essay about disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation

Disaster Risk Reduction, Climate Change Adaptation and Their Linkages with Sustainable Development over the Past 30 Years: A Review

• Open access
• Published: 07 February 2023
• Volume 14 , pages 1–13, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Jiahong Wen 1 ,
• Chengcheng Wan 1 ,
• Qian Ye 2 ,
• Jianping Yan 3 &
• Weijiang Li 1  

9255 Accesses

13 Citations

Explore all metrics

The severe damage and impacts caused by extreme events in a changing climate will not only make the sustainable development goals difficult to achieve, but also erode the hard-won development gains of the past. This article reviews the major impacts and challenges of disaster and climate change risks on sustainable development, and summarizes the courses and linkages of disaster risk reduction (DRR), climate change adaptation (CCA), and sustainable development over the past 30 years. Our findings show that the conceptual development of DRR actions has gone through three general phases: disaster management in the 1990s, risk management in the 2000s, and resilient management and development in the 2010s. Gradually, CCA has been widely implemented to overcome the adverse effects of climate change. A framework is proposed for tackling climate change and disaster risks in the context of resilient, sustainable development, indicating that CCA is not a subset of DRR while they have similarities and differences in their scope and emphasis. It is crucial to transform governance mechanisms at different levels, so as to integrate CCA and DRR to reduce disaster and climate change risks, and achieve safe growth and a resilient future in the era of the Anthropocene.

Similar content being viewed by others

A review of the global climate change impacts, adaptation, and sustainable mitigation measures

Role of Local Governments in Disaster Management

Disaster Risk Resilience: Conceptual Evolution, Key Issues, and Opportunities

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

Frequent disasters triggered by natural hazards around the world have caused huge losses of life and property to human society (CRED and UNDRR 2020 ). Climate change is further exacerbating disaster risks, increasing the frequency and severity of disaster damage and losses, and seriously hindering our efforts to achieve the sustainable development goals (SDGs) (IPCC 2022 ). Disaster risk reduction (DRR) and climate change adaptation (CCA) have become significant common challenges facing the international community in the era of the Anthropocene.

In December 1989, the United Nations adopted a historical resolution, declaring that the International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction (IDNDR) would be launched on 1 January 1990 (United Nations 1989 ). Since then, international disaster reduction efforts have been developing vigorously for more than 30 years. Global actions on climate change mitigation and adaptation also go back more than 30 years. In November 1988, the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme jointly established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Footnote 1 In December 1990, the 45th session of the United Nations General Assembly endorsed resolution 45/212, deciding to establish the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (United Nations 1992a ) with the participation of all member states of the United Nations, to negotiate international conventions on climate change, which was finally adopted in May 1992 (United Nations 1992a ). Since then DRR and CCA have become the core themes for international sustainable development.

Some previous studies have considered that CCA is a subset of disaster risk reduction and one of many processes within disaster risk reduction (Kelman 2015 ; Kelman et al. 2015 ). This may not be the case, however, in many ways, disaster risk reduction and CCA have overlapping aims and involve similar kinds of intervention (Twigg 2015 ; Islam et al. 2020 ). Therefore, many studies have suggested that addressing CCA and DRR together could be more beneficial (Clegg et al. 2019 ), and various studies have also explored ways and barriers of integrating DRR with CCA, as well as mainstreaming both into development (Mitchell et al. 2010 ; Florano 2015 ; Twigg 2015 ; Hore et al. 2018 ; Mal et al. 2018 ; Gabriel et al. 2021 ).

In the context that more than three years of the COVID-19 pandemic have affected all dimensions of social-ecological systems, and the proposed 2015−2030 sustainable development agenda has already been implemented halfway, the three main objectives of this study are to: (1) review the challenges, impacts, and risks of climate change and extreme events; (2) summarize the agenda and concept evolution of international DRR, CCA, and sustainable development since 1990; and (3) discuss the governance mechanisms and practices of integration of DRR and CCA—and their linkages with sustainable and resilient development—employed by the members of the international community over the past 30 years. Such work could help us find ways to achieve the goals set by the United Nations’ Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015−2030 (United Nations 2015a ), the Paris Agreement (United Nations 2015b ), and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (United Nations 2015c ).

2 Disaster Risk Reduction and Sustainable Development

From 2000 to 2019, 7,348 disaster events were recorded worldwide by EM-DAT (The International Disaster Database at the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters) (CRED and UNDRR 2020 ). These disasters claimed approximately 1.23 million lives, an annual average of 60,000 lost lives, and affected a total of over 4 billion people (many on more than one occasion) (CRED and UNDRR 2020 ). These disasters also led to approximately USD 2.97 trillion in direct economic losses worldwide. If the expected annual losses induced by natural hazards were shared equally among the world’s population, it would be equivalent to an annual loss of almost USD 70 for each individual of working age, or two months’ income for people living below the poverty line (UNISDR 2015 ). Clearly, sustainable development cannot be achieved without taking account of disaster risk reduction (UNDP 2004 ; UNDRR 2022 ). To do so, however, there are three major obstacles that need to be addressed.

First, there is still a lack of scientific and technological capabilities (including risk monitoring, risk assessment, early warning, and so on) and risk governance mechanisms to reduce the loss of life and property caused by very large-scale disasters globally. The 2008 Wenchuan Earthquake in China caused a total of 87,150 deaths and missing persons; in 2010, the Haiti Earthquake killed 222,500 people; the 2015/2016 droughts in India affected 330 million people; the direct economic losses caused by the 2011 East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami were as high as USD 210 billion (CRED and UNDRR 2020 ).

Second, EM-DAT does not record many small-scale but recurring disasters caused by extensive risks (minor but recurrent disaster risks) (UNISDR 2015 ), as well as indirect losses. From 2005 to 2014, direct economic losses due to extensive risks in 85 countries and territories were equivalent to a total of USD 94 billion (UNISDR 2015 ). Extensive risks are responsible for most disaster morbidity and displacement, and represent an ongoing erosion of development assets, such as houses, schools, health facilities, and local infrastructures. However, the cost of extensive risk is not visible and tends to be underestimated, as it is usually absorbed by low-income households and communities and small businesses. In addition, better recording and sharing of disaster information is needed for disaster loss accounting, forensics, and risk modeling (De Groeve et al. 2013 ; De Groeve et al. 2015 ; Hallegatte 2015 ; Khadka 2022 ; UNDRR 2022 ).

Third, in today’s crowded and interconnected world, indirect, cascading impacts can also be significant, and disaster impacts increasingly cascade across geographies and sectors (UNDRR 2022 ). Indirect losses, including output losses (such as business interruptions, supply-chain disruptions, and lost production due to capital damages), and macroeconomic feedbacks, may extend over a longer period of time than the event, and affect a larger spatial scale or different economic sectors (Hallegatte 2015 ). Therefore, indirect, cascading impacts may cause more serious harm to socioeconomic development in a region or society (Khadka 2022 ; UNDRR 2022 ).

3 Climate Change Risks and Sustainable Development

The best estimate of total human-caused global surface temperature increase from 1850–1900 to 2010–2019 is around 1.1 °C, and each of the last four decades has been successively warmer than any decade that preceded it since 1850 (IPCC 2021 ; WMO 2021 ). If the temperature continues to rise at the current rate, global warming could reach 1.5 °C between 2030 and 2052 (IPCC 2018 ). Increasing risks associated with health, livelihoods, food security, water supply, human security, and economic growth are all expected in a rapidly changing climate (Carleton and Hsiang 2016 ; IPCC 2018 ). The Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC AR6) has identified over 130 key risks (KRs) that may become severe under particular conditions of climate hazards, exposure, and vulnerability. These key risks are represented in eight so-called Representative Key Risk (RKR) clusters of key risks relating to low-lying coastal systems; terrestrial and ocean ecosystems; critical physical infrastructure, networks, and services; living standards; human health; food security; water security; and peace and mobility (IPCC 2022 ). The international scientific community has warned that without quick actions on the following three urgent issues, the severe damage and impacts of climate change and extreme events will not only put the achievement of the SDGs out of reach but also erode the hard-won development gains of the past.

The first issue is that as human-induced climate change, including more frequent and intense extreme events, has affected and will continue to threaten the lives and livelihoods of millions to billions of people, the challenges of how to significantly reduce the emerging risks of climate change are enormous ((IPCC 2018 , 2022 ; Rising et al. 2022 ). Currently, climate-related disasters account for more than 80% of disasters caused by natural hazards (UNDRR 2021 ). Around the world 3.3−3.6 billion people live in areas of high vulnerability to climate change (IPCC 2022 ).

The second issue is that under higher warming scenarios (for example, 3−4 °C) it is almost certain that Planet Earth will cross tipping points, leading to irreversible changes in ecosystems or climate patterns, which will significantly limit our ability to adapt (Steffen et al. 2018 ; Lenton et al. 2019 ; Ritchie et al. 2021 ). The challenges of how to address the adaptation limits that are already being confronted across the world will only increase (Future Earth et al. 2022 ). For example, in high-emission scenarios, week-long heat extremes that break records by three or more standard deviations are two to seven times more probable in 2021–2050 and three to 21 times more probable in 2051–2080, compared to the last three decades (Fischer et al. 2021 ). Building codes in many areas have to be modified and even redesigned.

The third issue is the lack of scientific research to better understand the mechanisms of systemic risks caused by climate change in the context of deep uncertainty. For example, record-shattering extremes—nearly impossible in the absence of warming—are likely to occur in the coming decades (Fischer et al. 2021 ), which may lead to the emergence of systemic risks with large-scale, non-linear, and cascading consequences in socioeconomic systems (Helbing 2012 ; Renn et al. 2019 ). Deep uncertainty is mainly reflected in three aspects, including uncertain scenarios of climate change, uncertain consequences of decision making, and uncertain schemes of decision making. Due to the deep uncertainty of the changes, over- or under-adaptation can occur, leading policymakers and planners to make suboptimal decisions (Linstone 2004 ; Kwakkel et al. 2016 ; Marchau et al. 2019 ; Webber and Samaras 2022 ).

4 Agenda and Evolution of International Disaster Risk Reduction, Climate Change Adaptation, and Sustainable Development

A landmark year for DRR, CCA, and sustainable development was 2015 because three important events occurred in that year—the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015−2030, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and the Paris Agreement under the UNFCCC (United Nations 2015a ; United Nations 2015b ; United Nations 2015c ) were adopted by the international community. Looking back in history can help us understand the governance of international DRR and CCA, and their important processes and context (Fig. 1 ).

Source Modified from Mal et al. ( 2018 )

Important events of disaster risk reduction (DRR), climate change adaptation (CCA), and sustainable development since 1990. IPCC: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

4.1 International Disaster Risk Reduction Action Framework and Concept Evolution

In 1987, the 42nd session of the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution and decided to designate the 1990s as the International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction (IDNDR) (United Nations 1987 ), calling on governments from all over the world to actively participate in and support this action. The main goal of the IDNDR was to minimize the losses of life and property, as well as the impacts and damage to the economy and society caused by disasters. In 1999, the United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) and the UNISDR Secretariat were established as the successor arrangements for the IDNDR to be responsible for the implementation of DRR plans and strategies among UN member states, with a view to further strengthening international disaster reduction efforts. In 2019, the Secretariat changed its name to the UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR). Footnote 2

The First World Conference on Natural Disaster Reduction held at Yokohama, Japan in 1994 adopted the Yokohama Strategy and Plan of Action for a Safer World (IDNDR 1994 ), reiterating the focus of the IDNDR. The Yokohama Plan of Action urged the incorporation of disaster prevention, preparedness, early warning, recovery, local capacity building, and improvement of disaster response mechanisms into national policies in order to reduce the impacts of disasters.

In 2005, the Second World Conference on Natural Disaster Reduction held at Kobe, Hyogo, Japan, adopted the Hyogo Declaration and the Hyogo Framework for Action 2005−2015: Building the Resilience of Nations and Communities to Disasters (United Nations 2005 ). The goals of the Hyogo Framework were to substantially reduce the loss of human, socioeconomic, and environmental assets of communities and countries from disasters by 2015 by integrating DRR into strategies and planning processes, and by promoting the effective role of local knowledge, resilience building, and climate adaptation. The action framework includes an expected outcome, three strategic goals, and five priorities for actions (Fig. 2 ).

The Hyogo Framework for Action 2005−2015: Expected outcome, strategic goals, and priorities for action (United Nations 2005 )

In March 2015, the Third World Conference on Natural Disaster Reduction held in Sendai, Japan, adopted the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015−2030 (United Nations 2015a ). The Sendai Framework set out an expected outcome and seven quantitative goals to be achieved in the following 15 years, together with four priorities for actions—understanding disaster risk, strengthening disaster risk governance to manage disaster risk, investing in DRR for resilience, and enhancing disaster preparedness for effective response and to “Build Back Better” in recovery, rehabilitation, and reconstruction (Fig. 3 ). The endorsement of the Sendai Framework opened a new chapter for DRR and sustainable development.

The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015−2030: Expected outcome, strategic goals, and priorities for action (United Nations 2015a )

Over the past 30 years, in general, the development of DRR and related goals and priorities for action can be divided into three stages of disaster management in the 1990s, disaster risk management in the 2000s, and resilience management and development in the 2010s. The three stages reflect the key characteristics and important conceptual development of DRR actions at different stages rather than being separated from each other. Disaster management focuses on disaster-centered approaches (Fig. 4 ), and countermeasures are focused on disaster preparedness and response. Disaster risk management is to prevent new disaster risk, reduce existing disaster risk, and manage residual risk on the basis of risk-based decisions. It emphasizes risk-centered approaches (Fig. 4 ), and prevention and reduction are superior to response and relief. Resilience management (Fig. 4 ) is a new paradigm, which puts the emphasis on enhancing the ability of a system, community, or society to resist, absorb, accommodate, adapt to, transform, and recover from the effects of a hazard (predictable or unpredictable) in a timely and efficient manner, including through the preservation and restoration of its essential basic structures and functions through risk management. Footnote 3 These ideas are embodied in the three World Conferences on Natural Disaster Reduction held by the United Nations and the adopted disaster risk reduction strategies and action frameworks.

A comparison between disaster management, risk management, and resilience management

The 1990s coincided with the IDNDR, which emphasized the enhancement of national disaster management capabilities in disaster prevention, mitigation, preparedness, and relief. The Yokohama Strategy urged the enhancement of disaster management for achieving sustainable development, and clarified that to achieve the goals of the IDNDR, disaster prevention, mitigation, and preparedness were more effective than disaster relief (IDNDR 1994 ). The 2000s witnessed the transition from disaster management to risk management. The Hyogo Framework emphasized that the focus of DRR should shift to disaster risk management and that DRR should be a national and a local priority and incorporated into national development policies (United Nations 2005 ). In the 2010s, the concept of the DRR field further shifted to resilience building. Researchers and practitioners at different levels worked a lot on the theory and practice of resilience, and gradually resilient management and development became an international consensus (Cutter et al. 2013 ; Florin and Linkov 2016 ; Gencer 2017 ).

4.2 Climate Change Risk Assessment and Adaptation

Over the past 30 years, the IPCC has issued a series of comprehensive assessment reports about the state of scientific, technical, and socioeconomic knowledge on climate change impacts, risks, and adaptation. The adaptation negotiations under the UNFCCC have also made significant progress, and gradually, CCA has been widely implemented to overcome the adverse effects of climate change at all levels.

4.2.1 The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Reports

Since 1988, every 6−7 years, nearly a thousand scientists around the world have engaged in various fields of climate change and socioeconomic and sustainable development to provide policymakers with a comprehensive explanation of the current international scientific community’s latest understanding of climate system changes in so far six assessment reports (see Fig. 1 ). Since 1990, IPCC’s six climate change assessment reports have made fruitful evaluations of the scientific progress of climate system changes, the impacts and risks of climate change on natural and socioeconomic systems, and the options for limiting greenhouse gas emissions and mitigating climate change. The reports have become authoritative documents for the international community’s combat of climate change, providing a scientific basis for the negotiations of the UNFCCC, and an important scientific basis for governments to formulate policies and take actions on climate change mitigation and adaptation (Qin 2018 ). In order to assess the relationship between climate change and extreme weather events, and their impacts on the sustainable development of society, the IPCC issued a special report on “Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation” in February 2012 (IPCC 2012 ). The report pointed out that the extent of damage caused by extreme weather to elements at risk depends not only on the extreme events, but also on the exposure and vulnerability of the social-ecological systems. The report also systematically explains the paths and methods of disaster risk management to adapt to climate change.

Adaptation is an important part of the IPCC reports. The IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) summarizes the adaptation needs, options, plans, and measures of climate change, and assesses the role of adaptation, the limitations of adaptation, and the transformation of adaptation in four chapters. The report gives a variety of adaptation measures, which can be grouped into three categories—measures to reduce exposure, incremental adaptation measures, and transformational adaptation measures (IPCC 2014 ). The IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) Working Group II (WGII) report describes the current status of adaptation and its benefit, future adaptation options and their feasibility, adaptation limitations, and maladaptation and how to avoid it. The feasibility of 23 adaptation measures is evaluated, which shows adaptation is subject to hard and soft limits (IPCC 2022 ).

4.2.2 Adaptation Negotiations Under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

Damage and loss associated with climate change impacts have emerged as key issues underpinning climate change adaptation at the global level during recent climate change negotiations under the UNFCCC (Prabhakar et al. 2015 ). Along with the rise in climate-related hazards, and the impacts and risks of fast-onset extremes and slow-onset changes (such as sea level rise) in the climate system, adaptation started attracting more attention at COP 10 (Conference of the Parties in 2004), then received successive boosts from the adoption of the Bali Action Plan in 2007 and the following COPs in Cancun (Mexico) in 2010 and others leading up to the 2015 Paris Agreement (Shaw et al. 2016 ) (see Fig. 1 ).

In December 2015, the Paris Climate Change Conference reached a series of results centered on the Paris Agreement, which became an important historical and binding international framework aiming to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change (United Nations 2015b ).The Paris Agreement puts forward three goals:

Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and striving to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above the pre-industrial levels;

Increasing the ability to adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change and foster climate resilience and low greenhouse gas emissions development, in a manner that does not threaten food production; and

Making finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development.

In terms of adaptation and reduction of the damage and loss caused by climate change, global adaptation goals have been proposed to enhance adaptability, strengthen resilience, and reduce vulnerability to climate change.

Over the past 30 years, the adaptation negotiations under the UNFCCC can be roughly divided into three stages of early slow progress, equal emphasis on adaptation and mitigation, and enhanced adaptation action. The climate negotiations were characterized by “emphasis on mitigation, neglect of adaptation” in the early stage. After the 2007 Bali Roadmap adopted by the 13th Conference of the Parties (COP 13) that put equal emphasis on mitigation and adaptation, the adaptation-related agenda and its importance were increased under the UNFCCC negotiation regime. The 2010 Cancun Adaptation Framework and the 2015 Paris Agreement put forward specific action frameworks to enhance global adaptation actions, and to establish an international governance and mechanism for global adaptation to climate change, which laid a good foundation for enhancing climate resilience, reducing vulnerability, and achieving the goals of the UNFCCC (Tao 2014 ; Chen et al. 2016 ; Chen 2020 ).

4.3 Linkages of Disaster Risk Reduction, Climate Change Adaptation, and the Sustainable Development Goals

In 1987, the Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development “Our Common Future” put forward the strategy of sustainable development, marking the birth of a new concept of development (WCED 1987 ). In June 1992, the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (also known as the Earth Summit) adopted a series of important documents—the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (also known as the Earth Charter); Agenda 21; the Framework Convention on Climate Change; and the Convention on Biological Diversity. The United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification was adopted on 17 June 1994. The Earth Summit established a road map of sustainable development with harmonious coexistence between humans and nature (United Nations 1992b ; Cicin-Sain 1996 ). A considerable incentive for rethinking disaster risk as an integral part of the development process comes from the aim of achieving the goals laid out in the Millennium Declaration. The Declaration sets forth a road map for human development supported by 191 nations in 2000 (UNDP 2004 ). Following the end of the 2000−2015 Millennium Development Goals (United Nations 2000 ), the United Nations Development Summit in September 2015 unanimously adopted the draft resolution “Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development,” submitted by the 69th session of the United Nations General Assembly (United Nations 2015c ). The SDGs in the United Nations 2030 Agenda replaced the Millennium Development Goals launched by the United Nations at the beginning of the 21st century.

The agenda includes 17 SDGs and 169 associated targets. These development goals all closely interact and influence climate change and disaster risks. For example, Goal 9 building resilient infrastructure, Goal 11 building inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable cities and human settlements, and Goal 13 taking urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts, all are directly related to DRR and CCA. Many of these 169 associated targets also involve reducing disaster risks and disaster impacts. For example, one of the specific targets of Goal 1 is to build the resilience of the poor and those in vulnerable situations and reduce their exposure and vulnerability to climate-related extreme events and other economic, social, and environmental shocks and disasters by 2030. Disasters put development at risk, and losses caused by climate change and extreme events may severely hinder many countries from achieving SDGs. At the same time, the realization of the SDGs will also help reduce human vulnerability to climate change and disasters, thereby greatly reducing disaster risks.

Climate change adaptation and DRR have similarities and differences in their scope and emphasis (Twigg 2015 ; Clegg et al. 2019 ). The common aim of CCA and DRR is to manage the risk induced by weather/climate-related hazards, including extreme events and climate-related creeping environmental changes, which is part of climate risk management (see Fig. 4 ). Their difference is that DRR not only deals with hydrometeorological disaster risk closely related to climate change, but also manages risks caused by other natural hazards, such as earthquakes and volcanic eruptions (Twigg 2015 ). In addition, DRR focuses more on reducing the potential losses of people and assets. Climate change adaptation also has its focus areas, such as the impact of climate change on ecosystems and biodiversity, and infectious diseases and health (IPCC 2022 ). According to the Adaptation Gap Report 2022 (UNEP 2022 ), CCA actions are currently mainly focused on agriculture, water, ecosystems, and cross-cutting sectors. Disaster risk reduction and CCA are two major areas of integrated risk management (Fig. 5 ), thus both should be joined within the integrated risk management that is an important pillar and field of resilient, sustainable development. Under the framework of resilient development, there are two areas that are closely related to climate change and DRR, that is, emergency management and climate change mitigation (Fig. 5 ). The synergistic effects of integrated risk management, emergency management, and climate change mitigation will effectively ensure safe growth and resilient development.

A framework for addressing disaster and climate change risks in the context of resilient, sustainable development

5 Discussion

In many ways, DRR and CCA have overlapping aims and involve similar kinds of intervention (Begum et al. 2014 ; Forino et al. 2015 ; Twigg 2015 ; Amaratunga et al. 2017 ).

People and ecosystems across the world are already confronted with limits to adaptation, and if the planet warms beyond 1.5 °C or even 2 °C, more widespread breaching of adaptation limits is expected (Forino et al. 2015 ; Twigg 2015 ).

Addressing climate change may have the potential to create or exacerbate other development concerns (Kelman et al. 2015 ). Large dams might contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation through reduced dependence on fossil fuels and regulating floods. But large dams tend to increase flood risk over the long term in a process termed ‘‘risk transference’’ (Etkin 1999 ). Seawalls and infrastructural development along coastlines may also induce changes in water currents, destruction of natural ecosystems, and increased or shifted erosion from protected to unprotected areas (Dahl et al. 2017 ; Rahman and Hickey 2019 ; Piggott-Mckellar et al. 2020 ; Simon et al. 2020 ). Seawalls may effectively reduce impacts to people and assets in the short term but may also result in lock-ins and increase exposure to coastal hazards in the long term unless they are integrated into a long-term climate risk management plan. Although fire suppression in naturally fire-adapted ecosystems prevents fire damage, such action reduces the space for natural processes, thus reducing the ecosystem’s resistance to climate change and its ecosystem service value (Ruffault and Mouillot 2015 ; Hope et al. 2016 ).

Therefore, DRR and CCA should be addressed together under integrated risk management to overcome limits and maladaptation, and optimize the use of limited resources (Mitchell et al. 2010 ; Twigg 2015 ; Flood et al. 2022 ). Thus, the integration of CCA and DRR can contribute to achieving the goals of international frameworks such as the SDGs (Kelman and Gaillard 2010 ; UN DESA 2014 ; Kelman 2017 ; Clegg et al. 2019 ), the Sendai Framework, and the Paris Agreement (Amaratunga et al. 2017 ).

However, there are many factors that hinder successful integration of CCA and DRR (Amaratunga et al. 2017 ; Seidler et al. 2018 ; Dias et al. 2020 ; Islam et al. 2020 ). Barriers include poor communication between organizations, coordination challenges, lack of political willingness, lack of capacity among actors and institutions, policy gaps, mismatches, different funding systems, fund shortages, and so on. Disaster risk reduction and CCA are frequently addressed, studied, and analyzed independently (O’Brien and Li 2006 ; Ireland 2010 ; Kelman et al. 2015 ; Chmutina et al. 2016 ; Clegg et al. 2019 ), separated by institutional and administrative boundaries (Schipper and Pelling 2006 ; Kelman 2017 ; Pilli-Sihvola 2020 ). For historical and political reasons, internationally, the way we are currently working addresses climate change, DRR, development-related projects, and humanitarian relief separately (Fig. 6 ). International funding mechanisms establish and implement independent projects of CCA, DRR, and so on in target countries through international organizations (such as different agencies of the United Nations), resulting in segmented practices.

A scheme showing international funding mechanisms for target countries

At the national level, CCA and DRR are also frequently handled independently, separated by institutional and administrative boundaries (Schipper and Pelling 2006 ; Kelman 2017 ; Dias et al. 2018 ; Clegg et al. 2019 ). In China, for example, the Fourteenth Five Year Plan for National Comprehensive Disaster Prevention and Reduction (2021−2025) was formulated by the National Disaster Reduction Commission, which is only a deliberative body and thus it is difficult to promote the implementation of the plan. In 2022, 17 national departments jointly issued the National Climate Change Adaptation Strategy 2035, with the Ministry of Ecology and Environment as the leading department. Climate change adaptation and DRR efforts are still addressed by two sets of organizations in China. In the Philippines, DRR and CCA are operationalized independently of one another (Florano 2015 ; De Leon and Pittock 2017 ). There are two separate laws on climate change and disaster risk reduction and management—the Climate Change Act of 2009 and the Philippine National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act of 2010, respectively. This is also the case in national level arrangements in the UK, where DRR and CCA are managed by separate government departments (Dias et al. 2018 ; Clegg et al. 2019 ).

To change this situation, effective governance mechanisms, such as policy, agreement, culture, leadership, and coordination need to be established among international organizations, as well as between international organizations and target countries, while countries also need to establish overarching national risk governance systems (Fig. 7 ). Thus, tailored country programs can be established through international risk governance solutions, and implemented in target countries by a unified mechanism under the national risk governance system.

Integrated risk governance solution among international organizations and countries

Moreover, a wide range of climate change impacts and disaster risks (especially the cascading and systemic risks) are understudied or challenging to quantify, and are missing from current evaluations of climate change and other disaster risks to lives and assets (Mamuji and Etkin 2019 ; Mcglade et al. 2019 ; Rising et al. 2022 ). Importantly, integrated risk and resilience management is about managing known risks but also about preparing for the unpredictable (Pirani and Tolkoff 2015 ). Thus, better data, actionable information, and relevant knowledge on climate change and disaster risk are needed to promote the integration of CCA and DRR (Mysiak et al. 2018 ; Zuccaro et al. 2020 ).

6 Conclusion

This study reviews the major impacts and challenges of disaster and climate change risks on sustainable development, summarizes the important events and evolution of international disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation over the past 30 years, and reviews the linkages of DRR and CCA to sustainable development. The three main conclusions are:

Disasters caused by both intensive and extensive disaster risks have a huge impact on lives and livelihoods. Indirect losses and cascading effects may cause even more serious damage to the socioeconomic development of a region or a society. Most disasters triggered by natural hazards are related to weather/climate events. Especially under a changing climate, compound events and systemic risks are increasing, and record-shattering extremes are likely to occur in the coming decades, which will significantly limit our ability to adapt.

Over the past 30 years, the evolution of paradigms in DRR actions can be roughly divided into three stages—disaster management in the 1990s, disaster risk management in the 2000s, and resilient management and development in the 2010s. These ideas are embodied in the three World Conferences on Natural Disaster Reduction held by the United Nations and the adopted disaster reduction strategies and action frameworks. The adaptation negotiations under the UNFCCC over the past 30 years also can be roughly divided into three stages of early slow progress, equal emphasis on adaptation and mitigation, and enhanced adaptation action. Climate change adaptation has been widely carried out to overcome the adverse effects of climate change. The integrated risk management community has also learned the current status of adaptation and its benefit, future adaptation options and their feasibility, adaptation limitations, and maladaptation and how to avoid it.

This article proposes a framework for addressing climate change and disaster risks in the context of resilient, sustainable development. Climate change adaptation is not a subset of DRR, and they have both similarities and differences in their scope and emphasis. Disaster risk reduction and CCA should be joined under the integrated risk management that is an important pillar of resilient and sustainable development. Under the umbrella of resilient development, there are two areas that are closely related to climate change and DRR—disaster management and climate change mitigation. The synergistic effects of integrated risk management, emergency management, and climate change mitigation will effectively support safe growth and resilient development.

To successfully integrate CCA and DRR, it is urgently needed to transform governance mechanisms, and to strengthen cooperation among international organizations, as well as between international organizations and countries, while countries also need to establish overarching national risk governance systems. Moreover, better data, actionable information, and relevant knowledge are needed for understanding climate change and disaster risks in a context of deep uncertainty.

The severe effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on our health and socioeconomic well-being are a stark warning of the dangers of insufficient actions, prevention, and preparedness—but people and societies can adopt new behaviors when the problems and situations are changing. In the context of climate emergency, the feasibility and effectiveness of adaptation measures will decrease with increasing warming. It is urgently needed to leverage the synergies of CCA and DRR, together with climate change mitigation and disaster management, in order to prevent new risks, reduce and mitigate existing vulnerabilities and risks, and to realize the goals of the Sendai Framework, the Paris Agreement, and the Sustainable Development Goals.

https://www.ipcc.ch/about/history/ .

https://www.undrr.org/about-undrr/history .

https://www.undrr.org/terminology/resilience .

Amaratunga, D., R. Haigh, C. Malalgoda, and M. Dias. 2017. Synthesis report of legal, policy and science approaches within the frame of CCA and DRR: Global perspectives. Project report. University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield, UK. http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/id/eprint/33429/ . Accessed 26 Jan 2023.

Begum, R.A., M.S.K. Sarkar, A.H. Jaafar, and J.J. Pereira. 2014. Toward conceptual frameworks for linking disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 10(Part A): 362–373.

Carleton, T.A., and S.M. Hsiang. 2016. Social and economic impacts of climate. Science 353(6304): Article aad9837.

Chen, M. 2020. Progress and outlook of adaptation negotiation under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Climate Change Research 16(1): 105–116 (in Chinese).

Google Scholar  

Chen, M.P., Y.C. Zhang, B. Li, and Y.E. Li. 2016. Interpretation of adaptation and loss and damage elements in Paris Agreement and possible solution for China. Climate Change Research 12(1): 251–257 (in Chinese).

Chmutina, K., R. Jigyasu, and L. Bosher. 2016. Integrating disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation into the built environment. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Building Resilience 2016 , 7–9 September 2016, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.

Cicin-Sain, B. 1996. Earth summit implementation: Progress since Rio. Marine Policy 20(2): 123–143.

Article   Google Scholar  

Clegg, G., N. Dias, D. Amaratunga, R. Haigh, and A. Panda. 2019. Integration of CCA and DRR for flood resilience: A review of good practices in the United Kingdom. Contributing paper to Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction (GAR 2019). https://www.unisdr.org/files/66296_f337finalcleggintegrationofccaanddr.pdf . Accessed 30 Jan 2023

CRED (Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters), and UNDRR (United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction). 2020. Human cost of disasters: An overview of the last 20 years (2000–2019). Brussels: CRED and Geneva: UNDRR. https://www.undrr.org/sites/default/files/inlineiles/Human%20Cost%20of%20Disasters%202000-2019%20FINAL.pdf . Accessed 30 Jan 2023.

Cutter, S.L., J.A. Ahearn, B. Amadei, P. Crawford, E.A. Eide, G.E. Galloway, M.F. Goodchild, H.C. Kunreuther, et al. 2013. Disaster resilience: A national imperative. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development 55(2): 25–29.

Dahl, K.A., E. Spanger-Siegfried, A. Caldas, and S. Udvardy. 2017. Effective inundation of continental united states communities with 21st century sea level rise. Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene 5: Article 37.

De Groeve, T., K. Poljansek, and D. Ehrlich. 2013. Recording disaster losses. Recommendations for a European Research. European Commission, Joint Research Centre scientific and policy reports. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

De Groeve, T., C. Corbane, and D. Ehrlich. 2015. Guidance for recording and sharing disaster damage and loss data: Towards the development of operational indicators to translate the Sendai Framework into action. Report by the European Commission, Joint Research Centre. EUR 27192. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

De Leon, E.G., and J. Pittock. 2017. Integrating climate change adaptation and climate-related disaster risk-reduction policy in developing countries: A case study in the Philippines. Climate and Development 9(5): 471–478.

Dias, N., D. Amaratunga, and R. Haigh. 2018. Challenges associated with integrating CCA and DRR in the UK – A review on the existing legal and policy background. Procedia Engineering 212: 978–985.

Dias, N., D. Amaratunga, R. Haigh, G. Clegg, and C. Malalgoda. 2020. Critical factors that hinder integration of CCA and DRR: Global perspective. In Handbook of climate change management: Research, leadership, transformation , ed. W.L. Filho, J. Luetz, and D. Ayal, 1–22. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.

Etkin, D. 1999. Risk transference and related trends: Driving forces towards more mega-disasters. Global Environmental Change Part B: Environmental Hazards 1(2): 69–75.

Fischer, E.M., S. Sippel, and R. Knutti. 2021. Increasing probability of record-shattering climate extremes. Nature Climate Change 11(8): 689–695.

Flood, S., Y. Jerez Columbié, M. Le Tissier, and B. O’Dwyer. 2022. Creating resilient futures: Integrating disaster risk reduction, sustainable development goals and climate change adaptation agendas . Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature.

Florano, E.R. 2015. Mainstreaming integrated climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in local development plans in the Philippines. In Handbook of climate change adaptation , ed. W.L. Filho, 433–456. Berlin: Springer.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Florin, M., and I. Linkov. 2016. IRGC resource guide on resilience. Lausanne, Switzerland: EPFL International Risk Governance Center (IRGC).

Forino, G., J. von Meding, and G.J. Brewer. 2015. A conceptual governance framework for climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction integration. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science 6(4): 372–384.

Future Earth, The Earth League, and WCRP (World Climate Research Programme). 2022. 10 New Insights in Climate Science 2022. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7228926 . Accessed 30 Jan 2023.

Gabriel, A.G., P.N.M. Santiago, and R.R. Casimiro. 2021. Mainstreaming disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation in comprehensive development planning of the cities in Nueva Ecija in the Philippines. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science 12(3): 367–380.

Gencer, E. 2017. How to make cities more resilient: A handbook for local government leaders. Geneva: United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR).

Hallegatte, S. 2015. The indirect cost of natural disasters and an economic definition of macroeconomic resilience. World Bank policy research working paper No.7357. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Helbing, D. 2012. Systemic risks in society and economics. In Social self-organization: Agent-based simulation and experiments to study emergent social behavior , ed. D. Helbing, 261–284: New York: Springer.

Hope, E.S., D.W. Mckenney, J.H. Pedlar, B.J. Stocks, and S. Gauthier. 2016. Wildfire suppression costs for Canada under a changing climate. PloS One 11(8): Article e157425.

Hore, K., I. Kelman, J. Mercer, and J.C. Gaillard. 2018. Climate change and disasters. In Handbook of disaster research , ed. H. Rodríguez, W. Donner, and J.E. Trainor, 145–159. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.

IDNDR (International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction). 1994. Yokohama Strategy and Plan of Action for a safer world: Guidelines for natural disaster prevention, preparedness and mitigation. In Proceedings of World Conference on Natural Disaster Reduction , 23–27 May, Yokohama, Japan. https://www.preventionweb.net/files/8241_doc6841contenido1.pdf . Accessed 26 Jan 2023.

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2012. Summary for policymakers. In Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation. A special report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , ed. C.B. Field, V. Barros, T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, D.J. Dokken, K.L. Ebi, M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, et al., 1–19. Cambridge, UK and New York, USA: Cambridge University Press.

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2014. Climate change 2014: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability: Part A: Global and sectoral aspects . Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK and New York, USA: Cambridge University Press.

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2018. Global warming of 1.5°C . An IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty. Cambridge, UK and New York, USA: Cambridge University Press.

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2021. Summary for policymakers. In Climate change 2021: The physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , ed. V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S.L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, et al. 3−32. Cambridge, UK and New York, USA: Cambridge University Press.

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2022. Climate change 2022: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6wg2/pdf/IPCC_AR6_WGII_SummaryForPolicymakers.pdf . Accessed 30 Jan 2023.

Ireland, P. 2010. Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction: Contested spaces and emerging opportunities in development theory and practice. Climate and Development 2(4): 332–345.

Islam, S., C. Chu, J.C. Smart, and L. Liew. 2020. Integrating disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation: A systematic literature review. Climate and Development 12(3): 255–267.

Kelman, I. 2015. Climate change and the Sendai framework for disaster risk reduction. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science 6(2): 117–127.

Kelman, I. 2017. Linking disaster risk reduction, climate change, and the sustainable development goals. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal 26(3): 254–258.

Kelman, I., and J.C. Gaillard. 2010. Embedding climate change adaptation within disaster risk reduction. In Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction: Issues and challenges , ed. R. Shaw, J.M. Pulhin, and J.J. Pereira, 23–46. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing.

Kelman, I., J. Gaillard, and J. Mercer. 2015. Climate change’s role in disaster risk reduction’s future: Beyond vulnerability and resilience. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science 6(1): 21–27.

Khadka, K. 2022. United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction and stakeholder engagement mechanism value proposition. Geneva: United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. https://policycommons.net/artifacts/2391961/united-nations-office-for-disaster-risk-reduction-and-stakeholder-engagement-mechanism-value-proposition/3413390/ . Accessed 17 Dec 2022.

Kwakkel, J.H., M. Haasnoot, and W.E. Walker. 2016. Comparing robust decision-making and dynamic adaptive policy pathways for model-based decision support under deep uncertainty. Environmental Modelling & Software 86: 168–183.

Lenton, T.M., J. Rockström, O. Gaffney, S. Rahmstorf, K. Richardson, W. Steffen, and H.J. Schellnhuber. 2019. Climate tipping points – Too risky to bet against. Nature 575(7784): 592–595.

Linstone, H.A. 2004. Review of: Shaping the Next One Hundred Years: New Methods for Quantitative, Long-Term Policy Analysis . R.J. Lempert, S.W. Popper, and S.C. Bankes, Santa Monica, CA: The RAND Corporation, 2003. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 71(3): 305–307.

Mal, S., R.B. Singh, C. Huggel, and A. Grover. 2018. Introducing linkages between climate change, extreme events, and disaster risk reduction. In Climate change, extreme events and disaster risk reduction , ed. S. Mal, R.B. Singh, and C. Huggel, 1–14. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.

Mamuji, A.A., and D. Etkin. 2019. Disaster risk analysis part 2: The systemic underestimation of risk. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management 16(1): 1–18.

Marchau, V.A., W.E. Walker, P.J. Bloemen, and S.W. Popper. 2019. Decision making under deep uncertainty: From theory to practice . Cham, Switzerland: Springer.

Book   Google Scholar  

Mcglade, J., G. Bankoff, J. Abrahams, S.-J. Cooper-Knock, F. Cotecchia, P. Desanker, W. Erian, and E. Gencer et al. 2019. Global assessment report on disaster risk reduction 2019 . Geneva: United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction.

Mitchell, T., M. van Aalst, and P. Silva Villanueva. 2010. Assessing progress on integrating disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation in development processes. Strengthening Climate Resilience Discussion Paper No. 2. Brighton, UK: Institute of Development Studies.

Mysiak, J., S. Castellari, B. Kurnik, R. Swart, P. Pringle, R. Schwarze, H. Wolters, A. Jeuken, and P. van der Linden. 2018. Brief communication: Strengthening coherence between climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 18(11): 3137–3143.

O’Brien, K.J., and L. Li. 2006. Rightful resistance in rural China . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Piggott-Mckellar, A.E., P.D. Nunn, K.E. Mcnamara, and S.T. Sekinini. 2020. Dam(n) seawalls: A case of climate change maladaptation in Fiji. In Managing climate change adaptation in the Pacific region , ed. W.L. Filho, 69–84. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.

Pilli-Sihvola, K. 2020. Building a bridge between inundated shores: Analyses on integrated disaster risk management and climate change adaptation policies and measures. Finnish Meteorological Institute Contributions No. 168. Helsinki: Finnish Meteorological Institute.

Pirani, R., and L. Tolkoff. 2015. Lessons from Sandy: Federal policies to build climate-resilient coastal regions . Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Prabhakar, S.V.R.K, K. Kamat, A. Hakimov, Y. Chiba, and M. Nakata. 2015. Loss and damage associated with climate change: What and why, stakeholder perspectives, and a way forward. The Paris Climate Agreement and beyond: Linking short-term climate actions to long-term goals, ed. K. Tamura, and S. Kojima, 101–125. Kanagawa, Japan: Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES).

Qin, D.H. 2018. Introduction to climate change science . Beijing: Science Press (in Chinese).

Rahman, H.M.T., and G.M. Hickey. 2019. What does autonomous adaptation to climate change have to teach public policy and planning about avoiding the risks of maladaptation in Bangladesh? Frontiers in Environmental Science 7: Article 2.

Renn, O., K. Lucas, A. Haas, and C. Jaeger. 2019. Things are different today: The challenge of global systemic risks. Journal of Risk Research 22(4): 401–415.

Rising, J., M. Tedesco, F. Piontek, and D.A. Stainforth. 2022. The missing risks of climate change. Nature 610(7933): 643–651.

Ritchie, P.D.L., J.J. Clarke, P.M. Cox, and C. Huntingford. 2021. Overshooting tipping point thresholds in a changing climate. Nature 592(7855): 517–523.

Ruffault, J., and F. Mouillot. 2015. How a new fire-suppression policy can abruptly reshape the fire-weather relationship. Ecosphere 6(10): 1–19.

Schipper, L., and M. Pelling. 2006. Disaster risk, climate change and international development: Scope for, and challenges to, integration. Disasters 30(1): 19–38.

Seidler, R., K. Dietrich, S. Schweizer, K.S. Bawa, S. Chopde, F. Zaman, A. Sharma, and S. Bhattacharya et al. 2018. Progress on integrating climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction for sustainable development pathways in South Asia: Evidence from six research projects. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 31: 92–101.

Shaw, R., S. Prabhakar, and Y. Chiba. 2016. SDGs, DRR and CCA: Potential for strengthening inter-linkages. Policy Brief Number 34. Kanagawa, Japan: Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES).

Simon, K., G. Diprose, and A.C. Thomas. 2020. Community-led initiatives for climate adaptation and mitigation. Kōtuitui: New Zealand Journal of Social Sciences Online 15(1): 93–105.

Steffen, W., J. Rockström, K. Richardson, T.M. Lenton, C. Folke, D. Liverman, C.P. Summerhayes, and A.D. Barnosky et al. 2018. Trajectories of the earth system in the anthropocene. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115(33): 8252–8259.

Tao, L. 2014. The international climate adaptation regime process and its outlook. Journal of Nanjing University 51: 52–60 (in Chinese).

Twigg, J. 2015 Disaster risk reduction . New edition. Good Practice Review 9. London: Humanitarian Practice Network, Overseas Development Institute.

UN Desa (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs). 2014. TST Issues Briefs: A compendium of issues briefs prepared by the United Nations inter-agency technical support team for the United Nations General Assembly Open Working Group on Sustainable Development Goals . New York: UN DESA.

UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). 2004. A global report: Reducing disaster risk a challenge for development . New York: United Nations Development Programme, Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery.

UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). 2022. Adaptation Gap Report 2022: Too little, too slow – Climate adaptation failure puts world at risk. Nairobi: UNEP. https://www.unep.org/adaptation-gap-report-2022 . Accessed 26 Jan 2023.

UNDRR (United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction). 2021. UNDRR Strategic Framework 2022–2025. https://www.undrr.org/publication/undrr-strategic-framework-2022-2025 . Accessed 26 Jan 2023.

UNDRR (United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction). 2022. Global assessment report on disaster risk reduction 2022: Our world at risk: Transforming governance for a resilient future. Geneva, Switzerland: UNDRR.

UNISDR (United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction). 2015. Making development sustainable: The future of disaster risk management. Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction. Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR).

United Nations. 1987. International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction. United Nations General Assembly Resolution A/RES/42/169. https://www.preventionweb.net/files/resolutions/42_169.pdf . Accessed 26 Jan 2023.

United Nations. 1989. International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction. United Nations General Assembly Resolution A/RES/44/236. New York: United Nations.

United Nations. 1992a. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. https://unfccc.int/files/essential_background/background_publications_htmlpdf/application/pdf/conveng.pdf . Accessed 26 Jan 2023.

United Nations. 1992b. Agenda 21. United Nations Conference on Environment & Development, 3–14 June 1992b, Rio de Jeneiro, Brazil. https://www.un.org/en/conferences/environment/rio1992b . Accessed 29 Jan 2023.

United Nations. 2000. United Nations Millennium Declaration. United Nations General Assembly Resolution A/RES/55/2. https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_RES_55_2.pdf . Accessed 26 Jan 2023.

United Nations. 2005. Hyogo Framework for Action 2005–2015: Building the resilience of nations and communities to disasters. Extract from the final report of the World Conference on Disaster Reduction. https://www.preventionweb.net/files/1037_hyogoframeworkforactionenglish.pdf . Accessed 26 Jan 2023.

United Nations. 2015a. Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015a–2030. Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction https://www.undrr.org/implementing-sendai-framework/what-sendai-framework . Accessed 26 Jan 2023.

United Nations. 2015b. Adoption of the Paris Agreement. UNFCCC COP 21st Session, 30 November–11 December 2015b, Paris, France.

United Nations. 2015c. Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. United Nations General Assembly Resolution A/RES/70/1. New York: United Nations.

WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development). 1987. Our common future . New York: United Nations. https://idl-bncidrc.dspacedirect.org/bitstream/handle/10625/152/WCED_v17_doc149.pdf . Accessed 30 Jan 2023.

Webber, M.K., and C. Samaras. 2022. A review of decision making under deep uncertainty applications using green infrastructure for flood management. Earth’s Future 10(7): e2021E-e2322E.

WMO (World Meteorological Organization). 2021. State of the global climate 2020. Geneva, Switzerland: World Meteorological Organization. https://public.wmo.int/en/our-mandate/climate/wmo-statement-state-of-global-climate . Accessed 26 Jan 2023.

Zuccaro, G., M.F. Leone, and C. Martucci. 2020. Future research and innovation priorities in the field of natural hazards, disaster risk reduction, disaster risk management and climate change adaptation: A shared vision from the ESPREssO project. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 51: Article 101783.

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 42171080, 41771540), the National Social Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 18ZDA105), and the Humanities and Social Sciences Program of the Ministry of Education (Grant No. 21YJC630146).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Environment and Geographical Sciences, Shanghai Normal University, Shanghai, 200234, China

Jiahong Wen, Chengcheng Wan & Weijiang Li

Integrated Risk Governance Project, Beijing, 100875, China

Rodel Risk Solutions Inc., Toronto, ON, M1W1J3, Canada

Jianping Yan

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Weijiang Li .

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Wen, J., Wan, C., Ye, Q. et al. Disaster Risk Reduction, Climate Change Adaptation and Their Linkages with Sustainable Development over the Past 30 Years: A Review. Int J Disaster Risk Sci 14 , 1–13 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13753-023-00472-3

Download citation

Accepted : 30 January 2023

Published : 07 February 2023

Issue Date : February 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s13753-023-00472-3

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Climate change adaptation
• Disaster risk reduction
• Sustainable development goals
• United Nations
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation

Disaster risk reduction (drr) & climate change adaptation (cca).

Disaster Risk Reduction is a core element of disaster management, and includes prevention, mitigation and preparedness. For development activities to be sustainable, communities must understand the hazards around them and learn how to reduce their disaster risk. World Vision encourages the building of disaster resilient communities by improving our capacity to deliver DRR and Climate Change Adaptation (CCA) programmes across the countries where we work as well as participating in external and internal networks at all levels to share good practices, and coordinate and collaborate effectively to strengthen the resilience of those we serve.

Building Urban Resilience through Disaster Risk Reduction in Asia and Pacific

El Niño Response

World Vision's response to El Niño in Asia-Pacific - Infographic

Publications

Advancing School Safety in Asia

Comprehensive School Safety Practices in Asia

Urban Disaster Risk Reduction Framework - 2014

Stories and photos

Disaster risk reduction - Planning ahead to save lives

Never too early (or late) for DRR - Op-Ed: Making a difference with Disaster Risk Reducation

DRR is integral to relief and recovery operations; and positively impacting the resilience of disaster-affected communities is often at the centre of the response strategy.

World Vision – Working with communities to prepare

Mother nature helps predict natural disasters, but certainly cannot prepare anyone for them. Preparedness has become more of a valued concept since the Indian Ocean Tsunami; with international recognition of the importance of pre-planning and early-warning systems.

Learn more about World Vision's global El Niño response

Green solutions for Disaster Risk Reduction and climate change adaptation

Well-managed ecosystems - such as wetlands, forests, coastal systems and many others - often act as natural infrastructure, reducing physical exposure to various natural hazards and increasing socio-economic resilience of people and communities. Healthy ecosystems also provide many more services and goods, playing a role in water quality and availability, air quality, fodd security, and much more. Together with its partners, UNESCO advances the disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation agenda through the application of ecosystem services and nature based solutions.

Leading environmental international organizations, including the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and European Commission (OECD), gathered at UNESCo Headquarters to discuss this important topic on 27 February. Here, the advancement on the disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation agenda, in particular the implementation of ecosystem services and nature-based solutions, was shared with UNESCO’s Member States.

During the information session, panelists highlighted that every year disasters caused by natural hazards affect millions of people around the world. The resulting human losses are tragic and highlight the vulnerabilities shared by our societies. If no preventive and risk reduction measures are taken, these losses will continue to grow as a result of climate change-induced pressures, overpopulation and mass urbanization.

There is a common understanding between scientists and practitioners about benefits from green solutions for disaster risk reduction, fully taking advantage of nature-based solutions for disaster risk reduction can be challenging. International experts agreed that it is most important to both push the current boundary of science and technology and establish local actions for the acceptance and maintenance of nature-based solutions.

UNESCO collaborates with UNEP, IUCN, OECD, European Commission and the international expert community so that science and technology can serve to mitigate natural and human induced threats and reduce our vulnerability. For example, together with major environmental international organizations – including UN Environment and IUCN– UNESCO is a member of the Partnership for Environment and Disaster Risk Reduction (PEDRR). PEDRR is a global alliance of UN agencies, NGOs and specialist institutes aiming to promote and upscale the implementation of ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction and to ensure it is mainstreamed in development planning at global, national and local levels, while being in line with the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction.

With this common goal in mind, UNESCO also joins forces with the European Commission. For instance, UNESCO is a leading partner of the work package on international cooperation and capacity building within an ongoing H2020 EU funded project “ OPEn-air laboRAtories for Nature baseD solUtions to Manage environmental risks” (OPERANDUM) . This project will deliver the tools and methodologies as well as validate NBS to enhance resilience in rural and natural territories through the reduction of hydro-meteorological risks while providing innovation and strategic plan for their up-scaling and replication.

Together with its partners, UNESCO will continue to advance on the disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation agenda thought activities of many UNESCO programmes and projects, ensuring that nature based solutions and ecosystem services for disaster risk reduction becomes a major pillar among overall disaster risk reduction actions. Here below you may find presentations presented by speakers during the information session.

List of presentations

• UNESCO Climate Change Strategy, by Peter Dogsé
• UN Environment, Ecosystem based disaster risk reduction UN Environment perspective by Karen Sudmeier
• OECD: Nature based solutions for climate change adaptation, the OECD perspective by Lisa Danielson
• IUCN: Nature-based solutions and ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction by Kate Reilly
• European Commission: EU policy initiatives and actions to support nature-based solutions for Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation by Nicolas Faivre

Participants of the session: Soichiro Yasukawa (UNESCO), Bjørn Kalsnes (NGI), Nicolas Faivre (EU), Giulio Zuccaro (University of Naples), Karen Sudmeier-Rieux (UN Environment), Irina Pavlova (UNESCO), Peter Dogsé (UNESCO), Kate Reilly (IUCN), Lisa Danielson (OECD), Federico Porcù (UniBo), Roxane Marchal (CCR group), Ainara Casajus (DRMKC, JRC)

More on this subject

Event International Conference of the Memory of the World Programme, incorporating the 4th Global Policy Forum 28 October 2024 - 29 October 2024

Other recent news

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Int J Environ Res Public Health

Special Issue “Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation: An Interdisciplinary Approach”

Mikio ishiwatari.

1 Graduate School of Frontier Sciences, The University of Tokyo, Kashiwa 277-8563, Japan

Daisuke Sasaki

2 International Research Institute of Disaster Science, Tohoku University, Sendai 980-8577, Japan

Associated Data

Not applicable.

The UN member states adopted three international agreements for the post-2015 agenda: the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030, the Paris Agreement of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Climate change is exacerbating disaster risks worldwide, forcing countries to enhance disaster reduction measures. Approaches geared toward adapting to climate change involve a wide range of measures that reduce disaster risks [ 1 ]. Interdisciplinary approaches to climate change adaptation (CCA) and disaster risk reduction (DRR) could help make society more resilient to various shocks and multi-hazards and help achieve the three global agendas mentioned above. Developing interdisciplinary approaches involves integrating multiple disciplines and concepts. This is because disaster risks vary by risk factors, people’s perceptions, spatial scales, development stages, and region [ 2 ]. Integrating the DRR and CCA approaches is challenging because experts and researchers have engaged with them separately [ 3 ]. Informed policymaking requires climate and socio-economic data as well as evidence of approaches’ effectiveness, something of which developing countries do not have enough [ 4 ].

This Special Issue has accepted 15 papers and the papers included cover a wide range of issues related to interdisciplinary approaches to DRR and CCA, such as methods of assessing risks and damage, people’s risk perception, financing, and policies. The findings of these studies could help promote interdisciplinary approaches at central, local, and community levels as well as internationally. We hope that this Special Issue will help accelerate research associated with the global agendas mentioned above, especially the SFDRR, which is due to undergo a midterm review soon.

1. Overview of Natural Disaster Adaptation

Jia et al. [ 2 ] reviewed recent studies on natural disaster adaptation. They found that studies primarily cover socio-economic responses for farm-scale adaptation and that studies for evaluating adaptation focus on vulnerability and not on other areas, such as resilience and countermeasures. There are research gaps in adaptive governance, lifestyle and behavior changes, and innovative financing mechanisms. Moreover, some papers in this Special Issue cover people’s perceptions leading to behavior change and financing of DRR, but not governance. Future studies should cover risk governance issues.

2. Risk and Damage Assessment to Mitigate Damage

Formulating evidence-based policies requires data-based analysis. The risks of extreme events provide fundamental information for formulating DRR and CCA policies. Two papers within this Special Issue assessed the risks caused by extreme temperatures in China. Shi and Ye [ 5 ] analyzed the temporal and spatial variation of extreme temperatures from 1970 to 2014 in the Yangtze River Basin, China. Indices show a decreasing trend for extreme cold temperatures and an increasing trend for extreme warm temperatures. In addition to climate change, rapid development and urbanization from the 1980s may contribute to abrupt changes in extreme temperature indices starting in the same decade. Ma et al. [ 6 ] assessed the risks of high-temperature disasters affecting kiwifruit in Shaanxi Province, China. They developed models that can identify suitable areas for producing kiwifruit and areas at risk of high-temperature disasters.

Guo et al. [ 7 ] analyzed drought vulnerability in China and revealed that the vulnerability of agriculture to drought has decreased since the 1970s. The northwest and southwest regions’ vulnerability is more severe than that of other regions.

Improving the damage assessment process following disasters could strengthen recovery efforts. Providing accurate damage information could assist decision-makers to undertake scientifically based response and rehabilitation. Two papers in this Special Issue proposed methods of estimating damage following disasters. Li et al. [ 8 ] proposed a rapid estimation method of earthquake fatality by combining physical simulations and empirical statistics in China. Zheng et al. [ 9 ] studied excess mortality of indirect deaths caused by the Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami in 2011 and found that the government underreported indirect deaths. Indirect deaths are caused by factors indirectly related to disasters, such as illness deterioration due to difficult conditions while evacuating, increased stress due to drastic changes in living conditions, and suicides among evacuees. They estimated that the government had underreported 873 deaths.

3. People’s Risk Perception for Changing Behavior

As risk perception determines people’s protective behavior, understanding how people’s risk perception affects their behavior is useful for formulating policies to encourage people to change their behavior to reduce risks. Regarding this, two studies included in this Special Issue reached different conclusions. Wu et al. [ 10 ] analyzed people’s risk perception in at-risk areas in Sichuan Province, China. They found a positive correlation between people’s risk perception and willingness to evacuate and a negative correlation with the population at risk. Lestari et al. [ 11 ] asserted the opposite conclusion. They examined the relationships between people’s initial protection behavior, evacuation behavior, concern over the possibility of a tsunami, and natural-hazard-triggered technological (Natech) situations in an earthquake in Indonesia. The results of their study did not support the hypothesis that higher risk perception is associated with evacuation behavior or that immediate evacuation is related to foreseeing cascading sequential consequences, contrary to the existing literature.

Two studies examined people’s perceptions related to the COVID-19 pandemic and they propose policies for managing the pandemic. These studies quantitatively clarified key factors toward realizing evidence-based policymaking for managing pandemics. Sasaki et al. [ 12 ] investigated people’s perception of well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic in Japan and advocated that the government should pay more attention to single-person households affected by the COVID-19 pandemic to improve their well-being. Pelupessy et al. [ 13 ] analyzed people’s perceptions of COVID-19 risk in Greater Jakarta, Indonesia. Individual-level perceptions affect protection behavior at a family level against COVID-19. Thus, the results suggested that improving individual-level perceptions could strengthen family-level responses to the pandemic.

4. Financing Investment and Policy Formulation Based on Evidence

Several studies within this Special Issue analyzed the DRR and CCA approaches, investigated capacities, and recommended policies based on evidence. Shimada [ 14 ] analyzed the impact of climate–natural disasters on economic and social variables and the impact of international aid in Africa. The study revealed that natural disasters affect economic growth, agriculture, poverty, and cause armed conflicts. In particular, droughts were the main cause of negative impacts. Although international aid had positive effects, these effects were insignificant compared to the negative impacts of natural disasters. Moreover, cereal food aid had a negative crowding-out effect on cereal production.

Ishiwatari and Sasaki [ 15 ] examined the factors affecting investments in flood protection by analyzing investment trends over a 150-year period in Japan and found investment cycles affected by damage. They proposed approaches to securing investments in DRR by enhancing policies, legislation, and institutions.

Guo et al. [ 16 ] analyzed the effects of agricultural productive services on farmers’ climate-responsive behaviors in Jilin Province. It is common among maize farmers to change to appropriate varieties in accordance with the frost-free season. Agricultural productive services significantly affect climate-responsive behaviors by farmers.

Since local governments are responsible for responding to disasters and adapting to climate change on the ground, understanding their capacities and preparation is crucial for mitigating damage. Zhai and Lee [ 17 ] developed a model of evaluating disaster preparedness capability at a local level. They applied this model to a local government and for areas requiring improvement. Ramalho et al. [ 18 ] investigated adaptation processes by local governments in Portugal and found that most local governments have developed and are implementing CCA strategies. The local governments that were studied are familiar with nature-based solutions but underestimate community-based adaptation.

Funding Statement

This study was supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science KAKENHI, Grant Number 21H03680.

Author Contributions

M.I. wrote this paper. D.S. reviewed and modified the paper. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Informed consent statement, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Browse through the Interactive 2024 Report of the UN Sustainable Development Group

UN in Action

• Global Level
• Regional Level
• Countries and Territories

Regional Teams

Rcp: africa, rcp: arab states, rcp: asia and the pacific, rcp: europe and central asia, rcp: latin america and the caribbean, featured content.

• Resources Library
• Executive Board Session Documents
• UNCT Key Documents Library
• Annual UNCT Results Reports
• UNSDG Chair Report on DCO
• System-Wide Contribution to the SDGs
• UNSDG Data Portal
• How We Work (Our Common Premises)
• Resident Coordinator Statistics

2030 Agenda

• 2030 Agenda and the SDGs
• RCs and the Decade of Action
• Funding Compact
• About the Goals
• SDG Action Campaign
• Joint SDG Fund

Quick links

Read more about the UNSDG members

How We Work

Read more about how the UNSDG works

• The UN Reform
• UN Development Coordination Office
• Integrating Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation in the UN Sustainable Development Cooperation Framework

Millions of people are falling back into poverty each year due to shocks ranging from both localized severe weather to major disaster events including drought, floods and storms and, as demonstrated by COVID-19, pandemic and epidemic disease.

To help build resilience to climate and disaster risks, countries must be supported to identify and leverage relevant technical, financial, and organizational capacities in all sectors of society. The Guidance Note is intended to help Resident Coordinator Offices and UN Country Teams. It outlines the impacts of climate and disaster risks on progress towards achieving the SDGs and suggests appropriate actions for each phase in the UN Sustainable Development Cooperation Framework lifecycle to make them risk-informed.

Related Resources:

• Full module 01 - Core - Presentation.pdf
• Training Module 01 - Core - Facilitator's Notes
• Full module 02 - CCA - Presentation.pdf
• Full module 02 - CCA - Facilitators Notes_0.pdf
• Training Module 02 - CCA - Self-study Notes
• Full module 03 - CF and Results Framework - Presentation.pdf
• Training Module 03 - Cooperation Framework & Results Framework - Facilitator's Notes
• Full module 04 - LNOB - Presentation.pdf
• Full module 04 - LNOB - Facilitators Notes.pdf
• Full module 05 - MDRA workshop - Presentation.pdf
• Full module 05 - MDRA workshop - Facilitators Notes.pdf
• Full module 06 - Risk-informing the TOC workshop - Presentation.pdf
• Training Module 06 - Risk-informing the Theory of Change - Facilitator's Notes
• Training Module 07 - Peer Support Group - CCA Checklist
• Training Module 07 - Peer Support Group - Cooperation Framework Checklist
• Training Module 07 - Peer Support Group
• Full module 07 - PSG - Facilitators Notes.pdf
• Nutshell presentation A - Core - Presentation.pdf
• Nutshell presentation A - Core - Facilitators Notes.pdf
• Nutshell presentation B - MDRA - Presentation.pdf
• Nutshell presentation B - MDRA - Facilitators Notes.pdf
• Nutshell presentation C - ToC - Facilitators Notes.pdf
• Training Module 08 - Toolbox - Handouts to climate- and risk-inform Cooperation Framework discussions
• Integración de la reducción del riesgo de desastres y la adaptación al cambio climático en el Marco de Cooperación de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo Sostenible - ESPAÑOL
• United Nations Sustainable Development Cooperation Framework Guidance

UNU Publications Repository

Unu collections.

Linking Climate Change Adaptation, Disaster Risk Reduction, and Loss & Damage

• PreventionWeb
• Global Assessment Report
• UNDRR Africa
• UNDRR Arab States
• UNDRR Americas
• UNDRR Asia-Pacific
• UNDRR Europe

Special Events

• International Day for Disaster Reduction
• World Tsunami Awareness Day
• Global Platform
• Sendai Framework Monitor
• Making Cities Resilient
• Voluntary Commitments

Chapter 13: Integration between disaster risk reduction and national climate adaptation strategies and plans

Page contents, 13.1    disaster and development risks from climate change, 13.2 synergies between climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction, 13.3 guidance and mechanisms for integrated climate change adaptation under the united nations framework convention on climate change , 13.4 selected country experiences with integrated climate and disaster risk reduction, 13.5 pacific region approach to integrated climate, disaster and development policy , 13.6 conclusions , 13.1.1 risk from climate change is profound and urgent responses are needed.

Current national commitments to reduce GHG emissions and otherwise mitigate global warming under the Paris Agreement will not contain global warming within 2°C above pre-industrial levels, let alone the preferred containment within 1.5°C.  The 2018 IPCC special report Global Warming of 1.5°C (IPCC SR1.5) projects that, based on Member States' current NDCs, the climate system is heading off track into the territory of 2.9°C to 3.4°C warming.  If this happens, it would take future hydrometeorological hazard extremes well outside the known range of current experience and alter the loss and damage equations and fragility curves of almost all known human and natural systems, placing them at unknown levels of risk. This would render current strategies for CCA and DRR, in most countries, virtually obsolete. It also means that it is no longer sufficient to address adaptation in isolation from development planning, and that sustainable socioeconomic development, by definition, must include mitigation of global warming.

IPCC SR1.5 and its Fifth Assessment Report (published in 2014 ) have also reiterated that global warming triggers climate change effects that are not linear. This is based on multiple lines of evidence, including on observations already made in recent decades and on the projections of a range of different global climate models about future effects. So even if global warming is contained within the range of 1.5°C to 2°C, there will be very significant health and socioeconomic effects due to increasing average temperatures. In addition, and significantly for understanding and reducing risk, humanity now faces the current reality and the future prospect of more-extreme and much-higher-frequency "natural" hazards - extremes of cold to heat-waves, longer and more sustained droughts, more-intense and more-frequent storm events, heavier rainfall and more flooding. This means that the line between DRR and CCA, if indeed such a line ever existed, is no longer possible to discern. Climate change is by no means the only source of disaster risk. As the foregoing parts of this GAR have emphasized, sources arise from a range of other geological, environmental, biological and technological hazards and the system risks these generate. Climate change is increasing the risk of disaster - from single climatological events, and also from sustained global warming, thus cascading risk from impacts on human systems in the short, medium and long terms.

In this sense, CCA can be characterized as essentially a subset of DRR. Climate mitigation can also be understood as a subset of development planning.  The main policy implication if this analysis, within the risk framework of this GAR, is that at a minimum, CCA needs to be integrated with DRR, and that governments need to move to a coherent policy approach that sees both of these risk reduction measures as integral to planning for sustainable development.

This situation has become much clearer since the Sendai Framework was agreed in 2015. There is also no obligation on Member States to divide their policy formulation and implementation according to the scope of different international agreements negotiated along thematic lines. Accordingly, this chapter is an account of a range of country policy practices on integration of CCA and DRR. It also gives some examples of fuller integration into development planning and an exhortation to governments to explore more fully the efficiency and effectiveness benefits of taking a systems approach to disaster and climate risk.

13.1.2 International framework

As part of the processes and mechanisms under the 1992 UNFCCC,  the Paris Agreement established a global goal on adaptation of enhancing adaptive capacity, strengthening resilience and reducing vulnerability to climate change, with a view to contributing to sustainable development and ensuring an adequate adaptation response in the context of the temperature goal referred to in Article 2: "Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change."  

For many years before the Paris Agreement, during the climate negotiations and since 2015, there has been considerable debate about the likely differences in impact between warming of 1.5°C and 2°C, focusing on the capacity and scope for adaptation. Since 1990, this debate has included a strong message from the Alliance of Small Island States  that containment of warming within 1.5°C was essential for socioeconomic survival of its members, and in many cases their physical existence, due to projected sea-level rise and other climate change impacts.  

As the United Nations body for assessing the science related to climate change, IPCC was created in 1988, to provide policymakers with regular scientific assessments on climate change, its implications and potential future risks, as well as to put forward adaptation and mitigation options. Its assessment reports, based on the work of a large network of experts globally, have long been familiar to policymakers in the fields of environmental protection and hydrometeorology.  Its work is also now widely recognized as relevant to policymakers concerned with the broader agendas of development planning and DRR. 

The last major synthesis report of the IPCC, the Fifth Assessment Report, was published in 2014,  and was based on research undertaken around the 2012 Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation.  These remain current and relevant resources. However, the 2018 IPCC SR1.5 is a special report that addresses the probable differences in impacts of global warming of 1.5°C compared with 2°C, specifically "in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty."  It is a compelling new resource that makes it clear that addressing climate change mitigation and adaptation is an urgent global and national priority for DRR strategies as part of planning for risk-informed socioeconomic development, in particular that containing global warming within 1.5°C will reduce the impacts significantly compared with 2°C warming.  Relevant highlights of IPCC SR1.5 are considered here as an essential context for addressing questions of disaster and climate risk at national policy level.

13.1.3 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change special report 2018 - Global Warming of 1.5°C

The IPCC SR1.5 highlights that the global climate has already changed relative to the pre-industrial period and that these changes have affected organisms and ecosystems, as well as human systems and well-being.  Human activities have already caused approximately 1.0°C of global warming above pre-industrial levels, which this has led to multiple observed changes including more extreme weather, frequent heat-waves in most land regions, increased frequency and intensity of heavy precipitation events, increased risk of drought in the Mediterranean region, rising sea levels and diminishing Arctic sea ice. If global warming continues at the current rate of 0.2°C per decade, the surface of the planet will warm by 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels between 2030 and 2052, causing further changes. 

Future climate-related risks to health, livelihoods, food security, water supply, human security and economic growth depend on the rate, peak and duration of warming, but risks to natural and human systems are expected to be lower at 1.5°C than at 2°C of global warming. Future risks at 1.5°C of global warming will depend on the mitigation pathway and on the possible occurrence of a "transient overshoot" (i.e. if the increase goes above 1.5°C but later returns to the 1.5°C level). The impacts on natural and human systems would be greater if mitigation pathways cause such a temporary overshoot above 1.5°C warming and then return to 1.5°C later in the century, as compared with pathways that stabilize at 1.5°C without an overshoot. That is, it is far preferable to ensure that the increase does not ever exceed 1.5°C warming. This would avoid climate change impacts on sustainable development, and support efforts to eradicate poverty and reduce inequalities, if mitigation and adaptation synergies are maximized while trade-offs are minimized.

Some aspects of climate risk most relevant to adaptation strategies at national level - and which also highlight the urgency of integrating climate change mitigation into all development strategies to avoid these risks eventuating in their more extreme forms - are highlighted below:

Extreme hazard events

• Limiting global warming to 1.5°C would limit risks of increases in heavy precipitation events on a global scale and in several regions, and reduce risks associated with water availability and extreme droughts. 
• Human exposure to increased flooding is projected to be substantially lower at 1.5°C than at 2°C of global warming, although projected changes create regionally differentiated risks. 

Human health

• Every extra bit of warming matters for human health, especially because warming of 1.5°C or higher increases the risk associated with long-lasting or irreversible changes. 
• Lower risks are projected at 1.5°C than at 2°C for heat-related morbidity and mortality, and for ozone-related mortality if emissions that lead to ozone formation remain high. 
• Urban heat islands often amplify the impacts of heat-waves in cities. 
• Risks for some vector-borne diseases, such as malaria and dengue fever, are projected to increase with warming from 1.5°C to 2°C, including potential shifts in their geographic range.

Impacts on ecosystems and species important for human food and livelihoods

• Constraining global warming to 1.5°C, rather than to 2°C and higher, is projected to have many benefits for terrestrial and wetland ecosystems and for the preservation of their services to humans.
• Risks for natural and managed ecosystems are higher on drylands than on humid lands. 
• If global warming can be limited to 1.5°C, the impacts on biodiversity and ecosystems and on terrestrial, freshwater and coastal ecosystems are projected to be lower than at 2°C of global warming. 
• Limiting global warming to 1.5°C is projected to reduce risks to marine biodiversity, fisheries and ecosystems, and their functions and services to humans, as illustrated by recent changes to Arctic sea ice and warm-water coral reef ecosystems. 
• Risks of local species losses and, consequently, risks of extinction are much less in a 1.5°C versus a 2°C warmer world. 

Agriculture and fisheries 

• Limiting global warming to 1.5°C, compared with 2°C, is projected to result in smaller net reductions in yields of maize, rice, wheat and potentially other cereal crops, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, South-East Asia, and Central and South America. 
• Reductions in projected food availability are larger at 2°C than at 1.5°C of global warming in the Sahel, Southern Africa, the Mediterranean, Central Europe and the Amazon.
• Fisheries and aquaculture are important to global food security but are already facing increasing risks from ocean warming and acidification. These risks are projected to increase at 1.5°C of global warming and affect key organisms such as fin fish and oysters, especially at low latitudes. 
• Small-scale fisheries in tropical regions, which are very dependent on habitat provided by coastal ecosystems such as coral reefs, mangroves, seagrass and kelp forests, are expected to face growing risks at 1.5°C of warming because of loss of habitat.

Regional differences in impacts

• Climate models anticipate robust regional climate differences within global warming. For instance, temperature increases in sub-Saharan Africa are projected to be higher than the global mean temperature increase. 
•  The differences in the risks among regions are also strongly influenced by local socioeconomic conditions. Depending on future socioeconomic conditions, limiting global warming to 1.5°C, compared to 2°C, may reduce the proportion of the world's population exposed to a climate-change-induced increase in water stress by up to 50%, although there is considerable variability among regions. Regions with particularly large benefits could include the Mediterranean and the Caribbean. However, socioeconomic drivers are expected to have a greater influence on these risks than the changes in climate. 

Small islands 

• Small islands are projected to experience multiple interrelated risks at 1.5°C of global warming, which will increase with warming of 2°C and higher levels. Climate hazards at 1.5°C are projected to be lower than those at 2°C. 
• Long-term risks of coastal flooding and impacts on populations, infrastructures and assets, freshwater stress, and risks across marine ecosystems and critical sectors are projected to increase at 1.5°C compared with present-day levels and increase further at 2°C, limiting adaptation opportunities and increasing loss and damage. 
• Impacts associated with sea-level rise and changes to the salinity of coastal groundwater, increased flooding and damage to infrastructure are projected to be critically important in vulnerable environments, such as small islands, low-lying coasts and deltas, at global warming of 1.5°C and 2°C. 
• Projections of increased frequency of the most intense storms at 1.5°C and higher warming levels are a significant cause for concern, making adaptation a matter of survival. In the Caribbean islands for instance, extreme weather linked to tropical storms and hurricanes represent one of the largest risks facing nations. Non-economic damages include detrimental health impacts, forced displacement and destruction of cultural heritages. 

Economic growth

• Risks to global aggregated economic growth due to climate change impacts are projected to be lower at 1.5°C than at 2°C by the end of this century. 
• The largest reductions in economic growth at 2°C compared to 1.5°C of warming are projected for low- and middle-income countries and regions (the African continent, South-East Asia, Brazil, India and Mexico). 
• Countries in the tropics and southern hemisphere subtropics are projected to experience the largest impacts on economic growth due to climate change should global warming increase from 1.5°C to 2°C.

(Source: IPCC SR1.5 2018, summary based on inputs from Wilfran Moufouma-Okia, IPCC)

CCA and DRR efforts share the immediate common aim of building resilience of people, economies and natural resources to the impacts of extreme weather and climate change. But IPCC SR1.5 makes it clearer than ever that climate change may lead to changes in risk levels for non-climate hazards, including impacts on food security and human health due to cascading risks from higher temperatures, warmer seas, sea-level rise and others. As already described in the foregoing chapters of this GAR, the Sendai Framework requires policymakers to contemplate disaster risk from a multi-hazard perspective that includes the traditionally recognized natural hazards that lead to disasters, as well as a range of human-made and mixed hazards, especially the newly included environmental, technological and biological hazards and risks,  described in Part I of this GAR.

While DRR has a much wider scope than climatological hazards, CCA is also much more related to more extreme hydrometeorological hazards and warmer temperatures than DRR. Chapter 2 of this GAR provided significant insights into how multiple risks cascade, and how complex systems respond to shocks in ways that are not linear, making the impacts difficult to predict through traditional hazard-by-hazard monitoring, so that a systems approach is needed for effective risk management. 

From a policy and governance perspective, climate and disaster risks present a significant degree of uncertainty in estimating potential impacts. This is due to the complex nature of the phenomena, as well as limitations in science and technology to understand projected events and how exposed people and assets will react, due to varied sources and types of vulnerability. However, understanding the commonalities and differences between DRR and CCA in each national context is important for policy coordination, especially if a decision is made to integrate DRR and CCA into one national or local strategy. In some cases, the two are also mainstreamed into risk-informed socioeconomic development planning; it is then essential not to lose sight of the full range of risks that need to be considered, and to include the short-, medium- and long-term timescales required for a systems approach. 

Figure 13.1. A systems approach to risk reduction: the Sendai Framework, 2030 Agenda and Paris Agreement recognize the need for policy integration on disaster, development and climate risk

The question of policy coordination, integration and synergies between CCA and DRR has national and international dimensions. At the national level, governments tend to mandate different departments to deal with the two issues separately, with some few exceptions discussed in the following sections on country experiences. DRR is usually aligned with national disaster management agencies, civil protection and response. Given its evolution as an environmental issue, climate change tends to be coordinated through ministries of the environment, in close coordination with finance and planning ministries. Having two departments lead the two agendas separately ensures high cabinet representation, especially in larger countries with more ministries. The downside is that, in some cases, there is little coordination between these activities. The source of financing is also a major factor in the degree of integration of the two issues, with different streams of international financing sometimes encouraging silos at national level simply due to the funding criteria and compliance requirements.

At the international level, Member States have agreed to different elements in terms of reporting, funding and other mechanisms for their implementation under the Paris Agreement and the Sendai Framework. As with the national level, the two agendas being governed by separate agreements and mechanisms ensure effective international representation. Decisions are in place to promote synergy and coherence in the implementation of the Paris Agreement and the Sendai Framework, while the 2030 Agenda provides the common basis for coordinating the implementation of the two, as disasters and climate change have the potential to severely affect development efforts. As discussed in Part II of this GAR, practical coordination for international reporting is in the early stages, and Member States need to address very distinct reporting requirements and funding streams for CCA and DRR. However, there are also new initiatives to integrate CCA, climate change mitigation, DRR and sustainable development agendas.

In considering integrated approaches, Member States can also try to avoid some of the perhaps-artificial divisions that occur in international agreements due to the negotiation process and established organizational mandates. For example, one analysis is that the mentions of climate change in the Sendai Framework put too much emphasis on the hazard part of disaster risk, rather than providing further support for an all-vulnerabilities and all-resilience approach that includes climate change and development.  It may also be helpful in organizing institutional responsibilities at national level to think of CCA as a subset within DRR and climate change mitigation as a subset within sustainable development,  even if the choice has been made to establish a separate legal or institutional framework to deal with climate change holistically, based on gathering together national experts in the whole field, or to more easily meet international reporting requirements. 

Positive evidence of synergy is already seen in Member States' reports on NDCs under the Paris Agreement. More than 50 countries referenced DRR or DRM as part of their NDC. Colombia and India made explicit references to the Sendai Framework in their NDCs

13.3.1 Evolution of technical guidance on national adaptation plans

At the global level, specific goals and guidance for Member States to conduct CCA comes from UNFCCC, especially the Paris Agreement, as does an increasingly important stream of public international financing for CCA through the UNFCCC financial mechanism, especially the Green Climate Fund (GCF).  

UNFCCC has a process to formulate and implement NAPs, which was established in 2010 under the UNFCCC Cancun Adaptation Framework. These types of plans began in 2001 as an initiative only for the least developed countries to formulate NAPAs and thereby access the Least Developed Countries Fund. However, since 2010, there has been a shift to NAPs as a relevant tool for all developed and developing countries.  UNFCCC developed initial guidelines for the formulation of NAPs in 2011, which outline four main elements and instruct countries to lay the groundwork and address gaps, develop preparatory elements, establish implementation strategies, and report, monitor and review them on a regular basis.  

In 2012, the UNFCCC Least Developed Countries Expert Group developed technical guidelines for the process to formulate and implement NAPs.  These are: (a) to reduce vulnerability to the impacts of climate change, by building adaptive capacity and resilience, and (b) to facilitate the integration of CCA in a coherent manner, into relevant new and existing policies, programmes and activities, in particular development planning processes and strategies, within all relevant sectors and at different levels, as appropriate.  

DRR is not explicitly mentioned in the initial guidelines for NAPs/NAPAs, and they principally address climate-related hazards, typically droughts, floods, sea-level rise and severe storms. However, recent and ongoing efforts by countries to develop NAPs and to undertake broad national and local adaptation planning according to their own needs assessments, provides a clear opportunity for countries to consider multiple risks in development decisions and accelerate the common goal of climate and disaster-resilient development. 

Focusing on this opportunity, a supplement to NAP technical guidelines to countries was developed from a disaster risk angle in 2017 specifically dedicated to "promoting synergy with DRR in National Adaptation Plans".  In 2018, the UNFCCC Adaptation Committee considered a report from an expert meeting focused on national adaptation goals/indicators and their relationship with SDGs and the Sendai Framework.  

The supplementary guidance aims to provide national authorities in charge of adaptation planning, as well as the many actors involved in adaptation, with practical advice on when and how to incorporate DRR aspects in the adaptation planning process. It also aims to give DRM authorities a better understanding of the NAP process, including advice on how they can contribute to and support its development, and to prompt central planning authorities such as ministries of planning and finance on how to use national adaptation planning in shaping resilient development.

13.3.2    Taking the next step - fully integrated development planning

Considering the commonalities in the approaches and requirements of integrating DRR and sustainable resilient development in national CCA strategies such as NAP and NAPA processes, three major actions seem to be most conducive to success. Firstly, establishing a strong governance mechanism that involves all relevant stakeholders across disciplines, which helps avoid ineffective and inefficient action, communication and cooperation. Secondly, developing a central and accessible knowledge management platform and risk assessment system for CCA and DRR with a balanced combination of scientific and local knowledge, good practices, natural and social scientific data, and risk information. And lastly, redesigning funding schemes and mechanisms to support coherent CCA and DRR solutions encourages cooperation and coordination for efficient use of financial resources.  The technical expert meeting on adaptation in Bonn, Germany, in 2017 made recommendations to countries to bring DRR and CCA together to ensure sustainable development.

Key recommendations: 

• While maintaining the autonomy of each of the post-2015 frameworks, improved coherence of action to implement the three frameworks can save money and time, enhance efficiency and further enable adaptation action.
• Both "resilience" and "ecosystems" can act as core concepts for motivating integration. Actors, including State and non-State, operating across multiple sectors and scales ranging from local to global, can facilitate policy coherence, and vulnerable people and communities can benefit from and initiate effective bottom-up, locally driven solutions that contribute to multiple policy outcomes simultaneously.
• Building the capacity for coherence and coordination will help to clarify roles and responsibilities and to encourage partnerships among a wide range of actors.
• The availability of data, including climate and socioeconomic data, and their resolution remain a challenge, especially in Africa. Better data management, more informed policymaking and capacity-building are needed.
• The process to formulate and implement NAPs can effectively support the implementation of enhanced adaptation action and the development of integrated approaches to adaptation, sustainable development and DRR, thanks in part to its demonstrated success as a planning instrument, the resources available for its support, its iterative nature and flexible, nationally driven format.
•  Adequate, sustainable support for adaptation efforts from public, private, international and national sources is crucial. Accessing finance and technology development and transfer and capacity-building support is also critical, particularly for developing countries.

13.3.3 National Adaptation Plan Sustainable Development Goals Integrative Framework

To support the formulation of NAPs that integrate well with development planning, the UNFCCC Least Developed Countries Expert Group developed the NAP-SDG Integrative Framework (iFrame) that facilitates integration of different entry points to planning by managing relationships between the entry points and the systems being managed. By focusing on the systems that are key to a country's development, it is possible to map to different drivers (climatic hazards for instance), as well as to sectors or ministries, specific SDGs, different spatial units, development themes or other frameworks such as the Sendai Framework. See Figure 13.2, which shows a sample collection of systems in the middle. These systems become the focus of assessment and subsequent planning and actions to address adaptation goals. The achievement of particular SDGs is ensured by ensuring that all the necessary systems of governance relevant to that goal are included in the analysis and subsequent action.

NAP-SDG iFrame is being tested in some countries. Early results indicate that this systems approach is very effective at focusing on outputs and outcomes that would have the greatest impact on development dividends, while avoiding the bias inherent when actors that would promote their interests over those of more essential systems, and also helps ensure multiple frameworks are simultaneously addressed. The approach has the potential to manage multiple and overlapping climatic factors or hazards, and should facilitate governance and synergy among different actors and ministries. The systems can be singular, as in the case of nexus approaches, or compound, to represent development themes such as food security, which would invariably include aspects of crop/food production, as well as other aspects of food availability, access and utilization. This approach lends itself to easy design and implementation of integrated models for the system to facilitate assessment of climate impacts and potential losses within a broader development framework. It also becomes easy to assess impacts of one or multiple interacting climatic drivers or hazards, as it is often the case that countries may be faced with multiple hazards in a given year such as serious drought, flooding, shifting seasons and heat-waves, resulting in multiple exposure. 

The systems at the centre of the iFrame can be defined in a manner that makes sense for the country, and can include value or supply chains, each with an implied scale and models of drivers and interacting parts, and with specific pathways for how climatic or other natural hazards would have an impact. iFrame can be applied to dissolve working in silos and to manage different lenses to adaptation, and should open up completely new horizons and developments in adaptation planning, implementation, monitoring and assessment, and knowledge management.

Figure 13.2. Collection of sample national systems showing links to multiple entry point elements including SDGs, as part of NAP-SDG iFrame, being developed by the UNFCCC Least Developed Countries Expert Group

13.4.1 Enabling legislation and institutions

The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC), in collaboration with United Nations organizations and donors, has developed tools to support countries to strengthen their legal and policy frameworks for DRR and CCA. The Checklist on Law and Disaster Risk Reduction is a succinct and easy-to-use assessment tool that, by guiding a research and assessment process, helps countries identify strengths in legal frameworks. These are areas where greater focus is needed on implementation, as well as whether drafting or revision of legislation is necessary. Another relevant tool is the Law and Climate Change Toolkit. This is a global electronic resource designed for use by national governments, international organizations and experts engaged in assisting countries to implement national climate change laws.

To establish a strong governance mechanism, strategies benefit from an enabling legal framework, which also applies to integrated DRR and CCA strategies. Recent reviews of DRR laws and regulations in various countries indicate that the integration of DRR and CCA into legal frameworks remains the exception rather than the rule.  The trend in the countries reviewed has been to allocate responsibility for the administration of CCA laws to ministries of environment, without requiring them to coordinate with DRM institutions, while DRM institutions are also not required to coordinate with Ministries of Environment. Only more recently have some countries, especially in the Pacific but including countries in other regions also, are adopting a new model in which CCA and DRR are integrated with development planning and resource management legislation. 

Some examples of such integrated legal frameworks outside the Pacific include Algeria, Mexico and Uruguay. In Algeria, the National Agency on Climate Change, based in the Ministry for the Environment, is responsible for mainstreaming CCA into development planning. However, as Algeria's National Committee on Major Risks, established by law, is mandated to coordinate all activities on major risks, including implementation mechanisms for CCA and DRM institutions, it provides an overarching coordination mechanism. The enabling law for this in Algeria is the 2004 Law on Prevention of Major Risks and Disaster Management. This legal and institutional framework has the potential to achieve a high level of CCA and DRR integration if implemented as planned. 

In Mexico, the General Climate Change Law of 2012 is supported by a special national climate change programme and an Inter-Ministerial Commission on Climate Change, which is a cross-sectoral coordination body formed by the heads of 14 federal ministries. In Uruguay, a special decree, the National Response to Climate Change and Variability, was passed in 2009. Implemented by the Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment, its purpose is to coordinate actions among all institutions relevant to achieving risk prevention in the whole territory.

13.4.2    Financing

Financing for adaptation and DRR is a key element for enhancing capacity and ensuring successful implementation. Although many countries have undertaken climate and disaster risk assessments, the systematic integration of these assessments into national financial and fiscal planning processes is still limited. This suggests a need to redesign funding schemes and mechanisms to encourage cooperation and coordination for efficient use of financial resources. 

International public financing of CCA is now also a major resource and influence on national approaches. GCF was set up in 2010 by Parties to UNFCCC as part of the Convention's financial mechanism to increase financial flows from developed countries to developing countries for mitigation and adaptation. It implements the financing provisions of the Paris Agreement (especially Article 9) aimed at keeping climate change well below 2°C by promoting low-emission and climate-resilient development, at the same time taking into account the needs of countries that are particularly vulnerable to climate change impacts.  It is the most significant source of public international financing for national adaptation planning (through a range of instruments such as grants, concessional debt financing, equity and guarantees), with $5 billion already committed by early 2019 and over 100 country mitigation and/or adaptation projects under way through accredited partners.  

Many of the GCF adaptation projects integrate components that would often be seen as DRR or sustainable development. This indicates the extent of policy coherence or integrated risk governance that is already being made possible under this mechanism. Projects are explicitly documented in relation to the SDGs that they help to implement. The criteria include safeguards for indigenous peoples, gender mainstreaming and environmental and social safeguards. For example, a project just commenced in Namibia is on building resilience of communities living in landscapes threatened under climate change through an ecosystems-based adaptation approach (Project SAP006). It gives GCF results areas (health, food and water security; livelihoods of people and communities; and ecosystems and ecosystem services) as well as the SDGs that it supports (SDG 13 on climate action; SDG 14 on life below water; and SDG 15 on life on land).  In DRR terminology, this project is also about drought resilience. It is hoped that this clear move towards integrated risk governance by GCF will encourage integrated project proposals from countries where disaster and climate risk have significant overlaps, either generally or in specific regions or sectors.

13.4.3    Risk information

An integrated CCA/DRR policy, strategy or plan needs to be complemented by adequate, accessible and understandable risk information. Ideally, this is an available resource during the policy development stage, to help formulate objectives and goals, but joint risk assessments and ongoing information sharing are key elements of integrated strategies. 

A study in Vanuatu identified a well-developed DRR operational governance structure comprising many government levels and non-governmental actors working together to implement top-down and bottom-up DRR strategies that contemplate CCA elements. Stakeholders in Vanuatu accept local and scientific risk knowledge to inform DRR policies, although scientific knowledge is still precedent for the development of formal instruments to reduce disaster risk.  

Several good practices in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have been identified. These include strong support for the assessment of flood and climate risk through the Adaptation Reporting Powers under the Climate Change Act, which encouraged key infrastructure institutions to consider the impacts of hazards such as flood and climate change on their business and the provision of key services. Additionally, the government encourages use of ecosystem-based approaches (e.g. sustainable urban drainage) and infrastructure that has the flexibility to be adapted in the future (e.g. the flood defence walls implemented in Morpeth, north-east England, which have been constructed so that they can be modified easily if required in the future ).

A Regional Initiative for the Assessment of the Impact of Climate Change on Water Resources and Socio-Economic Vulnerability in the Arab Region (RICCAR) assesses the impacts of climate change on freshwater resources in the Arab region and their implications for socioeconomic and environmental vulnerability. It does so through the application of scientific methods and consultative processes involving communities in CCA and DRR. The initiative prepares an integrated assessment that links climate change impact assessment outputs to inform an integrated vulnerability assessment to climate change impacts, such as changes in temperature, precipitation and run-off, droughts or flooding due to shifting rainfall patterns and extreme weather events.  The RICCAR example shows that joint assessments and knowledge development involving two otherwise siloed communities of experts can help build a common understanding of risk, which is the precondition for planning and budgeting. 

13.4.4    National adaptation plans 

Although NAPs are developed by many countries, the focus for UNFCCC monitoring is on developing countries, and it maintains a public database of these, NAP Central. As at 30 January 2019, 12 NAPs from developing country Parties were developed and submitted on NAP Central between 2015 and 2018, namely Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chile, Colombia, Fiji, Kenya, Saint Lucia, Sri Lanka, State of Palestine, Sudan and Togo.  All of these include aspects of DRR, providing scope for increased coherence between

DRR and broader adaptation during the implementation of NAPs.

13.4.5 Other integrated strategies and plans

Well-defined national legislation can set the preconditions for successful integration of DRR and CCA, and establish a coordination mechanism, but defining and coordinating institutional arrangements for climate- and disaster-resilient development often remains difficult. This can be due to institutional resistance, given that different institutions have historically driven climate change and DRM agendas with separate financial sources.  Emerging experience indicates that to have effective convening power, the relevant agency should be located at the highest possible level of government. Indeed, as climate and disaster risk affect multiple sectors, the lead agency needs to have a strong convening power of decision makers from multiple agencies and levels of government, as well as the private sector and civil society.

13.5.1 Regional approach to support integration - Framework for Resilient Development in the Pacific

As noted in section 10.1 on regional approaches and in section 11.5 on integration, the Pacific region is leading the way, at regional and country levels, in integrating reduction of climate and disaster risk with development planning in FRDP.  

Although it is not prescriptive, FRDP suggests priority actions to be used as appropriate by different multi-stakeholder groups, at regional and national levels, in sectors or other groupings as appropriate.  Its implementation was also supported by the Pacific Resilience Partnership established by Pacific leaders in 2017 for an initial trial period of two years. The partnership works to strengthen coordination and collaboration, working with a multi-stakeholder task force, a support unit, technical working groups and Pacific resilience meetings.

13.5.2 Pacific countries

Given the importance of climate-related disasters in the Pacific Islands, many countries of the region have developed JNAPs, action plans that consider DRM and CCA, since 2010. This process began well before the 2016 FRDP, which is a regional evolution from national practice. 

JNAPs normally reflect a recognition of the relationship among development, disaster and climate risk and the role of environmental management in development and risk management.  The Cook Islands, the Marshall Islands, Niue and Tonga represent some of the countries that have developed and published their JNAPs, while Vanuatu has chosen an alternative route through national legislation and institutional restructuring to integrate DRR and CCA.

There are two broad approaches followed by the Pacific Island countries regarding JNAPs and NAPs. One set of countries is working on formulating NAPs explicitly, with proposals and/or plans under way to access the GCF NAP formulation funding (e.g. Fiji, Tuvalu and Vanuatu). Another set of countries will characterize their JNAPs as their NAPs (Cook Islands, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Niue, Palau and Tonga). The second group of countries is planning to use the GCF NAP formulation funding to revise or update CCA components of their JNAPs to ensure full coverage of the features of NAPs.

The Cook Islands launched its second plan, JNAP2, in 2016, covering the period 2016-2020. This JNAP2 has nine sectoral strategies to ensure a safe, resilient and sustainable future. It aims at strengthening climate and disaster resilience to protect lives, livelihoods, economic, infrastructural, cultural and environmental assets in the Cook Islands in a collaborative, sectoral approach. The Paris Agreement and Sendai Framework are mentioned in the foreword, and there is a mapping of how both have informed JNAP. 

The Kiribati Joint Implementation Plan (KJIP) is being updated to complement the National Disaster Risk Management Plan and the National Framework for Climate Change and Climate Change Adaptation.  Among other things, the KJIP revision responds to the gender equality policy imperative set out in the Paris Agreement.

The Marshall Islands is updating its JNAP 2014-2018. It has set the adoption of SDGs, the Paris Agreement (together with NDCs and NAPs) and the Sendai Framework as the national policy context and guiding principles for updating its JNAP. The country plans to align its National Framework for Resilience Reform with its NAP to ensure appropriate relevance to funding.

Vanuatu has created integration of CCA and DRR institutions and policy development processes.  The National Advisory Board on Climate Change and Disaster Risk Reduction is jointly directed by the Vanuatu Meteorological and Geohazards Department and NDMO, and operates as Vanuatu's principle policy, knowledge and coordination hub for all matters concerning climate change and DRR. This was set up before the new law that formalizes integration. 

13.6.1 Coordinated national policymaking for climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction 

Coordination can be achieved most effectively at the national level during the production of strategies and plans in support of development. CCA and DRR are both sufficiently flexible concepts to enable countries to develop and implement plans and strategies based on national circumstances and needs. 

How countries report and produce plans in response to different multilateral agreements is a different issue; at times, these requirements can militate against integration. The international context also includes coordination of support that comes under the different umbrellas based on the special requirements of each source. 

13.6.2    Coordinated national technical assessments and solutions for the full spectrum of risk 

Risk assessments for climate change and disasters are often carried out by different teams, and are supported and guided by different agreements and bodies internationally. It must be recognized that although disaster and climate risk have significant overlap, there are also substantial aspects in which they do not coincide, and this is an important challenge for integrated risk governance at national and local levels. However, in the realm of hydrometeorological risk, for example, there is also a continuum of applicable tools from adaptation/risk reduction, planned or contingent, to managing extremes and disaster losses. A country could choose to coordinate these aspects of CCA/DRR assessments, provided the assessments cover the timescales relevant to each type of risk, from the present through to the medium and long terms. 

However, as set out in Part I of this GAR, in fully integrated approaches under the Sendai Framework, there is also a need to include risk from non-climate-related natural hazards (especially seismic/tsunami, volcanic, fire and biological hazards), complex mixed hazards triggered or created by human activity (environmental risks, nuclear/radiological and chemical/industrial hazards), as well as the cascading or systemic risks that arise from these hazards and climate change risk, beyond the immediate effects of particular hazards or phenomena.

13.6.3 Integrated and coordinated activities - minimizing complexity and avoiding duplication 

Many organizations have prepared supplementary materials to NAP technical guidelines, to offer advice on how to promote synergy with other frameworks. A supplement that covers DRR issues is under development by UNISDR and UNFCCC in close collaboration with the Least Developed Countries Expert Group on Adaptation, and will show how countries can better coordinate their efforts at the national level to address climate DRR and CCA through NAPs.

There are other global frameworks and multilateral agreements that also have actions which address CCA and DRR. For example, UN-Habitat's NUA, and regional frameworks such as Africa 2063, have areas of work that can be better integrated at the national level. A broader integrating framework can be applied, such as the NAP-SDG iFrame being developed by the UNFCCC Least Developed Countries Expert Group to support formulation and implementation of adaptation plans. 

Any global attempt to create synergies can be successful only if coordination at regional, national and local levels is ensured by a strong lead institution with a coordination mandate. As DRR and CCA are issues that affect many sectors, isolated action is rarely successful, and real coherence can take place only if silos are broken at the level where implementation occurs.

13.6.4    Integration of disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation into financial and budgetary instruments and frameworks 

Many of the country cases cited illustrate the importance of capacity and resources for implementation. While a strong governance mechanism and accessible risk information play a crucial role in implementation, risk reduction remains aspirational unless it is translated into a budgetary process. Instead of perpetuating institutional competition for separate resource streams, financial instruments need to be made available that consider the nexus between DRR and CCA and provide comprehensive financial resources. Financing mechanisms still need to be adjusted to the new paradigm. 

Overall, the approach of integrating DRR into CCA plans seems to be most successful where hydrometeorological disaster risks are highest and the impact of climate change is felt most. It may not be the right fit for all countries, but it has a strong potential for accelerating implementation when there is political will. 

• News, Stories & Speeches
• Get Involved
• Structure and leadership
• Committee of Permanent Representatives
• UN Environment Assembly
• Funding and partnerships
• Policies and strategies
• Evaluation Office
• Secretariats and Conventions

• Asia and the Pacific
• Latin America and the Caribbean
• New York Office
• North America
• Climate action
• Nature action
• Chemicals and pollution action
• Digital Transformations
• Disasters and conflicts
• Environment under review
• Environmental rights and governance
• Extractives
• Fresh Water
• Green economy
• Ocean, seas and coasts
• Resource efficiency
• Sustainable Development Goals
• Youth, education and environment
• Publications & data

Promoting Ecosystems for Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation

The main focus of the paper is to examine potential areas of integration and synergy, highlighting how sustainable ecosystems management approaches help facilitate integration of CCA and DRR. A total of 38 (Eco-DRR, EBA and hybrid Eco-DRR/CCA) projects were examined in terms of their aims, assessments, implementation, monitoring and evaluation (M&E) and policy and institutional contexts to understand how in practice these approaches differ and overlap and to find key integration points. This paper identifies five areas for Eco-DRR and EBA integration in project design and implementation, namely: Defining aims of the project; Conducting risk and vulnerability assessments; Project implementation: methods, approaches, tools; Monitoring and Evaluation; and Policy and institutional engagements.

• Disasters & conflicts

© 2024 UNEP Terms of Use Privacy   Report Project Concern Report Scam Contact Us

• DOI: 10.1111/disa.12644
• Corpus ID: 270439241

The barriers to uptake of disaster risk management science in urban planning: A political economy analysis.

• Vikrant Panwar , Emily Wilkinson , M. Pelling
• Published in Disasters. The Journal of… 13 June 2024
• Political Science, Environmental Science, Sociology

53 References

The co-production of risk from a natural hazards perspective: science and policy interaction for landslide risk management in italy, a political economy analysis of public spending distribution for disaster risk reduction in bangladesh, re-framing risk: the changing context of disaster mitigation and preparedness., editorial. risk-based, pro-poor urban design and planning for tomorrow's cities, toward conceptual frameworks for linking disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation, reviewing estimates of the economic efficiency of disaster risk management: opportunities and limitations of using risk-based cost–benefit analysis, barriers for local authorities to invest in disaster risk reduction: evidence from zimbabwe, from yokohama to sendai: approaches to participation in international disaster risk reduction frameworks, defining flood risk management strategies: a systems approach, climate change, disaster risk, and the urban poor, related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

Search the United Nations

• What Is Climate Change
• Myth Busters
• Renewable Energy
• Finance & Justice
• Initiatives
• Sustainable Development Goals
• Paris Agreement
• Climate Ambition Summit 2023
• Climate Conferences
• Press Material
• Communications Tips

Causes and Effects of Climate Change

Fossil fuels – coal, oil and gas – are by far the largest contributor to global climate change, accounting for over 75 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions and nearly 90 per cent of all carbon dioxide emissions.

As greenhouse gas emissions blanket the Earth, they trap the sun’s heat. This leads to global warming and climate change. The world is now warming faster than at any point in recorded history. Warmer temperatures over time are changing weather patterns and disrupting the usual balance of nature. This poses many risks to human beings and all other forms of life on Earth.

Causes of Climate Change

Generating power

Generating electricity and heat by burning fossil fuels causes a large chunk of global emissions. Most electricity is still generated by burning coal, oil, or gas, which produces carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide – powerful greenhouse gases that blanket the Earth and trap the sun’s heat. Globally, a bit more than a quarter of electricity comes from wind, solar and other renewable sources which, as opposed to fossil fuels, emit little to no greenhouse gases or pollutants into the air.

Manufacturing goods

Manufacturing and industry produce emissions, mostly from burning fossil fuels to produce energy for making things like cement, iron, steel, electronics, plastics, clothes, and other goods. Mining and other industrial processes also release gases, as does the construction industry. Machines used in the manufacturing process often run on coal, oil, or gas; and some materials, like plastics, are made from chemicals sourced from fossil fuels. The manufacturing industry is one of the largest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions worldwide.

Cutting down forests

Cutting down forests to create farms or pastures, or for other reasons, causes emissions, since trees, when they are cut, release the carbon they have been storing. Each year approximately 12 million hectares of forest are destroyed. Since forests absorb carbon dioxide, destroying them also limits nature’s ability to keep emissions out of the atmosphere. Deforestation, together with agriculture and other land use changes, is responsible for roughly a quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions.

Using transportation

Most cars, trucks, ships, and planes run on fossil fuels. That makes transportation a major contributor of greenhouse gases, especially carbon-dioxide emissions. Road vehicles account for the largest part, due to the combustion of petroleum-based products, like gasoline, in internal combustion engines. But emissions from ships and planes continue to grow. Transport accounts for nearly one quarter of global energy-related carbon-dioxide emissions. And trends point to a significant increase in energy use for transport over the coming years.

Producing food

Producing food causes emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, and other greenhouse gases in various ways, including through deforestation and clearing of land for agriculture and grazing, digestion by cows and sheep, the production and use of fertilizers and manure for growing crops, and the use of energy to run farm equipment or fishing boats, usually with fossil fuels. All this makes food production a major contributor to climate change. And greenhouse gas emissions also come from packaging and distributing food.

Powering buildings

Globally, residential and commercial buildings consume over half of all electricity. As they continue to draw on coal, oil, and natural gas for heating and cooling, they emit significant quantities of greenhouse gas emissions. Growing energy demand for heating and cooling, with rising air-conditioner ownership, as well as increased electricity consumption for lighting, appliances, and connected devices, has contributed to a rise in energy-related carbon-dioxide emissions from buildings in recent years.

Consuming too much

Your home and use of power, how you move around, what you eat and how much you throw away all contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. So does the consumption of goods such as clothing, electronics, and plastics. A large chunk of global greenhouse gas emissions are linked to private households. Our lifestyles have a profound impact on our planet. The wealthiest bear the greatest responsibility: the richest 1 per cent of the global population combined account for more greenhouse gas emissions than the poorest 50 per cent.

Based on various UN sources

Effects of Climate Change

Hotter temperatures

As greenhouse gas concentrations rise, so does the global surface temperature. The last decade, 2011-2020, is the warmest on record. Since the 1980s, each decade has been warmer than the previous one. Nearly all land areas are seeing more hot days and heat waves. Higher temperatures increase heat-related illnesses and make working outdoors more difficult. Wildfires start more easily and spread more rapidly when conditions are hotter. Temperatures in the Arctic have warmed at least twice as fast as the global average.

More severe storms

Destructive storms have become more intense and more frequent in many regions. As temperatures rise, more moisture evaporates, which exacerbates extreme rainfall and flooding, causing more destructive storms. The frequency and extent of tropical storms is also affected by the warming ocean. Cyclones, hurricanes, and typhoons feed on warm waters at the ocean surface. Such storms often destroy homes and communities, causing deaths and huge economic losses.

Increased drought

Climate change is changing water availability, making it scarcer in more regions. Global warming exacerbates water shortages in already water-stressed regions and is leading to an increased risk of agricultural droughts affecting crops, and ecological droughts increasing the vulnerability of ecosystems. Droughts can also stir destructive sand and dust storms that can move billions of tons of sand across continents. Deserts are expanding, reducing land for growing food. Many people now face the threat of not having enough water on a regular basis.

A warming, rising ocean

The ocean soaks up most of the heat from global warming. The rate at which the ocean is warming strongly increased over the past two decades, across all depths of the ocean. As the ocean warms, its volume increases since water expands as it gets warmer. Melting ice sheets also cause sea levels to rise, threatening coastal and island communities. In addition, the ocean absorbs carbon dioxide, keeping it from the atmosphere. But more carbon dioxide makes the ocean more acidic, which endangers marine life and coral reefs.

Loss of species

Climate change poses risks to the survival of species on land and in the ocean. These risks increase as temperatures climb. Exacerbated by climate change, the world is losing species at a rate 1,000 times greater than at any other time in recorded human history. One million species are at risk of becoming extinct within the next few decades. Forest fires, extreme weather, and invasive pests and diseases are among many threats related to climate change. Some species will be able to relocate and survive, but others will not.

Not enough food

Changes in the climate and increases in extreme weather events are among the reasons behind a global rise in hunger and poor nutrition. Fisheries, crops, and livestock may be destroyed or become less productive. With the ocean becoming more acidic, marine resources that feed billions of people are at risk. Changes in snow and ice cover in many Arctic regions have disrupted food supplies from herding, hunting, and fishing. Heat stress can diminish water and grasslands for grazing, causing declining crop yields and affecting livestock.

More health risks

Climate change is the single biggest health threat facing humanity. Climate impacts are already harming health, through air pollution, disease, extreme weather events, forced displacement, pressures on mental health, and increased hunger and poor nutrition in places where people cannot grow or find sufficient food. Every year, environmental factors take the lives of around 13 million people. Changing weather patterns are expanding diseases, and extreme weather events increase deaths and make it difficult for health care systems to keep up.

Poverty and displacement

Climate change increases the factors that put and keep people in poverty. Floods may sweep away urban slums, destroying homes and livelihoods. Heat can make it difficult to work in outdoor jobs. Water scarcity may affect crops. Over the past decade (2010–2019), weather-related events displaced an estimated 23.1 million people on average each year, leaving many more vulnerable to poverty. Most refugees come from countries that are most vulnerable and least ready to adapt to the impacts of climate change.

Learn more about...

• What is climate change?

Our climate 101 offers a quick take on the how and why of climate change.

What is “net zero”, why is it important, and is the world on track to reach it?

Initiatives for action

Read about global initiatives aimed at speeding up the pace of climate action.

Facts and figures

• Causes and effects
• Myth busters

Cutting emissions

• Explaining net zero
• High-level expert group on net zero
• Checklists for credibility of net-zero pledges
• Greenwashing
• What you can do

Clean energy

• Renewable energy – key to a safer future
• What is renewable energy
• Five ways to speed up the energy transition
• Why invest in renewable energy
• Clean energy stories
• A just transition

Adapting to climate change

• Climate adaptation
• Early warnings for all
• Youth voices

Financing climate action

• Finance and justice
• Loss and damage
• $100 billion commitment
• Why finance climate action
• Biodiversity
• Human Security

International cooperation

• What are Nationally Determined Contributions
• Acceleration Agenda
• Climate Ambition Summit
• Climate conferences (COPs)
• Youth Advisory Group
• Action initiatives
• Secretary-General’s speeches
• Press material
• Fact sheets
• Communications tips

• Todas las actividades
• Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible
• Conferencia de las Partes (CP)
• Eventos y reuniones
• Todos los temas
• Portal de noticias
• Comunicados de prensa
• Publicaciones más recientes
• Publicaciones seriadas
• Biblioteca electrónica
• Fichas informativas
• Photo Galleries
• Comunidad de la OMM
• Nuestro mandato
• WMO Members
• مكاتب الاتصال
• Gender Equality
• Partnerships
• Resource Mobilization
• History of IMO and WMO
• Finanzas y rendición de cuentas
• Día Meteorológico Mundial
• WMO Building

Intermediary Result 4.1: Strengthened enabling environment for response to warnings

Outputs / activities:.

• Stocktake of enabling environment: Undertake baseline assessment study of existing national legal and regulatory frameworks related to Disaster Risk Management/ Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation, as well as relevant selected sectoral policies etc. (such as agriculture, food security, health, WASH, etc.) to ensure clear specifications for preparedness and response to warnings / anticipatory action.
• Advocacy: Roll out advocacy/dialogue/sensitization campaign with relevant national institutions/stakeholders of the importance of integrating provisions for anticipatory action (triggers for action, roles/responsibilities and agreed anticipatory actions) into national disaster risk management and climate change legal and regulatory frameworks (plans, policies, strategies, etc), linked where possible to pre-arranged finance.
• Establish an inter-ministerial WG to support institutions concerned in the revision of national legal and regulatory frameworks (plans, policies, strategies, etc) related to Disaster Risk Management/ Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation, as well as relevant selected sectoral legal and regulatory frameworks (such as agriculture, food security, health, WASH, social security, etc.) to integrate the recommendations/ actions arising from the baseline assessment study, to ensure clear provisions for anticipatory action and preparedness to respond to warnings (roles and responsibilities for all actors, coordination mechanisms, etc). 
• Undertake diplomatic campaign to public authorities, including governmental authorities, parliamentarians and other relevant stakeholders. 
• Integration of anticipatory action into district and municipal planning: Linked to the above, support the revision or development of district and municipal level climate/development/disaster risk management regulations and plans (e.g. contingency plans) to integrate clear specifications for preparedness and response to warnings / anticipatory action. This should be linked to capacity strengthening of local authorities in order for them to fully understand their roles and responsibilities in anticipatory action (see below).

Intermediary Result 4.2: Preparedness capacities are increased at the local level, enabling first responders to act quickly and effectively based on early warning alerts. 

• Assessment of preparedness capacities: Assess national and local response preparedness systems, stocks and capacities (e.g. map out the capacities of National Disaster Response Teams and create/update the database; map out strategic warehouses and stocks in high-risk areas together with relevant municipal authorities; map out existing HR, technical, resources, equipment in line with different levels of response (e.g. Green-Yellow-Red)).
• Assessment of training needs: Identify, assess, and map training needs for upskilling of personnel involved in preparedness and response to warnings. 
• Develop capacity building programme: Develop a comprehensive, modular and cost-efficient capacity building programme in line with mapped needs, including development of training package/ materials, identification of trainers/ resource personnel nationally/ internationally, development of a training plan/ scheduling with costing. 
• Capacity building for public administration: Undertake capacity building initiatives for key institutions and stakeholders at all levels of public administration by category (i.e. practitioners; decision makers; parliamentarians). 
• Capacity building for local communities/local actors: Undertake capacity building initiatives for local communities (community members, CBOs, NGOs, OPDs, volunteers) on anticipatory action and preparedness to respond to warnings. 
• Strengthen operational capacities: Strengthen institutional and operational capacities for national and local preparedness and anticipatory action e.g. logistics and supply chain management, human resources, fleet and transport management, stockpiling of equipment and supplies for anticipatory action.
• Integration of anticipatory action into SOPs: Support the establishment, revision or upgrading of Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for disaster response to ensure they provide guidance on anticipatory action and preparedness to respond to warnings, including roles and responsibilities of mandated institutions and stakeholders, chain of command, thresholds for activation, and types of anticipatory / early actions to be undertaken at all levels of the administration involved in the end-to-end early warning system.
• Use of SOPs by relevant structures: Ensure that Emergency Operation Centres (EOC) and/ or other crisis/ emergency/ disaster management structures in the country use the updated SOPs appropriately in line with specifications for anticipatory action and preparedness to respond to warnings through regular consultative processes and workshops at all administrative levels concerned.
• Preparedness planning: Undertake regular preparedness/ contingency/ emergency response planning exercises, bringing together governmental and non-governmental stakeholders; update and disseminate the preparedness/ contingency/ emergency response plans to all stakeholders involved, ensuring that both process (the planning exercises) and the outcome (the plans) test and include ability to take anticipatory action and to respond to warnings.
• Simulations to test effectiveness of preparedness and response to warnings: Undertake periodic simulations (i.e. SIMEX) along preparedness/ contingency planning processes, including to test the functionality of early warning systems, and the ability to respond to warnings.
• Take corrective action based on simulations: Undertake after-action reviews of simulations and disaster response operations; integrate corrective action when needed in an iterative manner in future preparedness/ contingency planning. In after-action reviews, assess the ability to have issued and disseminated warnings, and to have taken anticipatory action in response to warnings by institutions, stakeholders, communities and individuals.
• Public awareness, education and mobilization: Undertake activities for public/community/household awareness and education on what actions to take once warnings are received including through campaigns, informal education, participatory learning and school-based interventions. Target and involve the most vulnerable groups including underrepresented groups in public awareness and public education campaigns. 
• Community early warning system/contingency plan: Support the establishment of Community Early Warning Systems (cross-pillar) to develop capabilities and readiness to support anticipatory action within the community, including through ensuring clarity regarding who will take what action based on different alert levels.  Support communities to develop contingency plans incorporating forecasts, triggers and anticipatory actions for priority hazards.
• Anticipatory action frameworks supported by partners: Where there are gaps in coverage by national plans, develop coordinated anticipatory action framework(s) supported by partners to complement/amplify national efforts.

Intermediary Result 4.3: Financing and delivery mechanisms are connected to effective anticipatory action plans, for action ahead of predicted hazards and crises

Outputs / activities: .

• National advocacy: Develop national financial advocacy strategy to promote resource allocation (i.e. budgetary expenditures) and additional resource mobilization from international and private financing sources for anticipatory action and preparedness across climate change, development (including sectoral) and humanitarian response funding streams, with a focus on scaled-up investments for local capacity for anticipatory action and preparedness to respond to warnings.
• Integration into new or existing disaster risk and climate change financing mechanisms: Advocacy and capacity building for governments to integrate anticipatory action into new or existing disaster risk financing mechanisms.
• Develop national/ local/ sectoral strategies to guide public administration structures to integrate anticipatory action and preparedness into new or existing disaster risk and climate change financing mechanisms.
• Private sector partnerships: Create new/ scale up partnerships with private sector entities, including the insurance sector, to promote engagement and scale-up of anticipatory action and preparedness activities.

Intermediary Result 4.4: Strengthened collaboration between key stakeholders for informed action on the ground

• Stakeholder coordination mechanism: Provide support towards the establishment / designation of coordination mechanism for preparedness and response to warnings.
• Establish MOUs for coordination and collaboration between key stakeholders e.g. NDMA, NMHS, civil protection, IFRC network, UN agencies, NGOs, civil society etc to enable effective and harmonized preparedness and response to warnings (e.g. ensuring preparedness and anticipatory action actors are receiving risk analysis (through pillar 1) and forecasts (through pillar 2) needed to develop and trigger anticipatory action plans/frameworks).
• Explore opportunities and engagement with the private sector on procurement of goods/financial service providers/others
• Strengthen mechanisms for peer-to-peer learning and sharing of best practices related to Pillar 4.
• Early warning system