Both
communities face the same challenges to evaluate
and address risks, vulnerabilities and possible remedial
measures as part of the development process, although
with different timeframes and conceptual differences.
Similar professional expertise is required to capture
the scientific and socio-economic dimensions of managing
hazard risks and environmental change. Therefore
the starting point for adaptation to climate change
measures is to improve the capacity of communities,
governments or regions to deal with current climate
vulnerabilities, especially if such measures take
a dynamic approach to adjust to changing risks and
vulnerabilities. The realization of synergies between
the policy frameworks and practical methodologies
for disaster risk reduction and adaptation to climate
change is a win-win strategy, that will lead to a
better use of existing resources and established
practices for both communities. A systematic integration
of efforts to reduce disaster risks into policies,
plans and programmes for sustainable development
and poverty reduction, as well as supported through
bilateral, regional and international cooperation,
including partnerships as outlined in the Hyogo Framework
will yield mutual benefits.
back
to the question for this section
|
|
|
|
Relevance
of the WCDR outcomes for work under the Convention |
Question
6: Participants are kindly requested
to look closely at activities mentioned: Should
the five Priorities for Action be quoted? Have
some activities been overlooked? Which ones could
be removed? How can readability be improved?
Should more be said on the interface with the Mauritius strategy
for SIDS or other processes (such as MDGs)?
|
- The
adoption of the Hyogo Declaration and Hyogo Framework
for Action represent a significant source of support
and strengthening for the implementation of the Convention
and Kyoto Protocol. In line with COP decisions, in
particular 5/CP.7 and 1/CP.10, the Declaration and
Framework state that the resilience of nations and
communities to disasters depends on people-centered
early warning systems, risks assessments, education
and other proactive, integrated, multi-hazard, and
multi-sectoral approaches and activities in the context
of the disaster reduction cycle, which consists of
prevention, preparedness, and emergency response,
as well as recovery and rehabilitation. Congruent
with the Convention's spirit they also state that
there is an urgent need to enhance the capacity of
disaster-prone developing countries, in particular
the least developed among them, as well as small
island developing states (SIDS), to reduce the impacts
of disasters through strengthened national efforts
and enhanced bilateral, regional and international
cooperation, including through technical and financial
assistance. In support of the Buenos Aires programme,
they resolve to further develop information sharing
mechanisms on programmes, initiatives, best practices,
lessons learnt and technologies in support of disaster
risk reduction so that the international community
can share the results and benefits from these efforts.
- Concretely,
the Hyogo Framework for Action, building on other
relevant multilateral frameworks and declarations,
provides a clear and authoritative framework for
strengthening preventive measures to reduce substantially
the loss of human lives and social, economic and
environmental assets of communities and countries
over the next ten years. To achieve this outcome,
it outlines three strategic goals:
· the effective integration of disaster risk reduction into sustainable
development policies and planning;
· the development and strengthening of institutions, mechanisms and capacities
to build resilience to hazards;
· the systematic incorporation of risk reduction approaches into the implementation
of emergency preparedness, response and recovery programmes.
- Associated
with these strategic goals, the Framework identifies
priorities for action with a set of key activities
to be undertaken by States, regional and international
organizations and other actors as appropriate. These
priorities and activities will support and strengthen
implementation of Articles 4, 5, 6 and 12 of the
Convention, Article 10 of the Kyoto Protocol, the
Buenos Aires programme and COP decisions on implementation
of Article 4.8 and 9 of the Convention, in particular
5/CP.7 and the National Adaptation Programmes of
Action (NAPA) process, capacity building (2/CP.7),
[note: do you find decision symbols useful/necessary?]
development and transfer of technologies (4/CP.7),
funding, in particular 5/CP.9 and 6/CP.9, implementation
of the global observing system for climate (5/CP.10).
These activities should also contribute to the SBSTA
programme of work on scientific, technical and socio-economic
aspects of impacts of, and vulnerability and adaptation
to, climate change, and the continuous updating of
the UNFCCC secretariat’s compendium on methods
and tools to evaluate impacts of, vulnerability and
adaptation to, climate change. It should be noted
that the Hyogo Framework for Action is also supportive
of the implementation of the Mauritius Strategy for
the Further Implementation of the Programme of Action
on the Sustainable Development of SIDS.
- Paragraph
19 of Priority for Action 4 of the Hyogo Framework—concerned
with reducing underlying risk factors in sector development
planning and programmes—strongly supports efforts
to link disaster risk reduction and climate change
adaptation efforts. It identifies in the context
of ‘environment and natural resource management’ the
need to ‘promote the integration of risk reduction
associated with existing climate variability and
future change into strategies for the reduction of
disaster risk and adaptation to climate change, which
would include the clear identification of climate-related
disaster risks, the design of specific risk reduction
measures and an improved and routine use of climate
risk information by planners, engineers and other
decision-makers’ as one of the key activities.
- Chapter
IV, concerned with ‘implementation and follow-up’ notes
that States should ‘promote the integration
of risk reduction associated with existing climate
variability and future climate change into strategies
for the reduction of disaster risk and adaptation
to climate change;’.
- Chapter
IV furthermore notes in terms of ‘resource
mobilization’ that States should ‘mainstream
disaster risk reduction measures appropriately into
multilateral and bilateral development assistance
programmes, including those related to poverty reduction,
natural resource management, urban development and
adaptation to climate change;’.
- The
Hyogo Framework recognizes in its annex explicitly
the relevance of the UNFCCC and the IPCC.
- In
addition to these specific provisions, other activities
of the Hyogo Framework link into the work of the
Convention. These include activities recommended
under Priority for Action 2 to identify, assess and
monitor disaster risks and enhance early warning.
In this regard, the Platform for the Promotion of
Early Warning is particularly relevant for the Convention
process. One of its purposes is to support the International
Early Warning Programme launched during the WCDR,
to stimulate cooperation and advances in early warning
systems. It is coordinating a global survey of early
warning system capacities and gaps, at the request
of the UN Secretary-General, with a view to identifying
priority steps needed to achieve comprehensive warning
capacity. The survey is to be published in early
2006. Under the auspices of the UN, Germany is organizing,
in March 2006, a timely third International Conference
on Early Warning. The conference will, among other
things, seek to stimulate and showcase concrete projects
to build early warning systems for vulnerable countries.
- The
development of directories, inventories and information-sharing
systems on good practices and easy-to-use disaster
risk reduction technologies expected under Priority
for Action 3 (‘use knowledge, innovation and
education to build a culture of safety and resilience
at all levels’) should support SBSTA’s
further work on technologies for adaptation as recommended
during the seminar on the development and transfer
of technologies for adaptation to climate change
held last June.
- In
addition to aforementioned paragraph 19, Priority
for Action 4 (‘reduce the underlying risk’)
recommends activities to support contingency planning,
in particular for droughts and floods, namely the
implementation of integrated flood management, the
promotion of food security and development of financial
risk sharing mechanisms, particularly insurance and
reinsurance against disasters; the promotion of public-private
partnerships for pre-disasters activities such as
risk assessments and early warning systems. The sustainable
use and management of ecosystems through better land-use
planning and development activities is also encouraged.
back
to the question for this section
|
Question
7: Are the aspects of follow-up sufficiently
developed? Should the development of indicators be
reflected? Should the synergy among the many reporting
requirements falling upon governments and organizations
be addressed? Should the commitments matrix be explicitly
presented? |
- Following
the Conference, the ISDR system adopted a set of
strategic directions compiling initiatives and tools
to assist in the implementation of the Hyogo Framework
at all levels, through the use of existing institutional
mechanisms. Among these, the sharing of institutional
strategies and related action plans in response to
the Framework and the identification of organizations'
major activity areas in disaster risk reduction has
the potential to overcome some of the institutional
barriers to facilitate the integration of experience,
information and knowledge of development, climate
change and disaster risk management communities.
Valuable information will be made available for Convention
Parties from the communication of information on
disaster risk reduction policies and activities that
provide adaptation benefits undertaken in response
to the Hyogo Framework. In turn, the collection of
information on disaster risk reduction activities
for inclusion in national communications will further
enhance the strategic coordination between experts
and institutions working on disaster risk reduction
and climate change.
back
to the question for this section
|
|
|
Ongoing
activities |
Question
8: Should ongoing activities of
the WG and secretariat be included or the statement
be left to the WCDR outcomes? If description of
these activities is kept, should they be integrated
to above paras on Priorities for Action?
|
- Cooperation
between the climate change and disaster risk management
communities did not await the WCDR to start. The
IATF/Working Group on Climate Change and Disaster
Risk Reduction is initiating dialogue with the Least
Developed Countries Expert Group (LEG) to assist
the poorest developing countries in accessing disaster
reduction best practices for adaptation to climate
change in the context of the NAPA process.
- Greater
integration between approaches to climate change
adaptation and disaster risk reduction is already
achieved thanks to the Working Group’s newsletter
and associated network. The Working Group is preparing
a paper that will clarify the concepts and terms
shared by the two communities of practice. The paper
will explore divergence of meaning of terms and concepts;
introduce concepts new to one of the fields (and
important to the other); and propose a common compendium
to enable concerted discussion between the two communities
and pave the way for future integration of concepts
and practices. The paper will comprise of an explanatory
glossary with concise explanations on how each concept
has evolved in its field of use and what it implies
for its community of users at present. Another paper
will present disaster risk reduction tools that may
be useful for climate change adaptation and provide
a more targeted analysis of one particular type of
disaster risk reduction tool to demonstrate how these
tools may be modified to include climate change concerns.
The paper is developed with the Provention Consortium
and the Red Cross/Red Crescent Climate Centre.
- The
Working Group on Climate Change and Disaster Reduction
is also active in promoting the reporting of vulnerabilities
to current climate variability, methodological approaches,
no-regret strategies and disaster risk reduction
measures by non-Annex I Parties in their national
communications. Guidance provided at the ‘Initiation
Workshop in Support of the Preparation of Second
National Communications from Non-Annex I Parties’ held
in Georgia last October was appreciated by Parties
and contacts were made to increase the interaction
between disaster risk reduction national platforms
and second national communications coordinators.
- The
previous IPCC assessment reports did not address
disasters in great detail. Therefore, the secretariat
was invited to participate in the review of the fourth
assessment to reflect the crosscutting complexity
of disasters and the relevance of their assessment
for longer-term adaptation needs and requirements.
back
to the question for this section
|
|
|
Conclusion |
Question
9: How to conclude? Is the summary
of Hyogo redundant or should it be shortened? What
are the priority areas for the two years to come?
What specific proposals can be made by the ISDR
system?
|
- The
international disaster risk reduction community looks
forward to working with the climate change community
in the years to come towards the creation of a comprehensive
risk management approach that addresses risks associated
with natural hazards and climate change and thereby
helps to promote the sustainability of the development
processes.
- Supporting
the link between disaster risk reduction and climate
change adaptation efforts means promoting development
processes that allow communities to cope with current
natural hazards, but also have the built-in capacity
to adapt to changing risk patterns. To that effect,
the Hyogo Framework for Action recommends the integration
of risk reduction associated with existing climate
variability and future climate change into strategies
for reduction of disaster risks and adaptation to
climate change; use by decision-makers, engineers
and planners of climate-related risk information,
and the mainstreaming of disaster risk reduction
measures appropriately in adaptation to climate change.
Priority areas for future collaboration include the
understanding, mapping and sharing of climate-related
disaster risk information, including for policy development
and planning; guidance for developing and strengthening
early warning systems; weather and climate forecasts
and identification of long-term changes and emerging
risks. The statement introduced specific activities
that have the potential to fulfil our expectations
for a strengthened communication between and within
our institutions to ensure that activities concerned
with disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation
build on synergies and complementarities, while being
aware of conceptual differences. One indication of
progress will be how our efforts lead to reducing
impacts of climate-related disasters, in a particular
region in the face of comparable or increasing exposure
to natural hazards and environmental change.
back
to the question for this section
|
|
|
|
|