Det kommer statdig ny viten om klima, og det meste går i retning av at kloden blir varmere og at denne oppvarmingen er forårsaket av menneskene. Nå er jo det i seg selv ikke særlig oppsiktsvekkende - klimaet har alltid endret seg og vil alltid gjøre det. Spørsmålet er om menneskeheten kan og vil gjøre noe med dette - eller om vi vil ha en "vente og se" holdning til dette og satse på at vi kan tilpasse oss enhver klimaendring.
For mange blir klimatilpasning (å tilpasse seg klimaendringene) sett på som mindre viktig enn å redusere utslippene av drivhusgasser (GHG). Dette var også en realitet i de første klimaforhandlingene, som i hovedsak kun dreiet seg om hvordan vi skulle redusere utslipp. Men etter klimatoppmøtet i Bali 2007 (COP13) ble klimatilpasning for alvor inkludert som en viktig og helt naturlig del av klimadebatten. Det såkalte Bali veikartet inkluderte også en handlingsplan som skulle lede frem til en ny klimaavtale i København 2009. I Bali det også etablert en ny arbeidsgruppe som skulle følge opparbeidet med Bali-planen. Jeg vil påstå at en av årsakene til at klimatilpasning ikke fikk, og kanskje ikke får, særlig mye oppmerksomhet er at pressgruppene i hovedsak er miljøorganisasjonene. Disse er i første rekke opptatt utslippsspørsmålet og tilknyttede problemstillinger (skog, biodiversitet, teknologi o.l.), og mindre grad de humanitære sidene ved klimaendringene (matmangel, migrasjon, ekstremvær m.m.). Siden Bali har klimatilpasning og de humanitære sidene av klimaendringer fått mer oppmerksomhet, spesielt blant de mest utsatte og fattigste landene, og er et av de viktigste spørsmålene i forhandlingene. Uten en god avtale på klimatilpasning blir det også vanskelig med en avtale for å minske utslipp.
Jeg er også skuffet over at de norske politiske partiene i så liten grad tar med klimatilpasning (og gjerne klimarettferdighet! ) i den norske klimadebatten. Selv miljøpartiet fremfor noen (Venstre)hadde ingenting om dette når de la frem sin alternative klimamelding. Der var igjen kun snakk om utslipp m.m. !
Et spørsmål som av og til dukker opp er: kan vi tilpassse oss enhver klimaendring ? Jeg fikk dette spørsmålet av en journalist i Vårt Land ifm sultkatastrofen på Afrikas horn. Dette blir tema for mitt neste blogginnlegg !
onsdag 8. august 2012
tirsdag 7. august 2012
Four problems related to resilience
In order to make communities more resilient there are four big problems we should aim to tackle:
One: decision-makers do not have routine access to good information about risk.
Such information is vital if we are to mobilise political attention and resources in support of resilience and know where investments in disaster risk managment (DRM) should be targeted. High quality evidence is also integral to the ability of communities to hold those responsible for managing risk to account. In Norway the Norwegian National Risk assessment is a good starting point, but still to general for local and regional DRM planning.
Two: we don't really know which intervention are most effective in reducing risk, saving lives and rebuilding livelihoods after crisis.
Although the incentives to support innovation are not always in place, there is alos a need to develop new approaches if we are to meet an increasing number and more unpredicatble pattern of hazards with the same or less available resources.
Three: the capacity to design and deliver response and to build resilience is already stretched and will be increasingly overwhelmed.
To date we have relied heavily upon the international community to provide support to disaster-prone communities. But international systems are already stretched. National Governments have the primary responsibility to meet the needs of their inhabitants, and national and local institutions are critical to first line response. We know that populations are most vulnerable where the institutional framework to manage risk is weakest, and where bad politics and conflict further deepen vulnerability. So what are the best ways of supporting national and local institutions to build resilience and manage unexpected incidents?
Four: the right systems and incentives are not in place to ensure that evidence is available and used to inform decision-makers.
At present, humanitarian decisions are often based on poor information. In planning an emergency response we do not know with confidence how many people are affected, whether they are women or men, or how old they are. This weak baseline undermines the scope for robust monitoring and evaluation that can tell us whether what we are doing is making an impact. It is extremely difficult for practitioners to access information about good practise in order to improve their own effectiveness, because information is scattered and is not available in a replicable and consistent format.
One: decision-makers do not have routine access to good information about risk.
Such information is vital if we are to mobilise political attention and resources in support of resilience and know where investments in disaster risk managment (DRM) should be targeted. High quality evidence is also integral to the ability of communities to hold those responsible for managing risk to account. In Norway the Norwegian National Risk assessment is a good starting point, but still to general for local and regional DRM planning.
Two: we don't really know which intervention are most effective in reducing risk, saving lives and rebuilding livelihoods after crisis.
Although the incentives to support innovation are not always in place, there is alos a need to develop new approaches if we are to meet an increasing number and more unpredicatble pattern of hazards with the same or less available resources.
Three: the capacity to design and deliver response and to build resilience is already stretched and will be increasingly overwhelmed.
To date we have relied heavily upon the international community to provide support to disaster-prone communities. But international systems are already stretched. National Governments have the primary responsibility to meet the needs of their inhabitants, and national and local institutions are critical to first line response. We know that populations are most vulnerable where the institutional framework to manage risk is weakest, and where bad politics and conflict further deepen vulnerability. So what are the best ways of supporting national and local institutions to build resilience and manage unexpected incidents?
Four: the right systems and incentives are not in place to ensure that evidence is available and used to inform decision-makers.
At present, humanitarian decisions are often based on poor information. In planning an emergency response we do not know with confidence how many people are affected, whether they are women or men, or how old they are. This weak baseline undermines the scope for robust monitoring and evaluation that can tell us whether what we are doing is making an impact. It is extremely difficult for practitioners to access information about good practise in order to improve their own effectiveness, because information is scattered and is not available in a replicable and consistent format.
Abonner på:
Innlegg (Atom)
