E. Lisa F. Schipper

Meeting at the crossroads?: Exploring the linkages between climate change adaptation and disaster risk 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 everyday life, and thus social development plays a vital role. An outstanding question for these communities to address is whether a convergence of the two tracks is desirable. Furthermore, if such a convergence were to occur, what forms would it take and what outcomes could be expected.

Religion as an integral part of determining and reducing Climate Change and Disaster Risk: An agenda for research

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.

Linking disaster risk reduction, climate change and development

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.

UNFCCC COP 11 and COP/MOP 1 At Last, Some Hope?

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.