Editing IPCC:AR6/SRCCL/Chapter-7 (section)

=== 7.4.3 Policies responding to climate-related extremes ===

<div id="section-7-4-3-1-risk-management-instruments"></div>

<span id="risk-management-instruments"></span>
==== 7.4.3.1 Risk management instruments ====

<div id="section-7-4-3-1-risk-management-instruments-block-1"></div>

Risk management addressing climate change has broadened to include mitigation, adaptation and disaster preparedness in a process using instruments facilitating contingency and cross-sectoral planning (Hurlimann and March 2012 <sup>[[#fn:r481|481]]</sup> ; Oels 2013 <sup>[[#fn:r482|482]]</sup> ), social community planning, and strategic, long-term planning (Serrao-Neumann et al. 2015a <sup>[[#fn:r483|483]]</sup> ). A comprehensive consideration integrates principles from informal support mechanisms to enhance formal social protection programming (Mobarak and Rosenzweig 2013 <sup>[[#fn:r484|484]]</sup> ; Stavropoulou et al. 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r485|485]]</sup> ) such that the social safety net, disaster risk management, and climate change adaptation are all considered to enhance livelihoods of the chronic poor (see char dwellers and recurrent floods in Jamuna and Brahmaputra basins of Bangladesh Awal 2013) (Section 7.4.7). Iterative risk management is an ongoing process of assessment, action, reassessment and response (Mochizuki et al. 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r487|487]]</sup> ) (Sections 7.5.2 and 7.4.7.2).

Important elements of risk planning include education, and creation of hazard and risk maps. Important elements of predicting include hydrological and meteorological monitoring to forecast weather, seasonal climate forecasts, aridity, flood and extreme weather. Effective responding requires robust communication systems that pass on information to enable response (Cools et al. 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r488|488]]</sup> ).

Gauging the effectiveness of policy instruments is challenging. Timescales may influence outcomes. To evaluate effectiveness researchers, programme managers and communities strive to develop consistency, comparability, comprehensiveness and coherence in their tracking. In other words, practitioners utilise a consistent and operational conceptualisation of adaptation; focus on comparable units of analysis; develop comprehensive datasets on adaptation action; and are coherent with an understanding of what constitutes real adaptation (Ford and Berrang-Ford 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r489|489]]</sup> ). Increasing the use of systematic reviews or randomised evaluations may also be helpful (Alverson and Zommers 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r490|490]]</sup> ).

Many risk management policy instruments are referred to by the International Organization of Standardization which lists risk management principles, guidelines, and frameworks for explaining the elements of an effective risk management programme (ISO 2009 <sup>[[#fn:r491|491]]</sup> ). The standard provides practical risk management instruments and makes a business case for risk management investments (McClean et al. 2010 <sup>[[#fn:r492|492]]</sup> ). Insurance addresses impacts associated with extreme weather events (storms, floods, droughts, temperature extremes), but it can provide disincentives for reducing disaster risk at the local level through the transfer of risk spatially to other places or temporally to the future (Cutter et al. 2012b <sup>[[#fn:r493|493]]</sup> ) and uptake is unequally distributed across regions and hazards (Lal et al. 2012 <sup>[[#fn:r494|494]]</sup> ). Insurance instruments (Sections 7.4.2 and 7.4.6) can take many forms (traditional indemnity based, market-based crop insurance, property insurance), and some are linked to livelihoods sensitive to weather as well as food security (linked to social safety-net programmes) and ecosystems (coral reefs and mangroves). Insurance instruments can also provide a framework for risk signals to adaptation planning and implementation and facilitate financial buffering when climate impacts exceed current capabilities delivered through both public and private finance (Bogale 2015b <sup>[[#fn:r495|495]]</sup> ; Greatrex et al. 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r496|496]]</sup> ; Surminski et al. 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r497|497]]</sup> ). A holistic consideration of all instruments responding to extreme impacts of climate change (drought, flood, etc.) is required when assessing if policy instruments are promoting livelihood capitals and contributing to the resilience of people and communities (Hurlbert 2018b <sup>[[#fn:r498|498]]</sup> ). This holistic consideration of policy instruments leads to a consideration of risk governance (Section 7.6).

Early warning systems are critical policy instruments for protecting lives and property, adapting to climate change, and effecting adaptive climate risk management ( ''high confidence'' ) (Selvaraju 2011 <sup>[[#fn:r499|499]]</sup> ; Cools et al. 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r500|500]]</sup> ; Travis 2013 <sup>[[#fn:r501|501]]</sup> ; Henriksen et al. 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r502|502]]</sup> ; Seng 2013 <sup>[[#fn:r503|503]]</sup> ; Kanta Kafle 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r504|504]]</sup> ; Garcia and Fearnley 2012 <sup>[[#fn:r505|505]]</sup> ). Early warning systems exist at different levels and for different purposes, including the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations’ Global Information and Early Warning System on Food and Agriculture (GIEWS), United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Famine Early Warning System Network (FEWS-NET), national and local extreme weather, species extinction, community-based flood and landslide, and informal pastoral drought early warning systems (Kanta Kafle 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r506|506]]</sup> ). Medium-term warning systems can identify areas of concern, hotspots of vulnerabilities and sensitivities, or critical zones of land degradation (areas of concern) (see Chapter 6) critical to reduce risks over five to 10 years (Selvaraju 2012 <sup>[[#fn:r507|507]]</sup> ). Early warning systems for dangerous climate shifts are emerging, with considerations of rate of onset, intensity, spatial distribution and predictability. Growing research in the area is considering positive and negative lessons learned from existing hazard early warning systems, including lead time and warning response (Travis 2013 <sup>[[#fn:r508|508]]</sup> ).

For effectiveness, communication methods are best adapted to local circumstances, religious and cultural-based structures and norms, information technology, and local institutional capacity (Cools et al. 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r509|509]]</sup> ; Seng 2013 <sup>[[#fn:r510|510]]</sup> ). Considerations of governance or the actors and architecture within the socio-ecological system, is an important feature of successful early warning system development (Seng 2013 <sup>[[#fn:r511|511]]</sup> ). Effective early warning systems consider the critical links between hazard monitoring, risk assessment, forecasting tools, warning and dissemination (Garcia and Fearnley 2012 <sup>[[#fn:r512|512]]</sup> ). These effective systems incorporate local context by defining accountability, responsibility, acknowledging the importance of risk perceptions and trust for an effective response to warnings. Although increasing levels and standardisation nationally and globally is important, revising these systems through participatory approaches cognisant of the tension with technocratic approaches improves success (Cools et al. 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r513|513]]</sup> ; Henriksen et al. 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r514|514]]</sup> ; Garcia and Fearnley 2012 <sup>[[#fn:r515|515]]</sup> ).

<div id="section-7-4-3-2-drought-related-risk-minimising-instruments"></div>

<span id="drought-related-risk-minimising-instruments"></span>
==== 7.4.3.2 Drought-related risk minimising instruments ====

<div id="section-7-4-3-2-drought-related-risk-minimising-instruments-block-1"></div>

A more detailed review of drought instruments, and three broad policy approaches for responding to drought, is provided in Cross- Chapter Box 5 in Chapter 3. Three broad approaches include: (i) early warning systems and response to the disaster of drought (through instruments such as disaster assistance or crop insurance); (ii) disaster response ex-ante preparation (through drought preparedness plans); and (iii) drought risk mitigation (proactive polices to improve water-use efficiency, make adjustments to water allocation, funds or loans to build technology such as dugouts or improved soil management practices).

Drought plans are still predominantly reactive crisis management plans rather than proactive risk management and reduction plans. Reactive crisis management plans treat only the symptoms and are inefficient drought management practices. More efficient drought preparedness instruments are those that address the underlying vulnerability associated with the impacts of drought, thereby building agricultural producer adaptive capacity and resilience ( ''high confidence'' ) (Cross-Chapter Box 5 in Chapter 3).

<div id="section-7-4-3-3-fire-related-risk-minimising-instruments"></div>

<span id="fire-related-risk-minimising-instruments"></span>
==== 7.4.3.3 Fire-related risk minimising instruments ====

<div id="section-7-4-3-3-fire-related-risk-minimising-instruments-block-1"></div>

There is ''robust evidence'' and ''high agreement'' that fire strategies need to be tailored to site-specific conditions in an adaptive application that is assessed and reassessed over time (Dellasala et al. 2004 <sup>[[#fn:r516|516]]</sup> ; Rocca et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r517|517]]</sup> ). Strategies for fire management include fire suppression, prescribed fire and mechanical treatments (such as thinning the canopy), and allowing wildfire with little or no active management (Rocca et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r518|518]]</sup> ). Fire suppression can degrade the effectiveness of forest fire management in the long run (Collins et al. 2013 <sup>[[#fn:r519|519]]</sup> ).

Different forest types have different fire regimes and require different fire management policies (Dellasala et al. 2004 <sup>[[#fn:r520|520]]</sup> ). For instance, Cerrado, a fire dependent savannah, utilises a different fire management policy and fire suppression policy (Durigan and Ratter 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r521|521]]</sup> ). The choice of strategy depends on local considerations, including land ownership patterns, dynamics of local meteorology, budgets, logistics, federal and local policies, tolerance for risk and landscape contexts. In addition, there are trade-offs among the management alternatives and often no single management strategy will simultaneously optimise ES, including water quality and quantity, carbon sequestration, or run- off erosion prevention (Rocca et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r522|522]]</sup> ).

<div id="section-7-4-3-4-flood-related-risk-minimising-instruments"></div>

<span id="flood-related-risk-minimising-instruments"></span>
==== 7.4.3.4 Flood-related risk minimising instruments ====

<div id="section-7-4-3-4-flood-related-risk-minimising-instruments-block-1"></div>

Flood risk management consists of command and control measures, including spatial planning and engineered flood defences (Filatova 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r523|523]]</sup> ), financial incentive instruments issued by regional or national governments to facilitate cooperative approaches through local planning, enhancing community understanding and political support for safe development patterns and building standards, and regulations requiring local government participation and support for local flood planning (Burby and May 2009 <sup>[[#fn:r524|524]]</sup> ). However, Filatova (2014) found that if autonomous adaptation is downplayed, people are more likely to make land-use choices that collectively lead to increased flood risks and leave costs to governments. Taxes and subsidies that do not encourage (and even counter) perverse behaviour (such as rebuilding in flood zones) are important instruments mitigating this cost to government. Flood insurance has been found to be maladaptive as it encourages rebuilding in flood zones (O’Hare et al. 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r525|525]]</sup> ) and government flood disaster assistance negatively impacts on average insurance coverage the following year (Kousky et al. 2018a <sup>[[#fn:r526|526]]</sup> ). Modifications to flood insurance can counter perverse behaviour. One example is the provision of discounts on flood insurance for localities that undertake one of 18 flood mitigation activities, including structural mitigation (constructing dykes, dams, flood control reservoirs), and non-structural initiatives such as point source control and watershed management efforts, education and maintenance of flood-related databases (Zahran et al. 2010 <sup>[[#fn:r527|527]]</sup> ). Flood insurance that provides incentives for flood mitigation, marketable permits and transferable development rights (see Case study: Flood and food security in Section 7.6) instruments can provide price signals to stimulate autonomous adaptation, countering barriers of path dependency, and the time lag between private investment decisions and consequences (Filatova 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r528|528]]</sup> ). To build adaptive capacity, consideration needs to be made of policy instruments responding to flood, including flood zone mapping, land-use planning, flood zone building restrictions, business and crop insurance, disaster assistance payments, preventative instruments, (including environmental farm planning, e.g., soil and water management (see Chapter 6)), farm infrastructure projects, and recovery from debilitating flood losses ultimately through bankruptcy (Hurlbert 2018a <sup>[[#fn:r529|529]]</sup> ). Non-structural measures have been found to advance sustainable development as they are more reversible, commonly acceptable and environmentally friendly (Kundzewicz 2002 <sup>[[#fn:r530|530]]</sup> ).

<span id="policies-responding-to-greenhouse-gas-ghg-fluxes"></span>