英文摘要: | Truly understanding climate-related disaster risk, and the management of that risk, can inform effective action on climate adaptation and the loss and damage mechanism, the main vehicle under the UN Climate Convention for dealing with climate-related effects, including residual impacts after adaptation.
Despite a dramatic start concurrent with the massive destruction wrought by typhoon Haiyan on the Philippines, the 19th Conference of the Parties to the UN Climate Convention has been considered as another one with little impact. Literally in the last minute, however, it saw the establishment of the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage. The exact form of this vehicle, which is scheduled for further development, is still largely unclear and will be heavily debated over the coming three years. As the first of a number of functions, it is to focus on “Enhancing knowledge and understanding of comprehensive risk management approaches...”1. Climate-related disaster risk management is a central focus of the mechanism, and has been fundamental for climate policy and science2. Recent commentaries in Nature Climate Change suggested the upgrading of vulnerability and risk assessments3, working towards climate attribution4 and using stress-testing techniques as ways towards an improved understanding of the risk5. Yet, what else is specifically necessary for comprehensively tackling disaster risk and risk management in light of climate change? In particular, regarding debate on the loss and damage mechanism, how can some of the stumbling blocks be avoided?
Warsaw saw the confirmation that many climate negotiators and actors agree in principle on international responsibility for predictable and adequate support for the victims of climate change, especially where the costs of climate-related events exceed capacity. However, the concepts of compensation and liability are regarded by many 'northern' negotiators as 'red lines', as they are associated with blame6. Also, claims for compensation require solid evidence that climate change is contributing to the loss burden. This evidence is not available, although scientific understanding regarding climate extremes has been evolving. The IPCC's fifth assessment report recently documented that anthropogenic climate change, in addition to causing gradual shifts, is increasing the intensity, duration and frequency of extreme temperatures and rainfall7. Another — very different — human contribution that renders disasters 'unnatural' is the interaction of hazards with exposure and vulnerability; disentangling the contributions of these two sets of drivers is complex. For example, vulnerability is particularly ill-understood and quantified. As a consequence, questions of attributing loss to anthropogenic climate change, while clearly very important for responsibility and equity, cannot yet be robustly answered8. However, action can be processed around comprehensive risk management even in the absence of solid evidence on climate change attribution.
As disaster risk is special, a comprehensive approach involves targeting risk management interventions according to disaster return periods — 'risk layering'. Risk layering can help to differentiate between distinct levels of risk organized around return periods (or probability) and the degree of stress imposed by risk. Risk layering is a concept underlying many areas of risk policy, especially agricultural and insurance risk management9. This approach can reveal risk management options that are differentially effective for low-, medium- and high-probability events as well as tailored to the different risk bearing capacities of communities, governments and international organizations10. Such nuanced understanding of risk management can also be helpful in identifying risks that are 'beyond adaptation' (ref. 11). Risk layering can help to address the challenges involving efficiency and equity as well as process-based concerns that arise from the Warsaw mechanism.
Efficiency can be addressed with reference to four distinct risk layers as shown in Fig. 1. Frequent, low-impact risk for which risk reduction is typically the preferred adaptation (benefit–cost analyses have shown great potential for reducing risks at this lower level12), medium-layer risks for which risk reduction can be combined with insurance and other risk-financing instruments that transfer residual risk, rare and catastrophic events for which public and international assistance will be necessary if critical stress thresholds are passed, and finally, a very-high-level risk layer for which the capacity of international aid agencies can be exceeded.
- UNFCCC Decision CP.19 (UNFCCC, 2013).
- IPCC Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (eds Field, C. B. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2012).
- Stern, P. et al. Nature Clim. Change 3, 607–609 (2013).
- Huggel, C. et al. Nature Clim. Change 3, 694–696 (2013).
- Swart, R. et al. Nature Clim. Change 3, 942–943 (2013).
- Verheyen, R. Tackling Loss & Damage –A New Role for the Climate Regime? (Climate and Development Knowledge Network, 2012).
- IPCC Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis (eds Stocker, T. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013).
- Bouwer, L. M. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 92, 39–46 (2011).
- Stone, J. J. Risk Insur. 40, 231–243 (1973).
- Linnerooth-Bayer, J. & Hochrainer-Stigler, S. Climatic Change http://doi.org/rn7 (2014).
- Dow. K. et al. Nature Clim. Change 3, 305–307 (2013).
- Foresight: Reducing Risks of Future Disasters (UK Government Office of Science, 2012).
- Report on the Fifth Quantitative Impact Study (QIS5) for Solvency II (European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority, 2011).
- Mechler, R. et al. Assessing the Financial Vulnerability to Climate-Related Natural Hazards — World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 5232 (World Bank, 2010).
- Kellett, J. & Caravani, A. Financing Disaster Risk Reduction (GFDRR and ODI, 2013).
- Linnerooth-Bayer, J. et al. The Geneva Papers 34, 381–400 (2009).
- Ward, P. J. et al. Nat. Hazards 56, 899–916 (2011).
- Aerts, J. C. J. H. & Botzen, W. J. Nature Clim. Change 2, 377 (2012).
- Phelan, L, Henderson-Sellers, A. & Taplin, R. in The Economic, Social and Political Elements of Climate Change (ed. Filho, W. L.) 81–98 (Springer, 2011).
- Hochrainer, S., Mechler, R., Pflug, G. & Williges, K. Glob. Environ. Change (in the press).
Download references
The authors acknowledge support provided through the research projects ENHANCE (Enhancing risk management partnerships for catastrophic natural disasters in Europe) and IMPACT2C (Quantifying projected impacts under 2 °C warming), funded by the European Commission under the Seventh Framework Programme — Grant agreement numbers 308438 and 282746.
Affiliations
-
International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Laxenburg A-2361, Austria
- Reinhard Mechler,
- Joanne Linnerooth-Bayer,
- Stefan Hochrainer-Stigler &
- Keith Williges
-
University of Economics and Business, Vienna A-1020, Austria
-
Deltares, Delft N-2600, Netherlands
-
Institute for Environmental Studies, Amsterdam N-1081, Netherlands
-
London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE), London WC2A 2AE, UK
|