6.3 Planning for risk reduction and climate change adaptation

Climate change adaption represents a new opportunity to advance DRM using another set of policy, programme and funding instruments. Regardless of the current or future impacts of climate change, adaptation has become a perceived need that has generated a politically important set of mechanisms. In December 2010, for example, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Parties agreed to the Cancún Adaptation Framework, which calls for “climate change-related disaster risk reduction strategies” and consideration of the HFA in particular (UNFCCC, 2010). Asian leaders agreed to develop joint frameworks for the integration of disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation as part of national and regional sustainable development policies (AMCDRR, 2010). A few years earlier, in 2007, the Arab Ministerial Declaration on Climate Change also linked adaptation to risk reduction. At the national level, the Government of the Philippines has adopted climate change legislation that specifically links adaptation and DRM, recognizing the fact that successful DRM increases adaptive capacity (Philippines, 2009).

It has been suggested that the momentum to develop country-level adaptation programming owes more to the perceived opportunity to access climate change funding mechanisms, than to social demand for adaptation (Williams, 2011). Nonetheless, given that in practice most adaptation projects address disaster risks, such mechanisms offer an additional means of implementing DRM (Box 6.7). Through December 2010, the Kyoto Protocol’s Adaptation Fund had considered project proposals from 24 countries, of which 22 were DRM-related.³  The Cook Islands, for example, proposed to implement the Joint National Action Plan on Disaster Risk Management and Climate Change Adaptation (Cook Islands, 2010).


As with DRM, the effectiveness of adaptation measures depends on their integration into mainstream development planning and public investment decisions by national and local governments (ECA, 2009). Unfortunately, many climate change adaptation initiatives are still conceived and implemented as stand-alone projects. In addition, the key role of local governments in implementing locally appropriate adaptation receives insufficient attention. Governments’ failure to bring DRM and climate change adaptation into national and local development planning and investment perpetuates the misconception that climate change adaptation is purely an environmental issue, and that DRM is limited to early warning, insurance and disaster preparedness and response (Mercer, 2010).

The inability to recognize the links between adaptation, DRM and development processes leads to an inaccurate understanding of climate-related risks. As a result, adaptation can become too reliant on compensatory risk management to be able to deal with extreme events. Preferable to this is a comprehensive approach that seeks to reduce the extensive risks which will increase in the short term as a result of climate change.

There is, however, a growing effort to factor adaptation into mainstream planning. Eight of the Adaptation Fund project proposals include provisions for fiscal and planning capacity development and for integrating adaptation into development plans. In Mozambique, for example, an integrated approach to coastal zone development in Govuro District combines risk identification for current and future climate-related hazards with the development of income opportunities for local communities and sub-district land use plans (Olhoff, 2011). In Benin, a number of municipalities have successfully integrated risk reduction and climate change adaptation into annual development and investment plans (Olhoff, 2011), thereby strengthening technical capacity within municipal governments and establishing a system for climate risk and disaster management. At the national level, Uganda has begun to integrate climate risk management into a comprehensive development and investment plan (Olhoff, 2011).

Adaptation initiatives have also struggled to address the challenge presented by climate-related risks in urban areas, particularly in cities in low- and middle-income countries, where low-income households are often concentrated in informal settlements in areas prone to weather-related hazards. Integrating adaptation into conventional land use planning and building regulations is unlikely to reduce the risks faced by such households (also see Section 6.5). Instead, partnerships between risk-prone households and communities, local governments and the central government should be constructed to address deficits in infrastructure and service provision and in access to safe land. Such linkages can facilitate the scaling up of investment necessary to address risks that are rapidly escalating even without climate change (Dodman, 2010).

6.4 Ecosystem-based disaster risk management

The vital role of regulatory ecosystem services in managing disaster risk was highlighted in GAR09 (UNISDR, 2009). Although their value is difficult to measure in economic terms, estimates indicate that regulatory services may form the largest proportion of the total economic value of ecosystem services (PEDRR, 2010; TEEB, 2010). For example, a study by the World Resources Institute found that healthy coral reefs in the Caribbean provide US$0.7–2.2 billion of coastal protection from erosion and storm surges to 18,000 km of beaches⁴  (Burke and Maidens, 2004). In the United States of America, coastal wetlands absorb wave energy and act as ‘horizontal levees’, providing US$23.2 billion per year in protection from storms (Costanza et al., 2008). The forest in Andermatt, Switzerland, provides US$2.5 million of avalanche protection each year (Teich and Bebi, 2009). At the same time, ecosystems not only provide regulatory services, they also sustain livelihoods, provide drinking water and energy, and provide a host of other benefits, from soil formation and nutrient cycling to cultural services.

The protection, restoration and enhancement of ecosystems, including forests, wetlands and mangroves thus has two important benefits for DRM. First, healthy ecosystems serve as natural protective barriers and buffers against many physical hazards. Second, they increase resilience by strengthening livelihoods and increasing the availability and quality of goods and resources. Given these important co-benefits, ecosystembased DRM often realizes highly attractive cost–benefit ratios compared with conventional engineering solutions.

There are clear limitations to the protection that natural buffers can offer against extreme hazards such as tsunamis. However, the examples highlighted in Table 6.2 indicate that ecosystem-based disaster risk management is an increasingly attractive option for addressing problems as varied as river-basin and urban flooding, drought and wildfires.

Ecosystem-based DRM has the advantage of building on existing ecosystem management principles, strategies and tools, including a range of methodologies for environmental, risk and vulnerability assessments, protected area management, integrated ecosystem management and community-based sustainable natural resource management (PEDRR, 2010).

Experience to date shows that ecosystem-based DRM has a greater chance of success when it is based on a number of core elements (PEDRR, 2010):

• recognizing the multiple functions and services provided by ecosystems, including natural hazard protection or mitigation;
• linking ecosystem-based risk reduction with sustainable livelihoods and development;
• combining investments in ecosystems with other effective DRM strategies, including hard engineering options;
• addressing risks associated with climate change and extreme events and reducing their impact on ecosystem services;
• expanding governance capacities for ecosystem-based DRM through multi-sector, multidisciplinary platforms;
• involving local stakeholders in decision-making and using existing ecosystem management instruments.

However, the monetary undervaluation of ecosystem services remains an important obstacle to the adoption of ecosystem-based DRM. As a consequence, relatively few countries are taking advantage of tools such as ‘payments for ecosystem services’. During the HFA Progress Review, for example, only 25 countries reported its use. Whereas undervaluation of natural capital and ecosystem services is not the only issue (TEEB, 2010), it can also highlight instances where ecosystem degradation and exploitation create public risks while producing private benefits.

Risk addressed	Examples
River basin flooding	In Hubei Province, China, a wetland restoration programme reconnected lakes to the Yangtze River and rehabilitated 448 km2 of wetlands with a capacity to store up to 285 million m3 of floodwater. The local government subsequently reconnected a further eight lakes covering 350 km2. Sluice gates at the lakes have been re-opened seasonally, and illegal aquaculture facilities have been removed or modified. The local administration has designated lake and marshland areas as nature reserves. In addition to contributing to flood prevention, restored lakes and floodplains have enhanced biodiversity, increased income from fisheries by 20–30 percent and improved water quality to potable levels (WWF, 2008 x WWF (World Wildlife Fund). 2008. Water for life: Lessons for climate change adaptation from better management of rivers for people and nature. Gland, Switzerland: World Wildlife Fund International. . ). In 2005, the Government of the United Kingdom launched the programme Making Space for Water, an innovative strategy that uses ecosystems instead of costly engineered structures for flood and coastal erosion risk management along river banks and coastlines. The programme, triggered by severe floods in 1998, 2000 and 2005, consists of 25 nationwide pilot projects at the catchment and shoreline scales, and involves collaborative partnerships between local governments and communities. Since April 2003, the Government has invested between US$4.4 and US$7.2 billion as of March 2011. One such project covered an area of approximately 140 km2 of the Laver and Skell Rivers west of Ripon in North Yorkshire. Activities included planting trees as shelterbelts, establishing vegetative buffer strips along riverbanks, the creation of woodland, fencing off existing woodland from livestock, hedge planting, and creation of retention ponds and wetlands for increased flood storage capacity. These activities reduced surface flow during floods by trapping, retaining or slowing down overland flow and provided other benefits such as protection of wildlife habitats and improved water quality (PEDRR, 2010 x  PEDDR (Partnership for Environment and Disaster Risk Reduction). 2010. Demonstrating the Role of Ecosystems-based Management for Disaster Risk Reduction. Background Paper prepared for the 2011Global Assessment Reporton Disaster Risk Reduction. Geneva, Switzerland: UNISDR. Click here to view this GAR paper. ).
Urban flooding	Urban development replaces vegetated ground that provides a wide range of services, including rainwater storage and filtration, evaporative cooling and shading, and greenhouse gas reduction, with asphalt and concrete, which do not. Although the functions of green spaces in urban areas are easily overlooked, local governments have started reinstating ‘green infrastructure’ (Gill et al., 2007 x Gill, S., Handley, J., Ennos, R. and Pauleit, S. 2007. Adapting cities to climate change: The role of the green infrastructure. Built Environment 33 (1): 115–133. . ) as a viable component of urban water management and as a means of combating urban heat. In New York, for example, untreated storm water and sewage regularly flood the streets because the ageing sewerage system is no longer adequate. After heavy rains, overflowing water flows directly into rivers and streams instead of reaching water treatment plants. The US Environmental Protection Agency has estimated that around US$300 billion would need to be invested over the next 20 years to upgrade sewerage infrastructure across the country. In New York city, alone, it is estimated that traditional pipe and tank improvements would cost US$6.8 billion (New York City, 2010 x New York City. 2010. NYC green infrastructure plan: A sustainable strategy for clean waterways. New York, USA: City of New York. Available at http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/pdf/green_infrastructure/NYCGreenInfrastructurePlan_LowRes.pdf. ). Instead, New York City will invest US$5.3 billion in green infrastructure on roofs, streets and sidewalks. This promises multiple benefits. The new green spaces will absorb more rainwater and reduce the burden on the city’s sewage system, air quality is likely to improve, and water and energy costs may fall.
Drought	Two different but almost simultaneous agro-ecological restoration processes that started 30 years ago in southern Niger and the central plateau of Burkina Faso have increased water availability, restored soil fertility and improved agricultural yields in degraded drylands. With very little external support, local farmers experimented with low-cost adaptations of traditional agricultural and agroforestry techniques to solve local problems. Three decades later, hundreds of thousands of farmers have replicated, adapted and benefited from these techniques, transforming the once barren landscape. In Burkina Faso, more than 200,000 hectares of dryland have been rehabilitated, producing an additional 80,000 tonnes of food per year. In Niger, more than 200 million on-farm trees have been regenerated, providing 500,000 additional tonnes of food per year, as well as many other goods and services. In addition, women have particularly benefited from improved supply of water, wood fuel and other tree products (Reij et al., 2010 x Reij, C., Tappan, G. and Smale, M. 2010. Resilience to drought through agro-ecological restoration of drylands, Burkina Faso and Niger. Case study prepared for the PEDRR Background Paper to the 2011Global Assessment Reporton Disaster Risk Reduction. Geneva, Switzerland: UNISDR. . ).
Fire	Aboriginal people in northern Australia have a long history of using fire to manage habitats and food resources. Due to changes in settlement patterns and marginalization, traditional fire management was fragmented over vast areas, leading to an increase in destructive fires in fire-prone savannahs. Traditional fire management practices, such as early dry-season prescribed burning, have been revived and combined with modern knowledge, such as using satellite technology to locate fires. Aboriginal fire rangers have considerably reduced large-scale fires through fire management across 28,000 km2 of western Arnhem Land, with subsequent reductions in greenhouse gas emissions of more than 100,000 tonnes of CO2-equivalent per year. The Darwin Liquefied Natural Gas plant compensates aboriginal communities with approximately AU$1 million (US$1 million) per year for offsetting carbon, generating important income in disadvantaged communities. Additional fire management benefits include protection of biodiversity and indigenous culture (PEDRR, 2010 x  PEDDR (Partnership for Environment and Disaster Risk Reduction). 2010. Demonstrating the Role of Ecosystems-based Management for Disaster Risk Reduction. Background Paper prepared for the 2011Global Assessment Reporton Disaster Risk Reduction. Geneva, Switzerland: UNISDR. Click here to view this GAR paper. ).

NOTES