Editing IPCC:AR6/SROCC/Chapter-2 (section)

==== 2.3.2.3 Disaster Risk Reduction and Adaptation ====

<div id="section-2-3-2-3disaster-risk-reduction-and-adaptation-block-1"></div>

There is ''medium confidence'' that applying an integrative socioecological risk perspective to flood, avalanche and landslide hazards in high mountain regions paves the way for adaptation strategies that can best address the underlying components of hazard, exposure and vulnerability (Carey et al., 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r632|632]]</sup> ; McDowell and Koppes, 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r633|633]]</sup> ; Allen et al., 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r634|634]]</sup> ; Vaidya et al., 2019 <sup>[[#fn:r635|635]]</sup> ). Some degree of adaptation action has been identified in a number of countries with glacier covered mountain ranges, mostly in the form of reactive responses (rather than formal anticipatory plans) to high mountain hazards (Xenarios et al., 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r636|636]]</sup> ; McDowell et al., 2019 <sup>[[#fn:r637|637]]</sup> ) (Figure 2.9). However, scientific literature reflecting on lessons learned from adaptation efforts generally remains scarce. Specifically for flood and landslide hazards, adaptation strategies that were applied include: hard engineering solutions such as lowering of glacier lake levels, channel engineering, or slope stabilisation that reduce the hazard potential; nature-based solutions such as revegetation efforts to stabilise hazard prone slopes or channels; hazard and risk mapping as a basis for land zoning and early warning systems that reduce potential exposure; various community level interventions to develop disaster response programmes, build local capacities and reduce vulnerability. For example, there is a long tradition of engineered responses to reduce glacier flood risk, most notably beginning in the mid-20th century in Peru (Box 2.4), Italian and Swiss Alps (Haeberli et al., 2001 <sup>[[#fn:r638|638]]</sup> ), and more recently in the Himalaya (Ives et al., 2010 <sup>[[#fn:r639|639]]</sup> ). There is no published evidence that avalanche risk management, through defence structures design and norms, control measures and warning systems, has been modified as an adaptation to climate change, over the past decades. Projected changes in avalanche character bear potential reductions of the effectiveness of current approaches for infrastructure design and avalanche risk management (Ancey and Bain, 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r640|640]]</sup> ).

Early warning systems necessitate strong local engagement and capacity building to ensure communities know how to prepare for and respond to emergencies, and to ensure the long-term sustainability of any such project. In Pakistan and Chile, for instance, glacier flood warnings, evacuation and post-disaster relief have largely been community led (Ashraf et al., 2012 <sup>[[#fn:r641|641]]</sup> ; Anacona et al., 2015b <sup>[[#fn:r642|642]]</sup> ).

Cutter et al. (2012) highlight the post-recovery and reconstruction period as an opportunity to build new resilience and adaptive capacities. Ziegler et al. (2014) <sup>[[#fn:r644|644]]</sup> exemplify consequences when such process is rushed or poorly supported by appropriate long-term planning, as illustrated following the 2013 Kedarnath glacier flood disaster, where guest houses and even schools were being rebuilt in the same exposed locations, driven by short-term perspectives. As changes in the mountain cryosphere, together with socioeconomic, cultural and political developments are producing conditions beyond historical precedent, related responses are suggested to include forward-thinking planning and anticipation of emerging risks and opportunities (Haeberli et al., 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r645|645]]</sup> ).

Researchers, policymakers, international donors and local communities do not always agree on the timing of disaster risk reduction projects and programs, impeding full coordination (Huggel et al., 2015b <sup>[[#fn:r646|646]]</sup> ; Allen et al., 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r647|647]]</sup> ). Several authors highlight the value of improved evidential basis to underpin adaptation planning. Thereby, transdisciplinary and cross-regional collaboration that places human societies at the centre of studies provides a basis for more effective and sustainable adaptation strategies (McDowell et al., 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r648|648]]</sup> ; Carey et al., 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r649|649]]</sup> ; McDowell et al., 2019 <sup>[[#fn:r650|650]]</sup> ; Vaidya et al., 2019 <sup>[[#fn:r651|651]]</sup> ).

In summary, the evidence from regions affected by cryospheric floods, avalanches and landslides generally confirms the findings from the SREX report (Chapter 3), including the requirement for multi-pronged approaches customised to local circumstances, integration of Indigenous knowledge and local knowledge (Cross-Chapter Box 4 in Chapter 1) together with improved scientific understanding and technical capacities, strong local participation and early engagement in the process, and high-level communication and exchange between all actors. Particularly for mountain regions, there is ''high confidence'' that integration of knowledge and practices across natural and social sciences, and the humanities, is most efficient in addressing complex hazards and risks related to glaciers, snow, and permafrost.

<div id="section-2-3-2-3disaster-risk-reduction-and-adaptation-block-2" class="box"></div>

<span id="box-2.4-challenges-to-farmers-and-local-population-related-to-shrinkages-in-the-cryosphere-cordillera-blanca-peru"></span>