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

==== 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>