Capacity Building for Climate Change: A Risk Management

Approach

Milind KandlikarInstitute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability

University of British Columbia

Ambuj SagarJohn F. Kennedy School of Government

Harvard University

Risks from Climate : Why should we care?

• Impacts will be felt in all sectors, esp. on natural resources (Water, Agriculture, Forests and Coastal zones)

• The magnitude of impacts is likely to be substantial, and in some cases, catastrophic:– Climate variability (especially extreme events) will be the primary

driver.

– 2002 Monsoon failures in India may result in ~1% GDP loss.

– Recurring floods in Bangladesh (~5% of GDP).

– Hurricane Mitch (‘99) “set Honduras economic development back 20 years” (~75% of GDP).

• Adaptation will involve coping with climate shifts and variability in the context of several factors that influence vulnerability.

Magnitude of Weather Impacts

Increasing Vulnerability from Weather Risks

Source: Benito Muller, Presentation at SB16

Climate Vulnerability and Development: Common concerns

Per-Capita Weather Impacts

Average Mortality per Disaster

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

LHD MHD HHD

Human Development

Dea

ths

per

Eve

nt

Series1

Source: Benito Muller, Presentation at SB16 Source: World Disasters Report 2001

Risks from Climate Variability to the Economy

• Business and increased uncertainty do not mix well.

• Increased climate variability will impact long-run growth since resources will be needed to hedge against climate related economic uncertainty.

• Impacts:– Agriculture and Natural Resources

– Financial sectors (Insurance and Banking)

– Knock-on effect on other sectors

Total Economic Loss

Average loss per Decade

Insured Loss

Mean Insured Loss per Decade

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Global Weather Related Losses in US $ Billion

Risks from Climate Change: A Historical Perspective

“The picture’s pretty bleak, gentleman. The world’s climates are changing, the mammals are taking over and we all have a brain about the size of a walnut.”

The task is difficult but humans are more intelligent(and so, we hope, are our political leaders).

Source: Gary Larson

Many different factors can make you more or less vulnerable toclimate variability

Source: Stockholm Environmental Institute

Coping with Climate Variability: A Risk Perspective

S c ie nc e a nd A sse ssm e nt B e fo r e the fa c t:P r e p a r e d ne ss

A fte r the fa c t:R e lie f

C lim a te V a r ia b ilityC o p ing S tr a te g ie s

Science of Climate

Useful knowledge

Broad Sector Studies

Decision making under uncertainty

Climate only one input!

Design of local strategies

Incorporation intopractice

Training & policy shift

Disaster Relief Management

Current Barriers

New Technologies andPolitical ‘will’

Science and Assessments: From Global to Local and Back

• Scientific knowledge: – data, models, ‘facts’

• Usable knowledge:– influences “on the ground” decisions

– prediction, economic value

• Difficulty:– Uncertainty increases with

decreasing scale

• Capacity building challenge:– learning to extract useful local info.

in the face of uncertainty

– Not merely an academic exercise, continuous interaction with the “real” world.

Un

cert

ain

ty

Pre

dict

abil

ity

Scale

GlobalLocal Regional

Being prepared for climate change : If adaptation is the answer, what is the question?

• Climate is one input among many:– goal is to reduce impact on economy

and society (human development)

• Multiple stressors – Increased climate variability– Change in local vulnerability over

time due to other factors– Changes in operating “regimes”

• Multiple Stakeholders– Added complexity and coordination– Recognition that stakes vary– The poorest take the biggest hit

Climate

Other Stressors

Policy &Politics

Capacity Building (I): Knowledge Generation and Integration

• Knowledge Generation– Knowledge about the climatic system (e.g., regional models)– Ability to convert “raw” scientific data into useful predictive

information (e.g., probability of rainfall failure)

• Knowledge Integration – Ability to integrate predictive climate information with other

sector information and local knowledge. Easier said than done!– Ability to integrate disparate existing capacities. Find the experts.– Scientists and analysts to learn region specific needs, and develop/

modify assessments in response. Two-way street.– Public (Bureaucrats, NGOs) and private sector needs to be

intimately involved so facilitate feedback to analysts.

Capacity Building (II): Preparedness and Response

• Whose capacity?– The entire “system”:

– Knowledge generators (Scientists)

– Mediators (NGOs, bureaucrats, markets)

– End users (people, banks, private sector)

– Infrastructure (road, rail, telecom)

• What does it require?– Credible and Appropriate Knowledge

– Institutional adjustment

– Financial considerations

• Linking knowledge to action.

– Top-down and bottom up flows

Capacity Building: Three Core Challenges

• Building Effective Knowledge Generation Systems

– A system that moves information from top-down to bottom up and vice-versa.

– Is credible with users

– That links with other efforts.

• Meeting Financial Considerations– Who pays? Who calls the shots?

– How is the money spent?

• Enabling Institutional Transformations– Bridging existing gaps within and among

institutions.

– Making existing institutions more porous

– Building new institutions

CapacityCapacity

Knowledge systems

InstitutionalTransformation

Financing

Some Lessons from Disaster Mitigation Efforts (Red Cross)

• No coherent risk reduction “community”: professionals trying to mitigate impacts are fragmented along institutional boundaries.

• Risk reduction cannot be viewed as a technical problem with technical solutions. It is also a matter of enacting and enforcing laws, building and maintaining accountable institutions, and producing an environment of mutual trust between government and the population.

• Community-based approaches lead to more accurate definition of problems and solutions, because they draw on local expertise in living with disasters. Communities at risk must trust those delivering the warnings.

• Vulnerability and capacity assessment (VCA) can provide participants with greater awareness of their own potentialities. “Instead of seeing themselves as victims, people tell themselves that they can influence what happens.” So VCA is a capacity-building tool as well as a diagnostic measure.

Capacity Building Institution for Climate Change: Some do’s and don’ts

• The scope of the Center must be framed in broad terms - else a lot of narrowly focused capacity could be developed. Not very useful for concerns about economy and human security.

• S&T capacity for knowledge generation is only one aspect of the picture. It is critical that capacity building address how this knowledge is used, and how feedback is incorporated.

• Do not reinvent the wheel. Many organizations tend to begin from scratch when there is no need to. Leverage and build connections to existing capacity.

• Research “success stories” before embarking on mission: Are there other organizations that have been successful in similar missions? (CGIAR Centers? IRI? Red Cross? WHO efforts? )

• Appropriate representation and participation is needed :

– those with understanding of local issues as well as various stakeholders (especially most vulnerable)

– expert communities - suitable balance of S&T, social science, public/private (knowledge generation) as well as implementation. Need to think about entrenched interests!

• Convince Northern institutions to cede monopoly position. Otherwise growth of center may be stunted because of difficulty in attracting talented people, finances, etc.

– Global perspective often only on paper (e.g., IHDP)

Capacity Building Institution for Climate Change: Some do’s and don’ts