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.
onsdag 16. desember 2009
Ingen konsensus i klimaforhandlingene om ny Kyoto
Akkurat nå rapporterte leder av Kyoto forhandlingene, John Ash at landene ikke har blitt enige om en ny Kyoto avtale. Samtidig klager land at de pga sikkerheten ikke får inn sine forhandlere.
torsdag 8. oktober 2009
Norway increase their emission reduction targets
In the new Government platform (Soria Moria II) Norway is increasing their emission reductions targets from 30% to 40% before 2020 (baseline 1990) if this could contribute to a climate deal where the large emission-countries also committ to clear targets.
Will be interesting to see if this will influence China and USA in the ongoing negotiations here in Bangkok. Or if Norway after all is a small player in this ?
Will be interesting to see if this will influence China and USA in the ongoing negotiations here in Bangkok. Or if Norway after all is a small player in this ?
fredag 2. oktober 2009
Disaster Risk Reduction in Indonesia
A Red Cross film that uses documentary and participatory video to look at Community-Based Adaptation to climate change in Jakarta.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEs4VNngDDA&feature=PlayList&p=063309EFBAABF60A&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEs4VNngDDA&feature=PlayList&p=063309EFBAABF60A&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=6
torsdag 1. oktober 2009
Health & climate change
For more information – www.who.int/phe
PROTECTING HEALTH FROM CLIMATE CHANGE -
TOP 10 ACTIONS FOR HEALTH PROFESSIONALS
Global
1. Advocate for a strong and equitable post-Kyoto agreement. Current and projected stresses on the Earth’s life support systems (food, shelter, water and energy) require a fair, scientifically sound and globally binding commitment to reduce net greenhouse gas emissions and stabilize the global climate.
2. Promote the need for a “health-oriented” agreement. Protecting health and well-being should be one of the three main objectives of the new agreement (alongside development and environment); the strengthening of health systems should be named as one of the priority areas for adaptation to climate change; and mitigation measures that bring health and other socioeconomic benefits should be prioritized.
National/local
3. Use your knowledge and authority to make the case for action. Strengthen public and policy-maker awareness of the current and projected adverse and inequitable health impacts of climate change, as well as the potential for significant health benefits and consequent cost savings from well-conceived climate control policies. Work with others to plan adaptation and mitigation strategies.
4. Assess your community and local health system’s capacities to cope. Measure and evaluate the preparedness of your personnel, institutions and systems to deal with country specific threats. Enhance your research capacities to evaluate threats and the effectiveness of interventions.
5. Strengthen your health system’s adaptive capacity. Many of the projected impacts of climate change on health are avoidable or controllable through application of well-known and well-tested public health and health service interventions, such as public education, disease surveillance, disaster preparedness, mosquito control, food hygiene and inspection, nutritional supplementation, vaccines, primary and mental health care, and training. Where these capacities are weak, work with others to strengthen them.
6. Encourage your health institutions to lead by example. Health institutions – as highly visible, high-energy-use centres – can serve as models by reducing their own carbon emissions, improving health and saving money (see www.corporatecitizen.nhs.uk). Seven potential action areas include: energy management, transport, procurement (including food and water), waste disposal, buildings and landscape, employment and skills, and community engagement. Good practice in these areas has been shown to improve staff health and morale, create healthier local populations, stimulate faster patient recovery rates and save money (see www.globalclimate@hcwh.org).
7. Champion the health benefits of greenhouse gas emission reductions (mitigation). Reducing greenhouse gas emissions can be good for health. In countries where cars are the predominant means of transport, shifting to more walking and cycling will lower carbon emissions, increase physical activity (which will reduce obesity, heart disease and cancer), reduce traffic-related injuries and deaths, and result in less pollution and noise. In countries where solid fuels are the predominant form of household heating and cooking energy, changing to cleaner fuels and providing more efficient stoves will lead to fewer illnesses and deaths related to indoor air
pollution.
Personal
8. Learn about climate-related health threats. All health professionals should be provided with general and continuing education modules (see http://www.who.int/features/factfiles/climate_change/en/index.html).
9. Calculate and reduce your own carbon footprint. There is much that we can all do, on a daily basis, to reduce our own contributions to greenhouse gas emissions. To calculate your “carbon footprint” see http://actonco2.direct.gov.uk.
10. Promote these action points among your colleagues. The health sector can take the lead in establishing a global social and economic framework that will promote health, social justice and survival – for current and future generations, both rich and poor, locally and globally.
PROTECTING HEALTH FROM CLIMATE CHANGE -
TOP 10 ACTIONS FOR HEALTH PROFESSIONALS
Global
1. Advocate for a strong and equitable post-Kyoto agreement. Current and projected stresses on the Earth’s life support systems (food, shelter, water and energy) require a fair, scientifically sound and globally binding commitment to reduce net greenhouse gas emissions and stabilize the global climate.
2. Promote the need for a “health-oriented” agreement. Protecting health and well-being should be one of the three main objectives of the new agreement (alongside development and environment); the strengthening of health systems should be named as one of the priority areas for adaptation to climate change; and mitigation measures that bring health and other socioeconomic benefits should be prioritized.
National/local
3. Use your knowledge and authority to make the case for action. Strengthen public and policy-maker awareness of the current and projected adverse and inequitable health impacts of climate change, as well as the potential for significant health benefits and consequent cost savings from well-conceived climate control policies. Work with others to plan adaptation and mitigation strategies.
4. Assess your community and local health system’s capacities to cope. Measure and evaluate the preparedness of your personnel, institutions and systems to deal with country specific threats. Enhance your research capacities to evaluate threats and the effectiveness of interventions.
5. Strengthen your health system’s adaptive capacity. Many of the projected impacts of climate change on health are avoidable or controllable through application of well-known and well-tested public health and health service interventions, such as public education, disease surveillance, disaster preparedness, mosquito control, food hygiene and inspection, nutritional supplementation, vaccines, primary and mental health care, and training. Where these capacities are weak, work with others to strengthen them.
6. Encourage your health institutions to lead by example. Health institutions – as highly visible, high-energy-use centres – can serve as models by reducing their own carbon emissions, improving health and saving money (see www.corporatecitizen.nhs.uk). Seven potential action areas include: energy management, transport, procurement (including food and water), waste disposal, buildings and landscape, employment and skills, and community engagement. Good practice in these areas has been shown to improve staff health and morale, create healthier local populations, stimulate faster patient recovery rates and save money (see www.globalclimate@hcwh.org).
7. Champion the health benefits of greenhouse gas emission reductions (mitigation). Reducing greenhouse gas emissions can be good for health. In countries where cars are the predominant means of transport, shifting to more walking and cycling will lower carbon emissions, increase physical activity (which will reduce obesity, heart disease and cancer), reduce traffic-related injuries and deaths, and result in less pollution and noise. In countries where solid fuels are the predominant form of household heating and cooking energy, changing to cleaner fuels and providing more efficient stoves will lead to fewer illnesses and deaths related to indoor air
pollution.
Personal
8. Learn about climate-related health threats. All health professionals should be provided with general and continuing education modules (see http://www.who.int/features/factfiles/climate_change/en/index.html).
9. Calculate and reduce your own carbon footprint. There is much that we can all do, on a daily basis, to reduce our own contributions to greenhouse gas emissions. To calculate your “carbon footprint” see http://actonco2.direct.gov.uk.
10. Promote these action points among your colleagues. The health sector can take the lead in establishing a global social and economic framework that will promote health, social justice and survival – for current and future generations, both rich and poor, locally and globally.
Abonner på:
Innlegg (Atom)
