Costos totales proyectados de la carrera universitaria

There are many similarities and consistencies between the disaster risk management (DRM) and climate change adaptation (CCA) fields that make the convergence of them logical. Both recognise the importance of poverty

reduction, sustainable resource management and livelihood security; both are linked with development processes; and both use risk, vulnerability and resilience approaches (Lei and Wang, 2014; Thomalla, Downing, Spanger- Siegfried et al., 2006). The potential benefits of closer integration of the sectors have been recognised by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in their Special Report on extreme events and disasters (IPCC, 2012). Historically though, there have been some key differences that have separated these fields. Disasters tend to be thought of as short term, and local or national in scale; whereas climate change is more global and long term (Birkmann and Teichman, 2010; Schipper and Pelling, 2006).

To link them successfully requires the adoption of a cross-sectoral, multi- scale integrative approach, with flexible funding schemes shifting from short- term project-oriented financing towards long-term sustainability, and the viewing of disasters as ‘windows of opportunity’ to allow for change and process with a longer-term perspective (Birkmann and Teichman, 2010). Disasters attract media and policy attention, but typically that is translated into immediate humanitarian response rather than acting as a catalyst for positive change (Schipper and Pelling, 2006).

24

Increasing the focus on risk reduction and prevention rather than response to disasters, and recognition of the local and national nature of much climate change adaptation helps to bring the sectors closer together and pave the way for joint action. The local and bottom-up approaches often seen in the disaster risk management field may enable the promotion of early adaptation strategies, while the top-down elements common to climate change adaptation may promote systemic change (Lei and Wang, 2014).

There is growing recognition in the policy world of these connections

between climate change and natural disasters. The United Nations’ Hyogo

Framework for Action 2005-2015: Building the resilience of nations and communities to disasters outlines priorities for action in reducing risk,

strengthening preparation and building resilience. The responses of the South Pacific countries to the Hyogo Framework and their commitments to it are

clearly seen in the region’s Pacific Island Framework for Action on Climate

Change 2006-2015 (PIFACC), co-ordinated by the Secretariat of the Pacific

Regional Environmental Programme (SPREP). Tonga was the first country in

the region to develop a Joint National Action Plan on Climate Change

Adaptation and Disaster Risk Management (JNAP).

Particularly in a region such as the South Pacific, with its many small island developing states, the strength and importance of regional frameworks and agreements such as these is clear. The South Pacific is looking to formalise the relationships between disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation through a joint framework:

DRR and CCA are increasingly recognised as having a shared aim of reducing the vulnerability of communities and contributing to sustainable development by

improving the ability to better anticipate, resist, prepare for, respond to and recover from the impacts of hazards (United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR), 2013, p2).

25

Tonga has led the way in the South Pacific, officially bringing the fields together in a policy plan in 2010. The JNAP, as it is known, was developed to comply with the existing regional frameworks.

There are six priority goals (MECC and NEMO Tonga, 2010):

1. Improved good governance for climate change adaptation and disaster

risk management;

2. Enhanced technical knowledge base, information, education and

understanding of climate change adaptation and effective disaster risk management;

3. Analysis and assessments of vulnerability to climate change impacts

and disaster risks;

4. Enhanced community preparedness and resilience to impacts of all

disasters;

5. Technically reliable, economically affordable and environmentally

sound energy to support the sustainable development of the Kingdom;

6. Strong partnerships, cooperation and collaboration within government

agencies and with civil society organisations (CSOs), non-government organisations (NGOs) and private sector.

The JNAP includes suggested adaptation measures against increased tropical cyclones and storm surges, including village preparedness plans and relocation to higher ground.

Tonga’s JNAP is ambitious, being the first in the region. However, while the two sectors merged for the purposes of writing the JNAP, there are few explicit statements within the document about actually integrating the two systems on a continuing basis. The document does effectively bring together the CCA and DRM polices into one document, but not necessarily into one practice. The plan calls for joint meetings of the National Environment and Coordinating Committee and the National Emergency Management Committee once every six months, with the Chair to rotate. This does not imply full

26

of power struggles between the two committees, with neither wanting to cede ground in a truly integrated set up.

Despite the existence of the JNAP in Tonga, the Committees responsible for CCA and DRM remain separated, along with their respective responsible Ministries. This was explained to me by the DRM side of the government as being a deliberate decision for largely logistical reasons; to ensure that DRM remains in the same Ministry as the emergency services and resources required during disaster responses. However, the CCA side of government sees more value in combining the two areas, especially for the purposes of funding application and project management.

Other countries in the region, including Fiji, are following suit, with JNAPs currently being drafted. The existing climate change policy in Fiji that was written to align with the existing regional climate change framework mentions disaster risk reduction (Government of the Republic of Fiji, 2012):

• Objective 1: Mainstreaming - Strategy 6 - ensure all sectors coordinate

climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction efforts to enhance aid effectiveness and streamline implementation;

• Objective 5: Adaptation - reduce the vulnerability and enhance the

resilience of Fiji’s communities to the impacts of climate change and disasters:

⁃ Strategy 1 - integrate related disaster risk reduction and climate

change adaptation strategies and actions into national and sectoral planning to streamline responses;

⁃ Strategy 5 - support the ecosystem-based approach throughout

Fiji, recognising that ecosystem services, such as food security, natural hazard mitigation and physical coastal buffer zones, increase resilience;

⁃ Strategy 8 - improve disaster response capacity and access to

public health facilities, emergency services, communication services and evacuation centres;

27

⁃ Strategy 12 - strengthen early warning systems to ensure

effective and timely communication to the public, with particular attention paid to isolated, hazard-prone and disadvantaged areas;

⁃ Strategy 14 - undertake national research to identify effective

adaptation measures to support sector-specific adaptation and disaster risk reduction response.

In a report looking at the economics of climate change in the Pacific, the Asian Development Bank recommended a risk-based approach to DRM and CCA, to prioritise climate actions and increase cost-efficiency of adaptation measures, and for strong co-operation and co-ordination with regional partners in the Pacific and beyond (Asian Development Bank, 2013).

The Strategy for Disaster and Climate Resilient Development in the Pacific (SRDP), currently being drafted, will replace the Pacific Disaster Risk

Reduction and Disaster Management Framework for Action (2005-2015) and Pacific Islands Framework for Action on Climate Change (2006-2015).

Recognising the commonalities between these areas, the strategy will focus on capacity for implementation, identifying the transformations required to bring the previously separate sectors together. With goals, performance indicators and priority actions for national and local governments and administrations, civil society organisations, private sector organisations, regional organisations, other development partners, and communities, the strategy has a vision of: “Pacific people, their socio-economic development, and the region’s natural resources and environments, are resilient to all hazards, and to the adverse consequences of climate change, variability and extremes” (UNISDR, 2014, p15).

Within the February 2014 draft strategy, eight key opportunities for disaster and climate resilient development have been identified:

1. Move from the current focus on disaster response to sustainable

development-centred disaster and climate risk management pathways;

2. Faith-based organisations can play even greater roles in advocacy and

28

3. Management of natural and other relevant hazards should have

meaningful priority on political and economic agendas;

4. Efficiencies can be achieved through improved co-ordination, reducing

duplication and taking advantage of synergies that arise when climate and disaster resilient development initiatives are jointly implemented;

5. Improved place-based understandings of how hazards, vulnerability and

exposure interact with development processes is the cornerstone to effectively allocating and utilising resources that deliver more resilient development outcomes;

6. Refinement and increased use of the tools needed to make compelling

economic cases for adopting proactive, systematic and integrated risk management measures;

7. Strengthened capacity to anticipate, resist, plan and prepare for,

respond to and recover from the consequences of disasters and from climate variability, extremes and change;

8. Increased ability to manage new and emerging disaster and climate

risks in an effective and efficient manner.

There are several positive signs from the drafting of this strategy. Firstly, while the draft is similar to the previous frameworks in its focus on risk (from the disaster framework), development (from the climate change framework), working in partnerships and political agendas, the emphasis on economic agendas and funding represents a departure from the previous frameworks, and recognition of the difficulties involved in having needs, political agendas and funding match up.

Secondly, the drafting of this strategy is in marked contrast to recent findings of the World Bank that while integration of disaster and climate change areas is happening on the ground, there is resistance at institutional levels both nationally and internationally (World Bank, 2013). This may be reflective of the history of small island developing states generally and the Pacific specifically, being particularly proactive in the area of climate change.

29

Finally, there is the issue of capacity. With the best of intentions highlighted in the enacting of frameworks and agreements such as these, there is often a gap between that and actual implementation (Barnett and Campbell, 2010). Sometimes progress gets as far as assessments and plans for action, but then stalls for a variety of reasons such as governance arrangements, lack of or self- interested leadership, competing planning agendas and lack of institutional co- ordination, insufficient financial and human capital, lack of information and data, and path dependency (future pathways being contingent upon historical pathways) (Wise, Fazey, Stafford Smith et al., 2014). The focus on capacity for implementation in the current draft of the SRDP is a positive and constructive recognition of this problem.