Stephane Hallegatte

Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation: Climate Change: New Dimensions in Disaster Risk, Exposure, Vulnerability, and Resilience

Executive Summary Disaster signifies extreme impacts suffered when hazardous physical events interact with vulnerable social conditions to severely alter the normal functioning of a community or a society (high confidence) . Social vulnerability and exposure are key determinants of disaster risk and help explain why non-extreme physical events and chronic hazards can also lead to extreme impacts and disasters, while some extreme events do not. Extreme impacts on human, ecological, or physical systems derive from individual extreme or non-extreme events, or a compounding of events or their impacts (for example, drought creating the conditions for wildfire, followed by heavy rain leading to landslides and soil erosion). [1.1.2.1, 1.1.2.3, 1.2.3.1, 1.3] Management strategies based on the reduction of everyday or chronic risk factors and on the reduction of risk associated with non-extreme events, as opposed to strategies based solely on the exceptional or extreme, provide a mechanism that facilitates the reduction of disaster risk and the preparation for and response to extremes and disasters (high confidence) . Effective adaptation to climate change requires an understanding of the diverse ways in which social processes and development pathways shape disaster risk. Disaster risk is often causally related to ongoing, chronic, or persistent environmental, economic, or social risk factors. [1.1.2.2, 1.1.3, 1.1.4.1, 1.3.2] Development practice, policy, and outcomes are critical to shaping disaster risk (high confidence) . Disaster risk may be increased by shortcomings in development. Reductions in the rate of depletion of ecosystem services, improvements in urban land use and territorial organization processes, the strengthening of rural livelihoods, and general and specific advances in urban and rural governance advance the composite agenda of poverty reduction, disaster risk reduction, and adaptation to climate change. [1.1.2.1, 1.1.2.2, 1.1.3, 1.3.2, 1.3.3]

Decarbonizing development: three steps to a zero-carbon future

This report lays out three steps for a smooth transition to a zero-carbon future and provides data, examples and policy advice to help countries makes the shift. Overview Getting to zero net emissions and stabilizing climate change starts with planning for the long-term future and not stopping at short-term goals. It means getting prices right as part of a broad policy package that can trigger changes in both investments and behaviors, and it requires smoothing the transition for those most affected. A new World Bank report walks policymakers through those three steps with data, examples and policy advice to help put countries on a path to decarbonizing their development in a smooth and orderly way. The solutions exist, and they are affordable – if governments take action today, the report says.

Unbreakable : building the resilience of the poor in the face of natural disasters

Economic losses from natural disasters totaled 92 billion dollars in 2015. Such statements, all too commonplace, assess the severity of disasters by no other measure than the damage inflicted on buildings, infrastructure, and agricultural production. But 1 dollars in losses does not mean the same thing to a rich person that it does to a poor person; the gravity of a

Assessing Climate Change Impacts, Sea Level Rise and Storm Surge Risk in Port Cities

92 billion loss depends on who experiences it. By focusing on aggregate losses—the traditional approach todisaster risk—we restrict our consideration to how disasters affect those wealthy enough to have assets to lose in the first place, and largely ignore the plight of poor people.This report moves beyond asset and production losses and shifts its attention to how natural disasters affect people’s well-being. Disasters are far greater threats to well-being than traditional estimates suggest. This approach provides a more nuanced view of natural disasters than usual reporting, and a perspective that takes fuller account of poor people’s vulnerabilities. Poor people suffer only a fraction of economic losses caused by disasters, but they bear the brunt of their consequences. Understanding the disproportionate vulnerability of poor people also makes the case for setting new intervention priorities to lessen the impact of natural disasters on the world’s poor, such as expanding financial inclusion, disaster risk and health insurance, social protection and adaptive safety nets, contingent finance and reserve funds, and universal access to early warning systems.Efforts to reduce disaster risk and poverty go hand in hand. Because disasters impoverish so many, disaster risk management is inseparable from poverty reduction policy, and vice versa. As climate change magnifies natural hazards, and because protection infrastructure alone cannot eliminate risk, a more resilient population has never been more critical to breaking the cycle of disaster-induced poverty.

Buses, houses or cash ? socio-economic, spatial and environmental consequences of reforming public transport subsidies in Buenos Aires

This study illustrates a methodology to assess economic impacts of climate change at city scale, focusing on sea level rise and storm surge. It is based on a statistical analysis of past storm surges in the studied city, matched to a geographical-information analysis of the population and asset exposure in the city, for various sea levels and storm surge characteristics. An assessment of direct losses in case of storm surge (i.e. of the damages to buildings and building content) can then be computed and the corresponding indirect losses – in the form of production and job losses, reconstruction duration, amongst other loses – deduced, allowing a risk analysis of the effectiveness of coastal flood protections, including risk changes due to climate change and sea level rise. This methodology is applied in the city of Copenhagen, capital of Denmark, which is potentially vulnerable to the effects of variability in sea level, as a low lying city....

Building world narratives for climate change impact, adaptation and vulnerability analyses

Transit subsidies in the urban area of Buenos Aires are high, amounting to a total of US

A Cost-Benefit Analysis of the New Orleans Flood Protection System

5 billion for 2012. They have been challenged on several counts: suspected of driving urban sprawl and associated infrastructure costs, diverting resources from system maintenance, and failing to reach the poor among others. In this context, this paper examines the impacts of cost recovery fares under a range of different policy scenarios that could cushion the impact of fare increases. The alternative scenarios that are scrutinized are the uncompensated removal of the transit subsidy, its replacement by a lump sum transfer, and its replacement by two different construction subsidy schemes. Using a dynamic urban model (NEDUM-2D) calibrated for the urban area of Buenos Aires, all scenarios are assessed along four dimensions: (i) the efficiency/welfare impact on residents, (ii) the impacts on the internal structure of the urban area and sprawl, (iii) the impact on commuting-related carbon dioxide emissions, and (iv) the redistributive impacts, with a focus on the poorest households. A series of results emerge. First, there are consumption-related welfare gains for residents associated with replacing the transit subsidy by a lump sum transfer. Second, there are only moderate reductions in urbanization over time and thus infrastructure costs associated with the subsidy removal. Third, the replacement of the transit subsidy leads to only moderate increases in carbon dioxide emissions despite lower public transport mode shares, because households will chose to settle closer to jobs, thereby reducing commuting distances. Finally, the replacement of the transit subsidy by a lump sum transfer will lead to short-term harsh redistributive impacts for captive transit users in some areas of the urban area. Medium-term adjustments of land and housing prices will partially mitigate the negative impacts of higher transport costs for tenants, but will further hurt homeowners.