Closing the gap between disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation

There is significant overlap between the practice and theory of disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation. However, there is limited coherence and convergence in institutions, organisations and policy frameworks. Both struggle to be incorporated into regular development planning and this aspiration is slowed down by duplicated activities, ineffective use of resources and confusing policies.

A review for the UK’s Departmentof International Development (DfID) explains why policies and programming for disasterrisk reduction (DRR) and climate change adaptation should converge, and howthis could be achieved.

Climate change adaptation is an adjustment innatural or human systems, which occurs in response to actual or expectedclimatic changes or their effects. In human systems, adaptation can reduce harmor exploit opportunities. DRR is the development and application of policies and practices thatminimise risks to vulnerabilities and disasters.

DRR is an essential part ofadaptation – it is the first line of defence againstclimate change impacts, such as increased flooding or regular droughts. DRR is now lending its expertise and humanitarian experience to climate changeadaptation programmes. For example, DRR’s knowledge and expertise about buildingresilience to existing climate variability is a useful starting point for developingadaptation policies. In turn, the DRR community is paying more attention tolonger term changes in the climate and the shifting hazard burden that this maycause.

The overlapping objectives of adaptation and DRR areincreasingly reflected in existing programmes and new initiatives, including:

• processesassociated with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change(UNFCCC) and the Hyogo Framework for Action
• financialmechanisms set up by the UNFCCC and those linked to DRR
• nationallevel initiatives such as the National Adaptation Programmes of Action, which commonlyinclude DRR projects and prioritise ‘early warning’
• a focus on improved sharing of DRRand adaptation tools and knowledge.

Major challenges remain, however– the weakness of the DRR lobby in climate change debates is particularlysignificant. Within multilateral, bilateral and national institutions, climatechange adaptation and DRR departments are often isolated from each other. Bothsectors have also found it difficult to access adequate funding; governmentsoften believe that DRR and adaptation should not be covered by regulardevelopment financing.

The researchers make several recommendationsfor DfID, many of which are relevant to otherpolicymakers:

• Helpthe DRR community to engage more effectively in UNFCCC negotiations, forexample by building the capacity of negotiators with DRR experience.
• IntegrateDRR and adaptation into the guidance and delivery of funding mechanisms, forexample through budgetary support.
• Promotethe integration of DRR and adaptation teams in bilateral, multilateral and civilsociety organisations; DfID could lead the way through its own reorganisation.
• Supportthe generation of integrated knowledge, experience and guidance, including inDfID’s Central Research Department.
• Encourageconvergence in national governments and coordination mechanisms; DfID countryoffices could work with donor partners and local organisations to achieve this.