Search

Purpose of Review This paper discusses three scientific frontiers that need to be advanced in order to support decision-makers and practitioners in charge of operational decisions and action on the design and implementation of concrete adaptation policies and actions. These frontiers refer to going beyond the (1) incremental vs. transformational and (2) maladaptation vs. adaptation dichotomies and to advancing knowledge on (3) adaptation measures’ effectiveness and roles in designing context-specific adaptation pathways. Recent Findings Dealing with adaptation to climate change on the ground often means answering three obvious but critical questions: what to do, where and when? These questions challenge the scientific community’s capacity to link conceptual advances (e.g. on transformative adaptation) and ground-rooted needs across sectors and regions (on solutions, governance arrangements, etc.). Summary We argue that the three abovementioned frontiers represent the most burning challenges to the Adaptation Science community to help addressing climate-related societal needs. We also demonstrate that they are intertwined as moving one frontier forward will facilitate moving the others forward.

Climate resilient development has become the new paradigm for sustainable development influencing theory and practice across all sectors globally—gaining particular momentum in the water sector, since water security is intimately connected to climate change. Climate resilience is increasingly recognised as being inherently political, yet efforts often do not sufficiently engage with context-specific socio-ecological, cultural and political processes, including structural inequalities underlying historically produced vulnerabilities. Depoliticised approaches have been shown to pose barriers to concerted and meaningful change. In this article, world-leading water specialists from academic and practitioner communities reflect on, and share examples of, the importance of keeping people and politics at the centre of work on climate resilient water security. We propose a roadmap to meaningfully engage with the complex politics of climate resilient water security. It is critical to re-politicise climate resilience to enable efforts towards sustainable development goal 6—clean water and sanitation for all.

This paper critically reviews the outcomes of internationally-funded interventions aimed at climate change adaptation and vulnerability reduction. It highlights how some interventions inadvertently reinforce, redistribute or create new sources of vulnerability. Four mechanisms drive these maladaptive outcomes: (i) shallow understanding of the vulnerability context; (ii) inequitable stakeholder participation in both design and implementation; (iii) a retrofitting of adaptation into existing development agendas; and (iv) a lack of critical engagement with how ‘adaptation success’ is defined. Emerging literature shows potential avenues for overcoming the current failure of adaptation interventions to reduce vulnerability: first, shifting the terms of engagement between adaptation practitioners and the local populations participating in adaptation interventions; and second, expanding the understanding of ‘local’ vulnerability to encompass global contexts and drivers of vulnerability. An important lesson from past adaptation interventions is that within current adaptation cum development paradigms, inequitable terms of engagement with ‘vulnerable’ populations are reproduced and the multi-scalar processes driving vulnerability remain largely ignored. In particular, instead of designing projects to change the practices of marginalised populations, learning processes within organisations and with marginalised populations must be placed at the centre of adaptation objectives. We pose the question of whether scholarship and practice need to take a post-adaptation turn akin to post-development, by seeking a pluralism of ideas about adaptation while critically interrogating how these ideas form part of the politics of adaptation and potentially the processes (re)producing vulnerability. We caution that unless the politics of framing and of scale are explicitly tackled, transformational interventions risk having even more adverse effects on marginalised populations than current adaptation.

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to advance the dialogue between the disaster risk reduction (DRR) and adaptation community by investigating their differences, similarities and potential synergies. The paper examines how DRR and adaptation can inform development to tackle the underlying drivers of disaster risk. Design/methodology/approach Based on a risk-based approach to the management of climate variability and change, the paper draws from a critical review of the literature on DRR and adaptation. The study finds that known and emerging risk from disasters continues to increase dramatically in many parts of the world, and that climate change is a key driver behind it. The authors also find that underlying causes of social vulnerability are still not adequately addressed in policy or practice. Linking DRR and adaptation is also complicated by different purposes and perspectives, fragmented knowledge, institutions and policy and poor stakeholder coordination. Findings The author’s analysis suggests that future work in DRR and adaptation should put a much greater emphasis on reducing vulnerability to environmental hazards, if there is truly a desire to tackle the underlying drivers of disaster and climate risks. Originality/value This will require coherent political action on DRR and adaptation aimed at addressing faulty development processes that are the main causes of growing vulnerability. The study concludes with a first look on the new Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction and how it aims to connect with adaptation and development.

Africa is widely held to be highly vulnerable to future climate change and Ethiopia is often cited as one of the most extreme examples. With this in mind we seek to identify entry points to integrate short- to medium-term climate risk reduction within development activities in Africa, drawing from experiences in Ethiopia. To achieve this we employ a range of data and methods. We examine the changing nature of climate risks using analysis of recent climate variability, future climate scenarios and their secondary impacts. We assess the effects of climate variability on agricultural production and national GDP. Entry points and knowledge gaps in relation to mainstreaming climate risks in Ethiopia are identified using the Government's plan for poverty reduction. We end with a case study incorporating climate risks through drought insurance within the current social protection programme in Ethiopia, which provides support to 8.3 million people. Rainfall behaviour in Ethiopia shows no marked emergent changes and future climate projections show continued warming but very mixed patterns of rainfall change. Economic analysis highlights sensitivities within the economy to large-scale drought, however, while the effects are clear in major drought years in other years the relationship is weak. For social protection fairly small positive and negative effects on the number of recipients and frequency of cash payments during drought occur under the extreme range of climate model rainfall projections (2020s). Our analysis highlights several important challenges and opportunities for addressing climate risks. Challenges primarily relate to the large uncertainties in climate projections for parts of Africa, a weak evidence base of complex, often non-deterministic, climate–society interactions and institutional issues. Opportunities relate to the potential for low-regrets measures to reduce vulnerability to current climate variability which can be integrated with relatively modest effort within a shift in Africa from a disaster-focused view of climate to a long-term perspective that emphasises livelihood security and vulnerability reduction.

Adaptation to climate change and disaster risk reduction both focus on society-risk dynamics. However, each field does so through different actors and institutions, and with different time horizons, policy frameworks and patterns in mind. Recently, dialogue between the adaptation and disaster risk-reduction communities has focused on creating stronger links between the two by putting greater effort into learning from each other and collaborating conceptually and practically. In part, this common interest has come from a simultaneous recognition that risk reduction requires a far more holistic approach than has previously been applied. Both adaptation and disaster risk reduction require the same underlying aims, namely, to reduce vulnerability and create sustainable and flexible long-term strategies to reduce the risk of adverse impacts. However, neither is able to address these single-handedly. In both adaptation and disaster risk reduction, there is an implicit acknowledgement that risk is part of everyd...

Global environmental change coupled with increased demand for food and competition for diminishing waterplaces the issue of disaster risk management high on the global political agenda. Drought is one of the mostcomplex natural hazards, affecting natural resources and human development recurrently. Drought affectsagricultural production globally, triggering significant food and health insecurity and habitat loss through landdegradation and desertification. While the consequences of droughts can usually be predicted, preventive action isfrequently absent or insufficient to prevent serious impacts in many regions of the world. We believe that lack of acommon understanding of what drought is stands in the way of cohesive anti-drought action. This paper examinesdrought definitions emerging from influential scholarship, practitioners’ discourse and multilateral policyprocessesthatemphasisedivergingaspectsofthephenomenaofdryperiods,includingthesource,duration,spatialextent, impact and affected stakeholders. This paper begins by examining the concepts of hazard and disaster.It then explores the various perceptions associated with drought and the problems posed by inconsistency indefinitions. It concludes that a common conceptual understanding of drought is essential for effective action toaddress the growing need for reliable food supply, poverty alleviation and increased agricultural productivityglobally.Keywords: Disasters; Drought; Hazard; Perceptions; Risk

Introduction The Editors 1 The Culture of (De-)Constructing Disasters. 1.1 Framing Disasters in the 'Global Village': Cultures of Rationality in Risk, Security, and News Kenneth Hewitt 1.2 Conversations in Catastrophe: Neoliberalism and the cultural construction of disaster risk Anthony Oliver-Smith 1.3 Design by Disasters: Seismic Architecture and Cultural Adaptation to Earthquakes Greg Bankoff 1.4 'Learning from History'? Chances, Problems and Limits of Learning from Historical Natural Disasters Gerrit Schenk 1.5 Disasters, Climate Change and the Significance of 'Culture' Terry Cannon 2 Cultural Linkages to Vulnerability. 2.1 Cultures and contra-cultures: Social divisions and behavioural origins of vulnerabilities to disaster risk James Lewis 2.2 The cultural sense of disasters. Practices and singularities in the context of HIV/AIDS Klaus Geiselhart, Fabian Schlatter, Benedikt Orlowski, and Fred Kruger 2.3 Religion and Belief Systems: Drivers of Vulnerability, Entry Points for Resilience Building? E. Lisa F. Schipper 2.4 The deep roots of nightmares Andrew Crabtree 3 Unequal Risks: Staging and Reducing Disaster Risk 3.1 Celebrity Culture, Entertainment Values ...and Disaster David Alexander 3.2 Disaster Management Culture in Bangladesh: The Enrolment of Local Knowledge by Decision Makers Brian Cook 3.3 Culture's Role in Disaster Risk Reduction: Combining Knowledge Systems on Small Island Developing States (SIDS) Ilan Kelman, JC Gaillard, Jessica Mercer, Kate Crowley, Sarah Marsh, and Julie Morin 3.4 Culture, Gender and Disaster: From Vulnerability to Capacities JC Gaillard, Maureen Fordham, Kristinne Sanz 3.5 A Culture of Resilience and Preparedness - the Last Mile case study Tsunami Risk - Padang City, Indonesia Joern Birkmann Neysa Setiadi and Georg Fiedler 3.6 Participative Vulnerability and Resilience Assessment and the Example of the Tao People (Taiwan) Martin Voss and Leberecht Funk

Maladaptation has received notable policy attention in recent years, but has yet to be fully explored in both conceptual and practical terms. As a consequence, the term suffers from a lack of consensus regarding its definition and application. We outline five areas of conceptual clarity needed in understanding and evaluating maladaptation: 1. Deliberate non-action should, if contributing to increased climate risks and negative outcomes for people and communities, be considered maladaptation. 2. Strategies that do not have a primary focus on climate change should also constitute maladaptation. 3. It is only with time that the success or failure of an intervention will become evident; maladaptation can occur long after a project cycle has completed. One of the principal challenges in evaluation is therefore knowing when to classify a strategy as maladaptive or not. In addition, any assessment of maladaptation has to take into account the discounted value of an intervention’s impacts both now and in the future.4. Ecosystems, livelihoods and economies are not static. Under climate change, climate risks and vulnerabilities to particular climate variables are also likely to shift. Assessments of maladaptation therefore need to recognise the complexities associated with shifting baselines and establishing counterfactuals. 5. Distributional aspects of adaptation need to be recognised in any evaluation of maladaptation. Not only is climate change is likely to affect segments of the population differently, in terms of both direct impacts and influences on wider drivers of development, but the act of implementing (or choosing not to implement) an adaptation strategy can fail to uniformly reduce climate risks across all social groups. Building on this conceptualisation of maladaptation, we present the groundwork for a framework that can lend itself to qualitative and quantitative assessment of adaptation strategies and clarify the differences between four distinct types of adaptation outcomes – ranging from optimal adaptation to maladaptation. In our framework, maladaptation is categorised by determining the impact strategies have on climate risk and wellbeing. The framework also assesses the implications for each category through a distributional and temporal lens. Crucially, we also highlight the framework’s applicability in assessing strategies that do not explicitly seek to address climate change or are not labelled as adaptation (and hence cannot be considered as maladaptation in the traditional sense of the term). This is particularly relevant when recognising the large potential for development activities to impact (positively or negatively) on people’s climate risk, now and into the future. For this reason, we discuss the concept of ‘maladaptation-like’ outcomes, for which the framework can also be applied.We then use the framework to highlight a number of different ‘symptoms’ that can act as early warnings for maladaptive outcomes, hoping to guide policymakers in achieving early diagnosis. In doing so, our aim is to make this onerous concept more tractable and applicable for planners and practitioners so as to make it possible to diagnose strategies that are likely to lead to maladaptation. It is our hope that this work will stimulate debate and galvanise interest in advancing efforts to understand and, critically, to avoid maladaptation in the face of increasing climate risks in the coming decades.

While adaptation has, in the last 3 years, become the most fashionable item on the climate policy agenda, this was not always so. Since the early 1990s, numerous scientists and policy makers have been making the case that adaptation has been the overlooked cousin of greenhouse gas mitigation. As both are seen to be of equal importance, the lack of policy on adaptation is interpreted as a political strategy by developed countries to avoid admitting liability and the financial consequences of this admission. A tension between those in favour of mitigation over adaptation activities has strongly characterized the discourse on climate change policy. However, a closer look at the history of the concept of adaptation as applied in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) process underscores the original intention that the treaty should focus on reducing the source of climate change, rather than on adapting to the changes. Adaptive capacity was considered to be an indicator of the extent to which societies could tolerate changes in climate, and was not seen as a policy objective. As a result of events that have unrolled since the inception of the UNFCCC, needs and perceptions have shifted. Today, there are strong grounds for having adaptation as a policy goal, but it must be recognized that the UNFCCC, and its Kyoto Protocol in particular, are first and foremost about abating greenhouse gas emissions. Thus, adaptation policy may find a more appropriate home beyond the existing climate change regime.

Since entry into force of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 1994, negotiations on controlling future greenhouse gas emissions have turned into one of the largest development issues of our time. In February 2005, the Kyoto Protocol entered into force and 9 months later a historical first meeting of the Kyoto Protocol (COP/MOP 1) was held in Montreal side-by-side with the 11th Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC (COP 11). After several years of stalemate, the Montreal meeting has resulted somewhat unexpectedly in a constructive outcome that has opened the door for new momentum in climate talks. Along with several key technical decisions, an agreement was reached to hold separate talks to discuss the futures of the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol. This paper discusses the main outcomes of the conference and explores possible ways forward. It concludes that success in the UNFCCC process is imperative to address climate change in both developing and developed countries, even if the most effective actions are taken outside the immediate context of the legal process.

The potential for developing synergies between climate change mitigation and adaptation has become a recent focus of both climate research and policy. Presumably the interest in synergies springs from the appeal of creating win–win situations by implementing a single climate policy option. However, institutional complexity, insufficient opportunities and uncertainty surrounding their efficiency and effectiveness present major challenges to the widespread development of synergies. There are also increasing calls for research to define the optimal mix of mitigation and adaptation. These calls are based on the misguided assumption that there is one single optimal mix of adaptation and mitigation options for all possible scenarios of climate and socio-economic change, notwithstanding uncertainty and irrespective of the diversity of values and preferences in society. In the face of current uncertainty, research is needed to provide guidance on how to develop a socially and economically justifiable mix of mitigation, adaptation and development policy, as well as on which elements would be part of such a mix. Moreover, research is needed to establish the conditions under which the process of mainstreaming can be most effective. Rather than actually developing and implementing specific mitigation and adaptation options, the objective of climate policy should be to facilitate such development and implementation as part of sectoral policies. Finally, analysis needs to focus on the optimal use and expected effectiveness of financial instruments, taking into account the mutual effects between these instruments on the one hand, and national and international sectoral investments and official development assistance on the other.

Part 1: Introduction to Key Concepts 1. Up-scaling community-based adaptationL An introduction to the edited volume 2. Adaptive capacity 3. Adapting Development Part 2: Making it Happen: Tools and framewords for scaling up CBA 4. Economics of CBA 5. Sustainable Financing Mechanism for Upscaling CBA 6. How is community-based adaptation 'scaled up' in environmental risk assessment? Lessons from Ecosystem Based Adaptation 7. Scaling-up the use of tools for community-based adaptation: Issues and challenge 8. Agriculture, Local Resilience and Climate Prediction Services 9. Serious Fun: Scaling Up Community Based Adaptation through Experiential Learning Part 3: Scaling up CBA in sectors 10. Scaling Up Community Based Adaptation to Protect Community Health from Climate Change 11. Down Home it all Looks the Same: Building Synergisms between Community-based Disaster Risk Reduction (CBDRR) and Community-based Climate Change Adaptation (CBA) 12. Upscaling CBA in Agriculture 13. Community Participation in Urban Adaptation to Climate Change: Potential and Limits for CBA Approaches 14. Gender in Scaling up Community based Adaptation to Climate Change 15. When Disaster 16. The Role of Ecosystems in Climate Change Adaptation: Lessons fro Scaling Up

Many climate change adaptation efforts aim to address the implications of potential changes in the frequency, intensity, and duration of weather and climate events that affect the risk of extreme impacts on human society. That risk is determined not only by the climate and weather events (the hazards) but also by the exposure and vulnerability to these hazards. Therefore, effective adaptation and disaster risk management strategies and practices also depend on a rigorous understanding of the dimensions of exposure and vulnerability, as well as a proper assessment of changes in those dimensions. This chapter aims to provide that understanding and assessment, by further detailing the determinants of risk as presented in Chapter 1. The first sections of this chapter elucidate the concepts that are needed to define and understand risk, and show that risk originates from a combination of social processes and their interaction with the environment (Sections 2.2 and 2.3), and highlight the role of coping and adaptive capacities (Section 2.4). The following section (2.5) describes the different dimensions of vulnerability and exposure as well as trends therein. Given that exposure and vulnerability are highly context-specific, this section is by definition limited to a general overview (a more quantitative perspective on trends is provided in Chapter 4). A methodological discussion (Section 2.6) of approaches to identify and assess risk provides indications of how the dimensions of exposure and vulnerability can be explored in specific contexts, such as adaptation planning, and the central role of risk perception and risk communication. The chapter concludes with a cross-cutting discussion of risk accumulation and the nature of disasters.

This paper reviews how Nicaragua has recovered from Hurricane Mitch of October 1998. In particular, it examines how the assumptions and claims that were made during initial recovery planning have proven relevant in light of subsequent development. One must consider the response to Hurricane Mitch from the perspective of the broader trends that have driven recovery, including household, community and government initiatives and the wider economic context. Recovery efforts have not 'transformed' Nicaragua. In fact, market upheavals and livelihood changes in rural areas have had a more profound impact on poverty profiles than recovery programmes. Social protection programmes have been piloted, but patron-client ties and relations with aid providers are still more reliable sources of support in a time of crisis. Risk reduction has become more deeply integrated into the rural development discourse than was the case before the disaster, but risk reduction initiatives continue to place undue emphasis on hazard response rather than addressing vulnerability.

Following decades of research, the dynamics and causes of natural hazards have increasingly well-understood scientific explanations. Techniques for monitoring, assessing and understanding natural hazards – including floods, droughts, earthquakes, and storms of all types – have emerged from scientific research, offering extensive scientific insights into the causes of these hazards. Simultaneously, the understanding that physical and socioeconomic vulnerability to hazards plays a more important role in determining the experienced impact than do the hazards themselves is becoming established wisdom (Wisner/Blaikie/Cannon et al. 2004). Despite this, many societies worldwide continue to believe strongly in a divine explanation for natural hazards and their consequences, reflecting attempts in earlier civilisations to explain the “inexplicable”. Historically, disaster events have been characterised as a threat resulting from transgression of moral codes (Fountain/Kindon/Murray 2004). These explanations have cultural significance, with disaster events and explanations playing a role in defining societies’ social and cultural heritage by featuring in folklore, traditional music and festivals, but they can also be detrimental to the well-being of many poor people because they circumvent arguments about causes of risk and approaches to its reduction. Although perceptions are a vital focus of studies on hazards and disasters (Gaillard 2007), belief systems including religion rarely feature in discussions about reducing risk. This often-forgotten aspect could have fundamental implications for how successful societies are at reducing risk from natural hazards, including climate change, because of the differential ways in which belief systems influence attitudes and behaviour (Chester 2005), and ultimately vulnerability to hazards.

From 1 to 12 December 2003, the Ninth Session of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention took place in Milan, Italy. This conference continued the laborious effort of developing an international climate regime by preparing for the Kyoto Protocol’s entry into force. Some two dozen decisions were adopted on a wide range of options for responding to climate change. This paper assesses the progress achieved at the conference on a number of issues. Among these were operational details for implementing forestry projects under the Convention’s Clean Development Mechanism, and guidelines for reporting on greenhouse gas emissions and removals from agriculture, forestry and land-use change. Parties also decided on rules with respect to two funds, the Special Climate Change Fund and the Least Developed Country Fund. With respect to developing countries, Parties continued discussions on rules for building response capacity in light of the expected adverse effects of climate change and transferring environmentally sound technology. They also discussed how to incorporate scientific advice from the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change into the negotiations. Although Russia did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol prior to the conference, Milan demonstrated momentum and interest among Parties to support the climate regime. Nevertheless, it is doubtful whether the detailed discussions were able to contribute to preparing for the long term. To this end, this paper concludes that more discussion and leadership is required to bridge the North/South gap if a post-2012 climate regime is to stand.