Capacity Building for Climate Change: A Risk Management Approach

1. Capacity Building for Climate Change: A Risk Management Approach Milind Kandlikar Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability University of British Columbia Ambuj Sagar John F. Kennedy School of Government Harvard University

2. 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.

3. Magnitude of Weather Impacts Increasing Vulnerability from Weather Risks Source: Benito Muller, Presentation at SB16

4. Per-Capita Weather Impacts Climate Vulnerability and Development: Common concerns Source: Benito Muller, Presentation at SB16 Source: World Disasters Report 2001

5. Global Weather Related Losses in US $ Billion 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Total Economic Loss Average loss per Decade Insured Loss Mean Insured Loss per Decade 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

6. 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

7. Source: Stockholm Environmental Institute Many different factors can make you more or less vulnerable to climate variability

8. Coping with Climate Variability: A Risk Perspective Science of Climate Useful knowledge Broad Sector Studies Decision making under uncertainty Climate only one input! Design of local strategies Incorporation into practice Training & policy shift Disaster Relief Management Current Barriers New Technologies and Political ‘will’

9. 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. Predictability Uncertainty Local Regional Global Scale

10. 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 Policy & Politics Other Stressors

11. Capacity Building (I): Knowledge Generation and Integration • Knowledge Generation • Knowledge about the climatic system (e.g., regional models) • Ability toconvert “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.

12. 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

13. Capacity 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 Capacity Financing Knowledge systems Institutional Transformation

14. Some Lessons from Disaster Mitigation Efforts (Red Cross) • No coherent risk reduction “community”:professionals trying to mitigate impacts are fragmented along institutional boundaries. • Risk reductioncannot 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 approacheslead 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.

15. 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? )

16. Capacity Building Institution for Climate Change: Some do’s and don’ts • 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)