UN HABITAT vs. URBAN DISASTER LAW and CONFLICT HAZARD #NUA

Africa – Americas – Arab States – Asia & Pacific – Central Asia – Europe

UN Habitat will Adopt, commit, implement, encourage, promote adequate investments, support, recognize, invite, underscore and promote urban disaster response;

Urban climatic disaster response – #Disasterlaw

From All cities implementing policies endorsing Urban Climatic Emergency Evacuation Plan (#UCEEP) initiative to What is the military’s role in the New Urban Agenda?

Disaster law initiatives to combat climate change
“Duty-to-protect”

Drawing the state of disaster action around the world
“Duty-to-warn”

Participatory meetings to get to concrete catastrophe risk insurance solutions
“Duty-to-prevent”

Increase ability to have national drr assessment strategies, risk assessments International cooperating and access to early warning systems and drr information and assessment that need to be deliver to all by 2030.
“Duty-to-inform”

(urban/rural) disaster law, an urgent step-up of multi-stakeholder collaboration, coalitions of non-state actors and their flagship disaster adaptation initiatives?
“Duty-to-respond”

Unsupported substantial self-settlements without assistance shelter permanent shanti towns
“Duty-to-shelter”

Their objectives are to stay mobilized, accelerate climate action and streamline the implementation of the Paris Agreement, the Agenda for Action.

“Strengthening concrete action to bridge the gap between current commitments and the objective of emergency in the Paris Agreement”.

 

RE: Resolution 71/235, 71/256, Draft-Outcome-Document-of-Habitat-III-E

We take full account of the milestone achievements of the year 2015, in particular the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, including the Sustainable Development Goals, the Addis Ababa Action Agenda of the third International Conference on Financing for Development, the Paris
Agreement adopted under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction for the period 2015–2030, the Vienna Programme of Action for Landlocked Developing Countries for the Decade 2014–2024, the Small Island Developing States Accelerated Modalities of Action Pathway and the Istanbul Programme of Action for the Least Developed Countries for the Decade 2011–2020. We also take account of the Rio Declaration on
Environment and Development, the World Summit on Sustainable Development, the World Summit for Social Development, the Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development, the Beijing Platform for Action, the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development and the follow-up to these conferences.

Adopt and implement disaster risk reduction and management, reduce vulnerability, build resilience and responsiveness to natural and human-made hazards, and foster mitigation of and adaptation to climate change;

We aim to achieve cities and human settlements where all persons are able to enjoy equal rights and opportunities, as well as their fundamental freedoms, guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, including full respect for international law. In this regard, the New Urban Agenda is grounded in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, international human rights treaties, the Millennium Declaration and the 2005 World Summit Outcome. It is informed by other instruments such as the Declaration on the Right to Development.

Ensure environmental sustainability, by promoting clean energy and sustainable use of land and resources in urban development; by protecting ecosystems and biodiversity, including adopting healthy lifestyles in harmony with nature; by promoting sustainable consumption and production patterns; by building urban resilience; by reducing disaster risks; and by mitigating and adapting to climate change.

We acknowledge that in implementing the New Urban Agenda particular attention should be given to addressing the unique and emerging urban development challenges facing all countries, in particular developing countries, including African countries, least developed countries, landlocked developing countries and small island developing States, as well as the specific challenges facing middle-income countries. Special attention should also be given to countries in situations of conflict,
as well as countries and territories under foreign occupation, post-conflict countries, and countries affected by natural and human-made disasters.

We commit ourselves to strengthening the coordination role of national, subnational and local governments, as appropriate, and their collaboration with other public entities and non-governmental organizations in the provision of social and basic services for all, including generating investments in communities that are most vulnerable to disasters and those affected by recurrent and protracted humanitarian crises. We further commit ourselves to promoting adequate services, accommodation and opportunities for decent and productive work for crisis-affected persons in urban settings, and to working with local communities and local governments to identify opportunities for engaging and developing local, durable and dignified solutions while ensuring that aid also flows to affected persons and host communities to prevent regression of their development.

We acknowledge the need for governments and civil society to further support resilient urban services during armed conflicts. We also acknowledge the need to reaffirm full respect for international humanitarian law.

We recognize that cities and human settlements face unprecedented threats from unsustainable consumption and production patterns, loss of biodiversity, pressure on ecosystems, pollution, natural and human-made disasters, and climate change and its related risks, undermining the efforts to end poverty in all its forms and dimensions and to achieve sustainable development. Given cities’ demographic trends and their central role in the global economy, in the mitigation and adaptation efforts related to climate change, and in the use of resources and ecosystems, the way they are planned, financed, developed, built, governed and managed has a direct impact on sustainability and resilience well beyond urban boundaries.

We also recognize that urban centres worldwide, especially in developing countries, often have characteristics that make them and their inhabitants especially vulnerable to the adverse impacts of climate change and other natural and human-made hazards, including earthquakes, extreme weather events, flooding, subsidence, storms – including dust and sand storms – heat waves, water scarcity, droughts, water and air pollution, vector-borne diseases, and sea-level rise particularly affecting coastal areas, delta regions and small island developing States, among others.

We commit ourselves to facilitating the sustainable management of natural resources in cities and human settlements in a manner that protects and improves the urban ecosystem and environmental
services, reduces greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution, and promotes disaster risk reduction and management, by supporting the development of disaster risk reduction strategies and periodical
assessments of disaster risk caused by natural and human-made hazards, including standards for risk levels, while fostering sustainable economic development and protecting all persons’ well-being and quality of life through environmentally sound urban and territorial planning, infrastructure and basic services.

We commit ourselves to promoting the creation and maintenance of well-connected and well-distributed networks of open, multi-purpose, safe, inclusive, accessible, green, and quality public spaces; to improving the resilience of cities to disasters and climate change, including floods, drought risks and heat waves; to improving food security and nutrition, physical and mental health, and household and ambient air quality; to reducing noise and promoting attractive and liveable cities, human settlements and urban landscapes, and to prioritizing the conservation of endemic species.

We commit ourselves to strengthening the sustainable management of resources, including land, water (oceans, seas and freshwater), energy, materials, forests and food, with particular attention to the environmentally sound management and minimization of all waste, hazardous chemicals, including air and short-lived climate pollutants, greenhouse gases and noise, and in a way that considers urban–rural linkages, functional supply and value chains vis à vis environmental impact and sustainability, and that strives to transition to a circular economy while facilitating ecosystem conservation, regeneration, restoration and resilience in the face of new and emerging challenges.

We commit ourselves to strengthening the resilience of cities and human settlements, including through the development of quality infrastructure and spatial planning, by adopting and implementing integrated, age- and gender-responsive policies and plans and ecosystem-based approaches in line with the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction for the period 2015–2030; and by mainstreaming holistic and data-informed disaster risk reduction and management at all levels to reduce vulnerabilities and risk, especially in risk-prone areas of formal and informal settlements, including slums, and to enable households, communities, institutions and services to prepare for, respond to, adapt to and rapidly recover from the effects of hazards, including shocks or latent stresses. We will promote the development of infrastructure that is resilient and resource efficient and will reduce the risks and impact of disasters, including the rehabilitation and upgrading of slums and informal settlements. We will also promote measures for strengthening and retrofitting all risky housing stock, including in slums and informal settlements, to make it resilient to disasters in coordination with local authorities and stakeholders.

We commit ourselves to supporting moving from reactive to more proactive risk-based, all-hazards and all-of-society approaches, such as raising public awareness of risks and promoting ex-ante investments to prevent risks and build resilience, while also ensuring timely and effective local responses to address the immediate needs of inhabitants affected by natural and human-made disasters and conflicts. This should include the integration of the “build back better” principles into the post disaster recovery process to integrate resilience-building, environmental and spatial.

We strongly urge States to refrain from promulgating and applying any unilateral economic, financial or trade measures not in accordance with international law and the Charter of the United Nations that impede the full achievement of economic and social development, particularly in
developing countries.

We will integrate disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation and mitigation considerations and measures into age- and gender-responsive urban and territorial development and planning processes, including greenhouse gas emissions, resilience-based and climate-effective design of spaces, buildings and constructions, services and infrastructure, and nature-based solutions. We will promote cooperation and coordination across sectors, as well as build the capacities of local authorities to develop and implement disaster risk reduction and response plans, such as risk assessments concerning the location of current and future public facilities, and to formulate adequate contingency and evacuation procedures.

We will consider increased allocations of financial and human resources, as appropriate, for the upgrading and, to the extent possible, prevention of slums and informal settlements in the allocation of financial and human resources with strategies that go beyond physical and environmental improvements to ensure that slums and informal settlements are integrated into the social, economic, cultural and political dimensions of cities. These strategies should include, as applicable, access to sustainable, adequate, safe and affordable housing, basic and social services, and safe, inclusive, accessible, green and quality public spaces, and they should promote security of tenure and its regularization, as well as measures for conflict prevention and mediation.

We will promote the development of adequate and enforceable regulations in the housing sector, including, as applicable, resilient building codes, standards, development permits, land use by-laws and ordinances, and planning regulations; combating and preventing speculation, displacement, homelessness and arbitrary forced evictions; and ensuring sustainability, quality, affordability, health, safety, accessibility, energy and resource efficiency, and resilience. We will also promote differentiated analysis of housing supply and demand based on high-quality, timely and reliable disaggregated data at the national, subnational and local levels, considering specific social, economic, environmental and cultural dimensions.

We will promote adequate investments in protective, accessible and sustainable infrastructure and service provision systems for water, sanitation and hygiene, sewage, solid waste management, urban drainage, reduction of air pollution and stormwater management, in order to improve safety in the event of water-related disasters; improve health; ensure universal and equitable access to safe and affordable drinking water for all, as well as access to adequate and equitable sanitation and hygiene for all; and end open defecation, with special attention to the needs and safety of women and girls and those in vulnerable situations. We will seek to ensure that this infrastructure is climate resilient and forms part of integrated urban and territorial development plans, including housing and mobility, among others, and is implemented in a participatory manner, considering, innovative, resource-efficient, accessible, context-specific and culturally sensitive sustainable solutions.

We will support decentralized decision-making on waste disposal to promote universal access to sustainable waste management systems. We will support the promotion of extended producer responsibility schemes that include waste generators and producers in the financing of urban waste management systems, that reduce the hazards and socio economic impacts of waste streams and increase recycling rates through better product design.

We will promote the integration of food security and the nutritional needs of urban residents, particularly the urban poor, in urban and territorial planning, in order to end hunger and malnutrition. We will promote coordination of sustainable food security and agriculture policies across urban, peri-urban and rural areas to facilitate the production, storage, transport and marketing of food to consumers in adequate and affordable ways in order to reduce food losses and prevent and reuse food waste. We will further promote the coordination of food policies with energy, water, health, transport and waste policies, maintain the genetic diversity of seeds and reduce the use of hazardous chemicals, and implement other policies in urban areas to maximize efficiencies and minimize waste.

We will explore and develop feasible solutions for climate and disaster risks in cities and human settlements, including through collaborating with insurance and reinsurance institutions and other relevant actors, with regard to investments in urban and metropolitan infrastructure, buildings and other urban assets, as well as for local populations to secure their shelter and economic needs.

We reaffirm the role and expertise of UN-Habitat, within its mandate, as a focal point for sustainable urbanization and human settlements, in collaboration with other United Nations system entities, recognizing the linkages between sustainable urbanization and, inter alia, sustainable
development, disaster risk reduction and climate change.

 

Source: HABITAT III NEW URBAN AGENDA Draft outcome document for adoption in Quito, October 2016

High Level Meeting on #NewUrbanAgenda and UN-Habitat

GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE UNITED NATIONS

Setting the scene – High Level Meeting on New Urban Agenda and UN-Habitat – September 5 – September 6

To realise the potential, however, the challenges cannot be ignored. Urban populations continue to grow in much of the world, poverty and humanitarian crises and conflict are becoming increasingly urban phenomena, and the urban risks from climate change are intensifying. Concerted efforts, global, national and local, in both developed and developing countries, are urgently needed to address current challenges, alleviate increasing inequalities, and anticipate future threats. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Opportunities (encompassing the Sustainable
Development Goals, the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction and the Addis Ababa Conference on Financing for Development) will not be met without serious attention to urban realities. The New Urban Agenda provides a roadmap for this
on-going transition, and UN-Habitat, with the entire UN development system, has a potentially critical role in supporting countries to effectively implement this Agenda.

The urban transition is essential to economic growth. Yet this basic reality is still unrecognised by many major actors, from national governments to international institutions, resulting in policies that limit migration in an attempt to slow urbanisation and restrict the access of local urban governments to development financing. Despite the restrictions, urban migration continues, and in the absence of inclusive and supportive policies and investment, this means limited opportunity for hard pressed new residents, growing backlogs in provision of services, increasing informality and the disappearance for many residents of the vaunted “urban advantage”. In many countries, for example, while rural child mortality rates are improving, in urban areas they are stagnating or
becoming worse. Poverty, hunger, disease, vulnerability to disaster, violence, are all becoming increasingly prevalent in many urban areas.
The urban transition will be more or less complete in fifty years. If it is not steered constructively now, the urban dividend could in many more
places become a disaster marked by inequality exclusion, inadequate basic service provision, humanitarian crises and growing civil strife.

The challenges in poor urban settlements are intensified in many areas by the mounting hazards associated with extreme weather. Cities, with their concentrations of population and assets, face high levels of risk, especially in coastal or riverside locations. Urban economies of scale and proximity can give cities a strong adaptive capacity, but the benefits seldom extend to all parts of a city. Informal settlements are often in the most hazardous locations – floodplains, hillsides at risk of landslides, sites close to industrial wastes – and unserved by the protective infrastructure that allows people to withstand extreme conditions – roads, drains, early warning systems and emergency services. Residents in poverty also have more limited capacity to prepare for, withstand and recover from a range of weather extremes. These same extremes, along with conflict, are pushing more people into towns and cities. By 2016, 80 million people globally were displaced by conflicts and disasters. Numbers keep climbing, and more than half end up now in towns and cities, adding to the burdens faced by overtaxed local authorities. Full blown conflict, often over access to land and scarce urban resources, has also become an increasingly common feature of urban areas, contributing to the emergence of the new category of the “fragile city.”

 

The call for action: The 2030 agenda and the New Urban Agenda

Recognising the critical need for action on pressing urban issues, government representatives at the Habitat III conference in Quito in 2016 adopted the New Urban Agenda (NUA), emphasising the links between urbanisation and development and the crucial need for inclusive and sustainable urban growth. The ambitious 2030 Agenda, adopted a year before the NUA, provides a critical overarching roadmap for this effort. Its 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), designed for stimulating action in areas critical for humanity and the planet, include Goal 11 – making cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable. Without attention to this urban Goal, and to the urban implications of the other 16 Goals, none of the SDGs is likely to succeed. Together the NUA and SDGs point the way for cities to be part of sustainable global
development. Equally important in this endeavour are the Paris Climate Change Agreement, the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction and the Addis Ababa Action Agenda.

 

The scope of the commitment

Yet urban areas, with their growing majority of the global population, their concentration of both economic risk and potential, their vulnerability to climate-related disasters, and their relationships with surrounding areas, are not only relevant to realising this Agenda, they are central to its success, and the stage on which the SDGs will or will not be achieved. Most of the Goals necessarily have urban implications, and without significant attention to urban realities in all their manifestations and complexity, the ambitious objectives of the SDGs cannot be realised.

 

Public-private partnerships – ITU

ICTs for Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation for SIDS

THE HABITAT III INNOVATION and SUSTAINABILITY PRINCIPLE

IAEA – Nuclear safety EMERGENCY DRILLS different levels #Radiological

Fukushima

3 fundamentals – Peace Health Prosperity – Development

Mandate and statue to establish or adopt 150 standards documents of Safety, health and minimisation of danger to ensure protection to measures for emergency preparedness and response

Understand disaster risk, key activities and applications of atomic energy – promotion of common efforts to assimilate and share good practices

Recommendations guidance

Strong references but not legally binding but on/to IAEA

Since 1999 Manage Emergency Preparedness Review (EPREV Services) missions (43 capacity missions) and help Member States strengthen their disaster risk governance

Nuclear techniques to other disaster risks

Investing in Disaster Risk Resilience (Hunger, poverty – agricultural (FAO)/nuclear work) sterile insect (nuclear) technique (decease free) to promote food safety and pest control (Joint Division of Nuclear Techniques in Food and Agriculture)

#Buildbackbetter

7 Response recovery activities

EPR Emergency Preparedness and Response

Contact points

Period Treaties

Information Sharing Between States IAEA

Notify available assistance of experts, equipment and materials

Hard law instrument like Peer-review

Implement via instruments – ICON procedures based on the Convention on Early Notification of a Nuclear Accident and the Convention on Assistance in the Case of a Nuclear Accident or Radiological Emergency, as well as decisions of the IAEA’s Policy-Making Organs

EPR — IEC Incident and Emergency Center for disaster response and recovery

Planning and operations
Radioactive waste management safety guide on radioactive contamination and the recovery process (Remediation Process for Areas Affected by Past Activities and Accidents)

IAEA’s central role in international legal framework for nuclear and radiological emergency preparedness and response

  • Convention on Early Notification of a Nuclear Accident
  • Convention on Assistance in the Case of a Nuclear Accident or Radiological Emergency

The frameworks are continually updated and regularly tested through ConvEx exercises (lessons learned from past incidents)

Read more here Nuclear Accident Simulation

J-plan (practical Joint plan (emergency management)

ICON (communication procedures) Operations manual for communication and notification

Response and assistance network RAW-net (What state can offer)

International Monitoring System – CTBTO Preparatory Commission

Validated information from accident state

EMERGENCY DRILLS different levels

PRESS PREPARDNESS Press conference host state

 

Systems details not in place.

On determination; when and who to decide if disaster has significant negative environmental effects

Public law and disaster

Sectoral cooperation

Break down legal fragment between DRR law and Climate adaptation, with three proposals – Sendai framework, the SDGs, and between nuclear regulations

Land use and forestry proposal for 2021-2030

Climate change law trying to build interconnections without looking at border

 

#ClimateChance #CCAgadir17 #Cities #EUSEW17 #c40cities #NUA #NAU #CCCRdg #Habitat3 #Humanrights

 

#SendaiFramework #Switch2Sendai #Policy #Governance

#Cities #Safety #Arctic #Maritime

#UCEEP

#HumanRights

#DRRplanning

#REinsurance

#Implementation

#EWS

#Hazards

#Federation Disaster Law Programme

#RedCross #Oilspills #ocean #ships #environment

#Disasterlaw

#IAEA #law #disaster #risk #reduction

 

#DRR Disaster Risk Reduction – #DutytoPrevent

Africa – Americas – Arab States – Asia & Pacific – Central Asia – Europe

 

When all the ice has melted, first I will be Warm and then I will be Cold.

Stay up to date with the analysis and outcomes of Disaster Risk Reduction and International Law Symposium 2017 by our Reading blog posts.

#ClimateChance #ClimateChance2017 #Agadir #COP22 #COP23 #ONG #Climat #Humanrights

2 #DRR Disaster Risk Reduction – “#Duty-to-Prevent”

Participatory meetings to get to concrete catastrophe risk insurance solutions – “Duty-to-Prevent”

How to bring international law governing disasters up to speed with the global challenges that we face.

Experts say we have three years to save the planet

International law must comply by 2020 at the latest with national #disasterlaw

The dangers of climate change are kept to an absolute minimum

In our action, we must address underlying causes of disaster risk and climate vulnerability. This requires limiting to the maximum the increase in warming below if not well below 1.5 degrees Celsius, a peaking of global emissions by 2020 at the latest, and the achievement of net carbon neutrality by the 2050s in realization of the Paris Agreement.

We will survive and thrive

Expressing solidarity with our fellow member, Haiti, devastated by Hurricane Matthew, a humanitarian catastrophe amplified by capability constraints clearly overwhelming any capacity to adapt in a now all-too familiar repetition of disaster.

We need insurance against disasters

Reinforcing the resilience of our nations, reducing disaster risk, and encouraging members to actively engage in the G7 Climate Risk Insurance which aims to extend insurance coverage for climate-related risk by 2020 to 400 million most vulnerable people in developing countries, and thereafter aim to extend insurance coverage to every community within the territories of our members.

The most effective vulnerability reduction measures for health in the near term are programmes that implement and improve basic public health measures such as provision of clean water and sanitation, secure essential health care including vaccination and child health services, increase capacity for disaster preparedness and response and alleviate poverty.

Options to address heat related mortality include health warning systems linked to response strategies, urban planning and improvements to the built environment to reduce heat stress. Robust institutions can manage many trans-boundary impacts of climate change to reduce risk of conflicts over shared natural resources.

Insurance programmes, social protection measures and disaster risk management may enhance long-term livelihood resilience among the poor and marginalised people, if policies address multi-dimensional poverty.~IPCC

How can insurance play a key role in achieving public and private investment in preventing and reducing disaster risk?

In embarking on a new era of the pursuit of development, ending poverty, leaving no person behind, and protecting the environment, not only are all Sustainable Development Goals and the targets and priorities of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction achieved by 2030 but also, where possible, their targets are exceeded or their early achievement is accomplished.

Minister Dalle added:
“Without stronger climate action, we might not survive,
and this is not an option.”

“Pay us the saviours of Sendai”

CVF was founded by the Maldives 2009
The Climate Vulnerable Forum at COP21 2015 -#1o5C

2016 Addis Ababa
One needs to rethink development approach making use of a successful development blueprint and the new Sendai and the 2030 SDGs Agendas frameworks to achieve the CVF vision across the whole society and the whole of government approach.

https://unfccc.int/files/meetings/marrakech_nov_2016/application/pdf/cvf_declaration_release_en.pdf

http://thecvf.org/marrakech-communique

http://thecvf.org/marrakech-vision

Sendai coherence

SDGs, Paris Climate Pact

Coherence in the Sendai Framework

III. Guiding principles

19-(a) Each State has the primary responsibility to prevent and reduce disaster risk, including through international, regional, sub-regional, trans-boundary and bilateral cooperation. The reduction of disaster risk is a common concern for all States and the extent to which developing countries are able to effectively enhance and implement national disaster
risk reduction policies and measures in the context of their respective circumstances and capabilities can be further enhanced through the provision of sustainable international cooperation;

19-(h) The development, strengthening, and implementation of relevant policies, plans, practices, and mechanisms need to aim at coherence across sustainable development and growth, food security, health and safety, climate change and variability, environmental management, and disaster risk reductions agendas

19-(h) Disaster risk reduction is essential to achieve sustainable development

Coherence

Istanbul World Housetrain Summit – Donor guidelines funding hooking on drr principles

New Urban Agenda – Managing policy areas ????

Responsible governments and drr

Human rights law, disaster law, environmental law

Mitigation

Much of international climate change law focuses on mitigation, which encompasses both measures to limit GHG emissions and measures to preserve or enhance sinks. (61) Policies to reduce emissions include energy efficiency standards, subsidies for renewable energy, a carbon tax, an emissions trading system, funding of urban mass transit systems, and technology research and development. Sinks policies generally relate to land use, land-use change, and forestry (LULUCF), and include measures to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+)
and to encourage afforestation.
Issue relating to mitigation include:
Whether to address emissions on an economy-wide basis or at a sectoral level? Generally, the UN climate regime has sought to address aggregate national emissions and has not separated out particular sectors such as electricity generation or buildings. (62) But a few sectors receive specific attention, including emissions from international maritime and air transport, which are addressed through the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), respectively,(63) and forestry, which is the subject of REDD+.(64)”

harmonising – information sharing – mainstreaming – synchronising

“Some adaptation activities focus specifically on climate change impacts, such as developing heat-resistant crops and building sea walls. But many adaptation activities are aimed at improving the resilience of societies against risks generally, by building capacity, reducing poverty, and strengthening disaster preparedness.

In contrast to mitigation, which requires collective action, adaptation can usually be undertaken by individual states. Moreover, states have an individual incentive to act, since the benefits of adaptation measures generally flow to the state undertaking them, rather than to the international community as a whole. For these reasons, the role of international cooperation is very different for adaptation than for mitigation. An international climate regime need not impose commitments to adapt, since states have an interest in doing so on their own. Instead, the primary function of international cooperation is to provide support for adaptation and to facilitate information sharing.”

Closer integration of disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation at the international level, and the mainstreaming of both into international development assistance, may foster greater efficiency in the use of resources and capacity. However, stronger efforts at the international level do not necessarily lead to substantive and rapid results at the local level.~IPCC

#climatechange #globalwarming, #KyotoProtocol #Paris Agreement #treaties #framework #convention

Risk pooling

Price increases wheat and food products, due to bad harvest – Arab spring 2011

Caribbean catastrophe risk insurance facility (CRIFF) – risk pool

20% of losses covered by insurance facility rest by donors, why?

Hurricanes, water salinization close to the equator

Holland vs. Bangladesh, Ethiopia vs. California

Insurance conversation more important

Pool risk together to cover losses, who should pay?

Parametric insurance trigger premium when disaster happens

Cover losses/damage? w/ premium x 5, not realistic.

Need fire insurance to receive loan as disaster security

Donor pay with money from World Bank or EU

Adjust in regards with Japanese collateral coastal damage (can’t move to the mountains)

 

New Zealand earthquake commission model (domestic)

Govt, first $130 from state in 2 weeks, rest from private insurers

Normal house insurance premiums

 

African Risk Capacity (ARC) 32 member countries – risk pool

The Pacific Disaster Risk Financing and Insurance (PCRAFI) – fully funded

 

Compensation as part of adaptation for loss and damage

 

Can insurance in preventing and reducing disaster risk?

Indemnification not compensation

Risk reflective premium completely unfordable

Risk cooling yes, governmental (no consumer pays)

Risk cooling int. cooperation

CA earthquake authority 10% take up rate

Moral hazard Italy

Get people out of hazard zones related to risk.

Risk transfer as a proxy for risk reduction. Moving the risk is not risk reduction

ARC: Risk transfer not risk reduction. Least developed countries, pay-out to help people, not adaptation. Adaptation need depends on countries with the most need.

How do you trigger that to become a forcing mechanism for change? How do you tie the money to be played out to society to reduce the risk instead of just paying of the loss?

Imagine how to operate, contextualise DRR coherence? What instrument can be used AI? Machine learning w/o grassroots’ silos. Boomerang has reached the cloud.

New treaties include Policy Coherence for Development (PCD)
https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/policies/policy-coherence-development_en

Sendai monitoring narrative for nations, how do you balance this national and international?

#ClimateChance #CCAgadir17 #Cities #EUSEW17 #c40cities #NUA #NAU #CCCRdg #Habitat3 #Humanrights

 

Disaster Risk Management vs. Disaster Risk Financing (Optimal model)

disaster risk management

Potential synergies between international finance for disaster risk management and adaptation to climate change have not yet been fully realised. There is a need for better assessment of global adaptation costs, funding and investment. Studies estimating the global cost of adaptation are characterised by shortcomings in data, methods and coverage. ~IPCC

Risk Management

Mitigation presentation

  • Mass migration

Terrorism insurance in no demand

Nation’s national risk register (100)

Transfer risks from government balance sheet into private sector balance sheet

Risk reflective prising hard in relation to climate change

Supply side – Demand side (product for profit) (Black swan event)

Risk pooling mechanism, government, insurance, business and academia

Optimal model for risk sharing – Global

Resilient is a purpose

Control behaviour with Incentive/Stick 80/20

FEMER disaster insurance partner in Florida

NZ – IQC and ECC insurance schemes

Recommendation reduction in premium (for e.g. implementation)

RE Insurance à Risk mitigation à Resilience

“Prepare strategy” could improve a blueprint for other insurance areas

Devolution – sharing best practice and developing shared policies

Houses on stilts, electrical plugs halfway up the wall

Public private initiative better handling the money

Coherence insurance

We live in a sharing economy

On case of disaster

Lower the premium if property owner can house migrants from hazard zone.

This way the victim will learn.

This way insurance will lower premium and reduce risk in loss and damage transfer.

In case of a disaster it’s about to move evacuate an amount of people to safety.

Law people.

With all respect it’s more of a humanitarian issue. Law have to adept either over government bodies or over borders.

 

Sovereign risk pools start sharing risks internationally (Pan-Asian, Pan-European)

Capital markets risk sharing for terror attacks (Insurance link security as a bond)

If risk is not limited to national border

 

ACEAN

Acean and south pacific risk management broadway disaster risk reduction

Negative

Section 28. Need for regional cooperation

Need for acute regional cooperation

Natural disasters

Three institutional models

Bilateral relationship

Multilateralism

Intuitionalism ACEAN (to stop conflict, non-intervention)

2007 New charter new narrative cooperation, collaboration, single market even disaster management (1970, 2003-2005 (ADMER)) binding disaster management and emergency response from 2008. Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA) – UNISDR

Ground problem: If minimal monitor reports requested. Indigenous funding limited.

Regionalism South Pacific

Reef shark

PIF (Pacific Forum) devolved authority to South Pacific Unity (Development)

NGOs and development partners and stats working along formal bodies.

World society theory, Imagined truths

Stats have to cooperate more

 

Taplawan

No-build zones (40 meters from the shoreline), buffer zones, planned re-location, relocation risk

States as translator of priority actions

Typhon Huyan Category 5

Informal settlements (average 19 years)

Building back better

Incorporate DRR in human settlements

Risks with incorporation of International standards land use and urban planning, it become national plans for relocation. Policy failure – Translation à Outputs and relocation through commitment become relocation (Hyogo Framework do not refer to relocation). Lack of transitional housing.

Unsupported substantial self-settlements without assistance shelter permanent shanti towns

Disaster risk enhanced rather than reduced, extreme vulnerability

Consequences with best laid plans

Sendai re-location (priority 3)

We are applicable and possible (ethics) à Unpack being cynical

Planned re-location after drr, lack controlling human mobility + informal settlements =

“Recipe for disaster”

Will capacity building allow territorial regions and states to control human mobility, when you got longterm history conflict over land, contested authority systems over land, post-colonial land policy experiences?

Land use planning may not be DRR measure when there is a history settlement formality.

Land use planning need to be investigated in the Sendai framework. Land use has disproportional effects on those who lack documentation after disaster.

Informal housing and urban poverty reduction slum upgrading

Land use planning is not post disaster recovery without reference the emergency face requirements to where it should occur.

Buffer zone proposals

Align with guiding principles in internal replacement and other human right (last resort bla bla) standards

Human interacting with other humans there is where we have the greatest catchment area

Awareness needed on assumption on no return / provision on return.

Don’t apply old frames on new area DRR

Voluntary replacement

Incentives and drivers

72 hours raise shelter to host people for 3 month

Let them go/move back with shelter assistance

 

Single official voice principle

Many more natural disasters

Advancing in communication

Vertical (ACEA) vs. Horizontal (Switzerland 2008) approach

Sendai no national level

Local, global, regional or sub-regional

EFAS European Flood Awareness System 2012 (61 partner organisation, regional)

Training of system exclusive for partners

Real time information

Forecasts information with leap times of 10-15 days

Risk: Could undermine national sources

Warning for redundant information

National and Regional and Approaches

Legal frameworks for search and rescue

Maritime and Aviation

Arctic Maritime SAR-agreement different from Urban SAR agreement

Imposing on regional cooperation

Indigenous people of the north (early warning systems phased out)

Correlation -3 degrees, gasoline sales for snow mobiles (Canadian paper)

North warning system

Salvage convention Shipmasters cooperation between parties to save life

Control centres

Change in 2006 Chapter 132 – Rescue to a place of safety (After migration in sea incident) $100

Distress alerts 24/7

Imposing obligations upon states to assist, and make inquires for investigations thereafter

Colour code

Arctic Council – Pollution response agreement

Ref: Traffic increasing – capability gaps

Sovereignty: A request by one party wanting to enter by another state, response must be received back

Entirely communications convention tele command telecommunication devises

More countries involved in SAR final arrangements

Lack of infrastructure

 

UK National health partnership e.g. public health England

Floods: Met office/Environment agency

Aristoteles programme for early warning systems linked to Brussels – Should common standards be adopted for regional or transboundary alerting protocol?

 

Africa and civil duty-to-respond to emergency programme in case of climatic hazard #UCCEP

Most national governments are initiating governance systems for adaptation. Disaster risk management, adjustments in technologies and infrastructure, ecosystem-based approaches, basic public health measures, and livelihood diversification are reducing vulnerability, although efforts to date tend to be isolated.

Disaster adaptation experience is accumulating across regions in the public and private sector and within communities. Disaster adaptation options adopted to date emphasise incremental adjustments and co-benefits and are starting to emphasise flexibility and learning. Most assessments of disaster adaptation have been restricted to impacts, vulnerability and disaster adaptation planning, with very few assessing the processes of implementation or the effects of disaster adaptation actions.

Future Pathways for Disaster Adaptation and Sustainable Development

Disaster adaptation and resilience are complementary strategies for reducing and managing the disaster risks of climate change. Substantial disaster response programmes and disaster assistance over near time can reduce climate risks in the 21st century and beyond, increase prospects for effective build back better efforts (Building better from start and adopt to the new normal), why build back better is so important to in learning and developing from hazard zones, reduce the costs and challenges of disaster adaptation in the longer term and contribute to climate-resilient pathways for sustainable development.

Disaster preparedness and sustainable development demonstrates the need and strategic considerations for both disaster adaptation and global-scale mitigation to manage risks from climate change. Building on these insights, disaster adaptation near-term response options that could help achieve such strategic goals. Near-term disaster adaptation and resilience actions will differ across sectors and regions, reflecting development status, response capacities and near- and long-term aspirations with regard to both climate and non-climate outcomes. Because disaster adaptation and resilience inevitably take place in the context of multiple objectives, particular attention is given to the ability to develop and implement integrated approaches that can build on co-benefits and manage trade-offs.

Policy approaches for disaster adaptation, technology and finance

Effective disaster adaptation responses will depend on policies and measures across multiple scales: international, regional, national and sub-national. Policies across all scales supporting technology development, diffusion and transfer, as well as finance for responses to climate change law, can complement and enhance the effectiveness of policies that directly promote disaster adaptation.

Institutional dimensions of adaptation governance, including the integration of adaptation into planning and decision-making, play a key role in promoting the transition from planning to implementation of adaptation. Examples of institutional approaches to adaptation involving multiple actors include economic options (e.g., insurance, public-private partnerships), laws and regulations (e.g., land-zoning laws) and national and government policies and programmes (e.g., economic diversification).

A first step towards disaster adaptation to future climate change is reducing vulnerability and exposure to present climate variability, but some near-term responses to climate change may also limit future choices. Integration of adaptation into planning, including policy design, and decision-making can promote synergies with development and disaster risk reduction. However, poor planning or implementation, overemphasising short-term outcomes or failing to sufficiently anticipate consequences can result in maladaptation, increasing the vulnerability or exposure of the target group in the future or the vulnerability of other people, places or sectors. For example, enhanced protection of exposed assets can lock in dependence on further protection measures. Appropriate adaptation options can be better assessed by including co-benefits and mitigation implications.

Co-benefits of disaster adaptation could affect achievement of other objectives, such as those related to energy security, air quality, efforts to address ecosystem impacts, income distribution, labour supply and employment and urban sprawl. In the absence of complementary policies, however, some disaster adaptation measures may have adverse side effects (at least in the short term), for example on biodiversity, food security, energy access, economic growth and income distribution. The co-benefits of disaster adaptation policies may include improved access to infrastructure and services, extended education and health systems, reduced disaster losses, better governance and others.

Comprehensive strategies in response to climate change law that are consistent with sustainable development take into account co-benefits. The assessment of overall social welfare impacts is complicated by this interaction between climate change response options and pre-existing non-climate policies. For example, in terms of air quality, the value of the extra tonne of sulphur dioxide (SO2) reduction that occurs with climate change mitigation through reduced fossil fuel combustion depends greatly on the stringency of SO2 control policies. If SO2 policy is weak, the value of SO2 reductions may be large, but if SO2 policy is stringent, it may be near zero. Similarly, in terms of adaptation and disaster risk management, weak policies can lead to an adaptation deficit that increases human and economic losses from natural climate variability. ‘Adaptation deficit’ refers to the lack of capacity to manage adverse impacts of current climate variability. An existing adaptation deficit increases the benefits of adaptation policies that improve the management of climate variability and change.

Response options for disaster adaptation

Disaster adaptation options exist in all sectors, but their context for implementation and potential to reduce climate-related risks differs across sectors and regions. Significant co-benefits, synergies and trade-offs exist between different disaster adaptation responses; interactions occur both within and across regions and sectors; For example, investments in crop varieties adapted to climate change can increase the capacity to cope with drought, and public health measures to address vector-borne diseases can enhance the capacity of health systems to address other challenges. Similarly, locating infrastructure away from low-lying coastal areas helps settlements and ecosystems adapt to sea level rise while also protecting against tsunamis. However, some disaster adaptation options may have adverse side effects that imply real or perceived trade-offs with other disaster adaptation objectives or broader development goals. For example, while protection of ecosystems can assist disaster adaptation to climate change, increased use of air conditioning to maintain thermal comfort in buildings or the use of desalination to enhance water resource security can increase energy demand.

Disaster adaptation options are not available in every major sector. Disaster adaptation can be more cost-effective if using an integrated approach that combines measures to reduce emergency assistance and enhance long term carbon sinks in land-based sectors (e.g. forest laws to reduce deforestation).

Increasing climate change will increase challenges for many disaster adaptation and resilience options.

Well-designed systemic and cross-sectoral disaster adaptation strategies are more cost-effective in disaster response than a focus on individual technologies and sectors with efforts in one sector affecting the need for disaster adaptation in others.

Institutional dimensions of disaster adaptation governance, including the integration of adaptation into planning and decision-making, play a key role in promoting the transition from planning to implementation of disaster adaptation.

The most commonly emphasized institutional barriers or enablers for adaptation planning and implementation are: 1) multilevel institutional co-ordination between different political and administrative levels in society; 2) key actors, advocates and champions initiating, mainstreaming and sustaining momentum for climate adaptation; 3) horizontal interplay between sectors, actors and policies operating at similar administrative levels; 4) political dimensions in planning and implementation; and 5) coordination between formal governmental, administrative agencies and private sectors and stakeholders to increase efficiency, representation and support for climate adaptation measures

Disaster adaptation measures intersect with other societal goals, creating the possibility of co‐benefits or adverse side‐effects. These intersections, if well‐managed, can strengthen the basis for undertaking climate mitigation actions

Disaster adaptation can positively or negatively influence the achievement of other societal goals, such as those related to human health, food security, biodiversity, local environmental quality, energy access, livelihoods and equitable sustainable development. On the other hand, policies towards other societal goals can influence the achievement of mitigation and other disaster adaptation objectives. These influences can be substantial, although sometimes difficult to quantify, especially in welfare terms. This multi‐objective perspective is important in part because it helps to identify areas where support for policies that advance multiple goals will be robust.

In increasing climate change, will increased disaster adaptation challenges and resilience help reverse the trend and strengthen the basis for undertaking and deliver climate mitigation actions?

Increasing resilience efforts to adapt to climate change law imply an increasing complexity of interactions, encompassing connections among human health, water, energy, land use and biodiversity. Disaster adaptation can support the achievement of other human right goals, such as those related to human health, food security, environmental quality, energy access, livelihoods and sustainable development, although there can also be negative effects. Disaster adaptation and resilience measures also have the potential to undertaking and deliver mitigation co-benefits, and vice versa, and support other societal goals, though trade-offs can also arise.

Overall, the potential for co-benefits for disaster adaptation end-use emergency response measures outweigh the potential for adverse side effects, whereas the evidence suggests this may not be the case for Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU) measures.

 

Source: Our Climate Chance summary and integrated view on policy sectoral co-benefits relate to disaster risk law in the final part of the IPCC’s Key Findings – Fifth Assessment Report