Editing IPCC:AR6/SROCC/Chapter-6 (section)

=== 6.9.2 Transformative Governance and Integrating Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation ===

<div id="section-6-9-2transformative-governance-and-integrating-disaster-risk-reduction-and-climate-change-adaptation-block-1"></div>

Governance for effective adaptation defined as changes in practice, process and structure (Smit et al., 2001) considers equity, legitimacy and co-benefits (Patterson et al., 2018) appropriate to the issue (Young, 2002). Countries, sectors and localities place different values and perspectives on these categories, and they can change over time (Plummer et al., 2017; see Cross-Chapter Boxes 1 and 2 in Chapter 1). Transformative governance embraces a wider application of climate change-induced mitigation and adaptation strategies to generate fundamental change. It is society-wide and goes beyond the goals of climate change policies and measures (IPCC, 2013; Patterson et al., 2018). It is distinguished from conventional strategies and solutions, as it includes both natural and human systems and intertwines with the SDGs (Fleurbaey et al., 2014; Tàbara et al., 2019). Transformational adaptation is also needed when incremental adaptation to extreme events and abrupt changes are insufficient (Kates et al., 2012). Planned retreat from SLR and climate refugees illustrate the need for transformative governance as the current coastal and risk management regimes do not have the capacity to handle these issues adequately. Inclusion of bilateral and regional agreements related to climate-induced migration (McAdam, 2011), land use planning frameworks to respond to policy, institutional and cultural implications of migration (Matthews and Potts, 2018), and identification of beneficiaries of managed retreat (Hino et al., 2017) along with positive opportunities for migrants to diversify income and avoid being in harm’s way (Gemenne, 2015) are steps towards transformative governance. Retreat and migration entail local responses that include indigenous and local knowledges and perspectives that can be applied to solve these issues (Farbotko and Lazrus, 2012; Hilhorst et al., 2015; Tharakan, 2015; Iloka, 2016; Nunn et al., 2016; see also Cross-Chapter Boxes 2 and 5 in Chapter 1) . Another example is the Polar region which has started to pursue transformative governance given the potential for increased tourism and cooperation that require changed governance structure (see Sections 3.5.2; 3.5.5 and Table 3.7 in Chapter 3). Accountability for transformations and transitions has been identified as a crucial factor to support responsible action and strengthen climate governance (Edmondson and Levy, 2019).

Though discourse abounds related to transformative governance, it falls short of its ideal in climate change action plans as it is unclear whether communities have the capacity to engage in substantive change to build low-carbon and resilient communities (Burch et al., 2014). The results of a study on the USA by Tang and Dessai (2012) indicate that climate adaptation and mitigation plans’ treatment of extreme climate conditions and disaster preparedness is limited. Moreover, risk communication with the public is part of an integrated disaster warning system, but behavioural response to disaster warnings are often governed by personal beliefs about the nature of the hazard; and ultimately swaying individual decisions to comply with or ignore the warning message (Mayhorn and McLaughlin, 2014). New approaches such as the ‘first mile’ of early warning systems, built on the specific needs from beneficiary communities instead of on technological progress, are being implemented (Zommers et al., 2017); but they have not yet been assessed.

Coupling disaster risk reduction and management with climate change adaptation effort—following the set targets of UNFCCC and the Sendai Framework—has shown progress since SREX and AR5 (e.g., Lawrence and Saunders, 2017). Substantial literature exists on the topic, but there is little assessment of practices on the ground in the implementation of integrated disaster management and climate change adaptation (Nalau et al., 2016) including health (Banwell et al., 2018). Mainstreaming disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation within and across sectors is considered essential to ensure administrative coordination and coherence across sectoral plans and policies (Shimizu and Clark, 2015) ( ''medium confidence'' ). Financial and technological support and capacity building especially related to public works, savings or loans enable households to build assets and improve livelihoods (Ulrichs et al., 2019). No assessment is available so far of the efficiency and effectiveness of mainstreaming especially related to the integration of climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction, let alone for abrupt and extreme impacts.

Case studies of integration note major problems, for example, weak coordination among government agencies (Seidler et al., 2018); lack of data and user-friendly information to guide decision making at the local level (Jones et al., 2017) and the need for the central governmental support for data availability (Putra et al., 2018); fragmentation due to competing local objectives (Forino et al., 2017); dependence on regional and international frameworks in the absence of a national framework (Rivera and Wamsler, 2014); limited availability of formal training in integration (Hemstock et al., 2017); and turf wars between responsible government agencies (Nemakonde and Van Niekerk, 2017). The case of Pacific islands such as Vanuatu is indicative of these problems. Though they have coupled disaster risk reduction with climate change adaptation, problems manifest in relationships, responsibilities, capacity and expectations between government agencies and other actors (e.g., international donors and non-governmental organisations), as analysed by Vanuatu’s response to the Category 5 TC Pam (Nalau et al., 2017). Some solutions are proposed such as getting all the actors on the same page and focusing on reducing vulnerability to longer-term environmental hazards (Schipper et al., 2016); focussing on specific goals, objectives and strategies (Organization of American States, 2014); assigning a single department to handle integration (APEC, 2016); and citing real-life decision examples in national guidelines (Bell et al., 2017). Place-based responses also entail the inclusion and the acknowledgement of indigenous and local knowledge for an enhanced resilience pathway (Hilhorst et al., 2015; Tharakan, 2015; Iloka, 2016; Nunn et al., 2016).

Given the significance of disaster risk reduction to enhance climate change adaptation regardless of the integration of the two, the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030 focuses on seven targets and four priorities that foster participation beyond information sharing and include partnerships and collaborations within society (UNISDR, 2015). Inclusion of, and coordination between, different stakeholders is a key component for managing risks of extreme events, including in a changing climate ( ''medium confidence'' ). In the Wadden Sea coastal area, for example, crucial parts of coordinating disaster risk reduction, include (i) responsibility-sharing among authorities, sectors and stakeholders, (ii) all-of-society engagement and partnership with empowerment and inclusive participation, and (iii) development of international, regional, subregional and transboundary cooperation schemes (González-Riancho et al., 2017). In India, a change in the coordination structure was pivotal in reducing fatalities from over 10,000 to 45 between cyclones Orissa (Odisha) in 1999 and Phailin in 2013. In this case, the Disaster Management Act of 2005 established a comprehensive policy and command and control system during disaster response that empowered the most qualified government officials regardless of their rank. This system provides authority to and holds accountability for those in charge of ground operations. Though this rigid system may sometimes be questioned, a unified and top-down command structure works better when there is a lack of mature disaster management system (Pal et al., 2017).

In sum, limiting the risk from the impact of extreme events and abrupt changes leads to successful adaptation to climate change if climate-affected sectors and disaster management relevant agencies coordinate well ( ''high confidence'' ). Transformative governance, including successful integration of disaster risk management and climate change adaptation, empowerment of vulnerable groups, accountability of governmental decisions, and longer-term planning promotes climate-resilient development pathways ( ''high confidence'' ). An enhanced understanding of the institutional capacity as well as the legal framework addressing abrupt changes and extreme events is especially important ( ''medium confidence'' ).

Knowledge gaps limit the identification of the most relevant actions to achieve and pursue climate-resilient development pathways. Since SREX and AR5, there is little research on indirect impacts of climatic extremes on ecosystems and consequences on poverty and livelihoods critical to the SDGs. For example, adaptation solutions and limitations, including governance challenges, for the ocean do not include extreme events (Sections 5.5.2 and 5.5.3 in Chapter 5). Further, there is only scant literature on L&amp;D, including non-economic impacts, resulting from well-documented processes such as MHWs (Section 6.4), SLR impacts on low-lying coasts (Section 4.3), and cryosphere changes (Section 2.3; Chapter 3) ( ''high confidence'' ). Limited information is available concerning the cost-benefit and effectiveness of risk-reduction measures. Coupling risk transfer and insurance mechanisms with risk reduction measures, for example, can enhance the cost-effectiveness of adapting to climate change ( ''medium confidence'' ).

<span id="knowledge-gaps"></span>