Why Development should focus on Climate Adaptation

This Op Ed originally appeared on May 4, 2016 http://ensia.com/voices/why-development-should-focus-on-climate-adaptation/

Just as climate change disproportionately affects the poor,

so must efforts to reduce its toll.

One of the biggest threats to a thriving world today is that the world’s poorest people face disproportionate risk from climate change. The World Bank’s Turn Down the Heat report notes that climate change threatens to erode progress made on reducing poverty, while a Stanford studyreveals that global incomes for 2100 could be 23 percent lower than they would be in a world without climate change. While it is sobering that over the past 30 years one dollar out of every three spent on development has been lost as a result of climate risk, the long-term impact of lower incomes relates to shrinking global markets and thus has impact on economies around the world.

For leaders working on development issues in least-developed and lower-income countries, these trends call for more resources to support climate adaptation, such as improving water security through conservation and modernizing infrastructure to withstand extreme storms.

A trifecta of global influence has identified adaptation as a key climate action strategy for national and local governments, the private sector, and donors: the Paris Climate Agreement, which mentions adaptation more frequently than mitigation; the U.N. Sustainable Development Goals, which prioritize adaptation; and Pope Francis’ encyclical on the environment, which calls out the imbalance between the global north and south in a climate-changed world.

In an average year, climate change affects more than one out of five people. Scientists from the Notre Dame Global Adaptation Index, a climate adaptation think tank I lead at the University of Notre Dame, have calculated that people living in the least-developed countries have 10 times greater chance of being affected by a climate disaster than those in wealthy countries. They also have calculated that it will take more than 100 years for lower-income countries to reach upper-income countries’ current level of capacity to adapt to changes in climate.

Climate change disproportionately harms the poor in wealthy countries, too.

Not only that, theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports that while climate change heavily burdens the poor, it also worsens preexisting poverty by exacerbating the effects of other poverty causes, such as loss or erosion of physical and financial assets, including land, housing and jobs. Take Africa as an example: In 2015 alone, the continent faced about 50 events that were influenced by climate change — such as droughts, wildfires, landslides, extreme temperatures and floods — as calculated by the International Disaster Database at the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters. These events affected more than 20 million people, killed 1,139 and created damages amounting to more than US$2.5 billion. Such events and changes to historical trends are likely to worsen the symptoms of poverty. One likely outcome is decreased production of staple foods in many of the poorest regions — by up to 50 percent by 2020 in some African countries — increasing malnutrition and undernutrition, which currently cause 3.1 million deaths in children under five every year around the world.

Climate change disproportionately harms the poor in wealthy countries, too. Superstorm Sandy was one of the most expensive extreme weather events in history, costing corporations and governments more than US$40 billion. According to a report by Rutgers University, although registration for Federal Emergency Management Agency assistance by ALICE households (Asset Limited, Income Constrained, Employed, which means they are above the poverty line but still not financially stable) exceeded registrations by non-ALICE households by 13,000, FEMA provided US$61 million more to non-ALICE households. Of the homeowners who applied for assistance, only 10 percent of ALICE applicants had received relief by February 2013 as opposed to 26 percent of all household owner applicants. Even after this relief, disparities remain. While ALICE households received some other help — through public assistance, private insurance and nonprofits — as a group they’re still left with $2.2 billion worth of residential damage and lost income that’s likely to stay unrelieved.

With hazards and vulnerabilities in mind, leaders can create strategies that increase adaptive capacities, especially for those most sensitive to climate hazards, including the world’s poorest citizens.

Climate adaptation requires several basic steps. First, leaders in government, the private sector and philanthropy should examine the relative hazards based on climate models for areas relevant to their work. Then they should identify adaptive capacities that are lacking and creating the greatest risk based on those exposures. ND-GAIN can help, identifying which countries are most prepared — including resource constraints — to handle and adapt to global challenges brought about by climate disruption. Other helpful resources include the World Economic Forum’sGlobal Competitiveness Report, an assessment of the economic drivers of countries’ productivity and wealth, which helps determine viable markets for corporate investment in projects in other countries, and the World Resources Institute’sAqueduct, which identifies water risks around the world.

With hazards and vulnerabilities in mind, leaders can create strategies that increase adaptive capacities, especially for those most sensitive to climate hazards, including the world’s poorest citizens. Increasing access to electricity, water and sanitation and improving community health-care options are further examples of the dozens of adaptation actions available. Quickly, leaders will see that not only are there parts of their current efforts they can claim are adaptation — which will burnish their brand and inspire further effort — but there are numerous collateral benefits to adaptation: lifting more out of poverty, strengthening economies, preventing civil conflict, buttressing food security, protecting natural resources and ensuring a brighter future for generations to come.

Earth Hour Sheds Light on 5 Grim Climate Facts

This post originally appeared on http://www.crs.org/stories/earth-hour-sheds-light-5-grim-climate-facts Climate change affects lives each day around the globe. From summer heat waves to drastic floods, it touches the wealthiest individuals living in modern cities and the poorest in developing countries. The effects of climate change can reach far beyond the expected ecosystems, economic sectors and populations.

CRS and our partner in El Salvador are helping farmers like Candido Hernandez Orellana build back harvests ruined by drought. Photo by Oscar Leiva/Silverlight for CRS

On March 19, from 8:30 to 9:30 p.m. local time, cities, landmarks and businesses around the world will turn off their lights for one hour. The goal of this Earth Hour is to highlight climate change dangers.

Climate change is happening now, and predictions for the future are grim.

Below are five of the most shocking climate statistics that you may have been in the dark about:

1. Events influenced by climate change took 12,994 lives in 2015.

This startlingly high number, provided by the International Disaster Database at the Center for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters, is up from 8,056 in 2014, showing just how dangerous climate change is becoming. There is a pressing need to adapt to climate change in order to protect lives threatened by droughts, fires, heat waves, storms, floods and landslides.

1. The total monetary cost of events influenced by climate change in 2015 was $74.6 billion.

This data from the International Disaster Database highlights the huge economic impact. Besides the social, physical, and environmental needs, among many others, to mitigate and adapt to minimize future damage, there is an increasing economic need as well.

1. 90% of the recorded natural disasters from 1995 to 2015 were influenced by climate and weather.

According to the U.N. Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, the United States had the highest number of disasters, followed by China, India, the Philippines and Indonesia. Resilience and disaster planning are needed to reduce risks and mitigate impacts of floods, heat waves, droughts and other potentially catastrophic climate-related events.

1. With no action, climate change costs and risks will accumulate to an equivalent of an annual loss of at least 5% of global GDP.

A report by Jonathan M. Harris, Brian Roach and Anne-Marie Codur at Tufts University, “The Economics of Global Climate Change,” predicts losses of land area, species and forests; and water supply disruption, increased human health dangers and drought. These changes—affecting biodiversity, agricultural production and human survival—will likely be irreversible. Other, less predictable, effects may include changing weather patterns, rapid melting of major ice sheets and glaciers, and an increasing rate of global warming.

1. The total annual cost of climate change on human health will total about $2 to $4 billion by 2030.

This estimate from the World Health Organization accounts for the detrimental effects of climate change on vital basic resources, such as clean air, safe water, adequate nutrition and protective shelter. WHO also estimates 250,000 more deaths will occur annually between 2030 and 2050 because of climate change.

These numbers underscore the great sense of urgency to act against climate change to protect innocent lives.

Author: Joyce Coffee is managing director of Notre Dame Global Adaptation Index. 

Patricia Holly, a University of Notre Dame student, contributed to this article.

Let's Create a Climate Adaptation Opportunity Standard to Catalyze Investors

Three examples illustrate a need  to inspire an adaptation marketplace. 1. the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement, unlike its 20 predecessors, prioritized adaptation & finance. 2. the 2016 Global Risk Perceptions Survey (WEF 2016) ranks failure to adapt to climate change 1^st of 28 risks in terms of potential negative impact. 3. UNEP (2015) calculates the adaptation finance gap will be US$140-300B/year by 2030. There is a need for increased funding for adaptation projects, many of which create jobs & stimulate economies as a co-benefit of protecting human & natural communities from the effects of climate change. One barrier is the absence of an adaptation market, a mechanism by which adaptation projects can be traded as commodities, financed by private, government and development investors.

This absence is partly due to a lack of a standard measure for adaptation success that would e.g. create tradable adaptation credit, increase adaptation project bankability, and direct finance to short- and long-term adaptation projects.

What type of measure is needed to evaluate the potential success of adaptation projects? What types of investment decisions will it influence? Is it the same need for development and private sector investors? Addressing these questions will help to benchmark and establish a draft adaptation Standard in collaboration with  the private and development sectors.

A nascent investor-lead Global Adaptation & Resilient Investment (GARI) group is attempting to address this need. ND-GAIN & GARI have identified missing knowledge that will spur the adaptation market: a globally accepted project-level measure of adaptation success that assesses progress thereby quantifying opportunity for investors & inspiring a new marketplace that will improve both lives & economies in the face of climate change. The standard will direct investment flows into projects that have climate adaptation & market benefits, inspire investment for adaptation projects not previously considered, credit existing projects, & shape growth of investor tools, such as debt instruments.

This standard will be comprised of a unique & efficient set of indicators that measure the success of adaptation investments. Potential indicators will be evaluated against outcomes including avoided death & damage, avoided cost & collateral job, ecosystem & greenhouse gas mitigation benefits.

The creation of an international standard to measure climate risk & opportunity entails:

1. Establish theoretical baseline standard of adaptation measurement
2. Improve Standard concept through feedback from users
3. Support investor community to pilot the Standard on existing & proposed adaptation investments
4. Draft paper proposing a standards for adaptation project measurement
5. Share knowledge with marketplace

The goal is to reduce barriers and foster growth in a global market for adaptation projects by expanding the number of projects, investors and improved human lives.

The ultimate outcome of this Standard will be to inspire a global market for adaptation projects that save lives & improve livelihoods through private sector & development agency investments that help prevent the avoidable & manage the unpreventable in the new era of droughts, super-storms, flooding, fires & other climate stresses & shocks.

Let ndgain@nd.edu know if you are interested in joining us in this important work!

WEF's Global Risk Report: Clarion Call for Adaptation

WEF Global Risks of Highest Concern 2016

In 2016, the World Economic Forum’s Global Risks Report concentrates on the likelihood and impact of environmental and societal risks. Three of the top five most likely risks are environmental, including failure of climate-change mitigation and adaptation ranking as 3rd most likely and as the most potentially impactful. This year is the first time in almost ten years that an environmental risk has ranked first in terms of impact. Water crises and involuntary migration also rank in the top five for most impactful risks in 2016.  

Over time, climate-related issues have increasingly ranked higher in potential impact and likelihood of occurrence in this vanguard report.. These risks feature prominently in the highest concern list for the next 18 months. And, with a longer term view over the next ten years all five of the risks of highest concern relate to climate change: water crisis, failure of mitigation and adaptation, extreme weather events, food crisis and profound social instability importance of climate-related events.

The report presents many risks that are interconnected, such that they may be mitigated or aggravated by the same action or event. Climate change, as a trend, is heavily weighted, indicating strong connections with many other risks, including extreme weather events, water crises, biodiversity loss, and ecosystem collapse. These data indicate a need for nations, as well as businesses and local governments, to collaborate to address climate change – especially to implement and measure adaptation projects.

Important questions are now presented to the world. Climate change must clearly become a global priority, but what is the best way to go about both mitigating it and, adapting to it?  Some of those questions were addressed in the Paris Decision and Agreement, where a mitigation target is on par with not only a global adaptation goal, but also the humbling Loss and Damage. With Loss and Damage an official part of the agreement and the educated elite that participate in WEF’s survey defining major risks as the lack of adaptive capacity, there is a resounding clarion call to create adaptation actions in water and food security today that save lives and improve livelihoods.

Thanks to Patricia Holland, ND-GAIN Intern, for her help with this blog.

COP's Legacy: A New Era

This blog appeared on Triple Pundit on 15/12/15 http://www.triplepundit.com/2015/12/cop21s-legacy-a-new-era/ At a private event Wednesday in Paris, Peter Bakker, president of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, noted two significant differences between the 21st Conference of the Parties that ended Friday and previous COPs. One, the role of non-state actors – the private sector and others not under state direction – and, two, the emphasis placed on finance.

These are heartening changes for an incredibly bureaucratic process that to many celebrates its coming-of-age 21st birthday with so little past progress. I would add another difference to Bakker’s list: These climate talks differed substantially from the prior ones because they gave audience to resilience. Not only was the first resilience day held as an official part of the two-week conference, but the final agreement released Saturday includes the word adaptation more frequently than the word mitigation.

The mood for adaptation has changed, too. Perhaps this reflects that even the well-off countries are experiencing climate change. Notre Dame Global Adaptation Indexscientists calculate that those living in upper-income countries have a 10 percent chance of experiencing a climate-related event in 2016. That contrasts to a 1-in-5 chance in lower-income countries, which are a century behind the level of resilience (aka adaptive capacity) of upper-income countries.

As many of us dig deeper into our sustainability work, we are aware of this inequity, and we feel the moral responsibility – the ethical drive – to address the humanitarian challenge of our time. This determination, while acknowledging the incontrovertible role of aggressive greenhouse gas mitigation, also naturally draws us to the new era of climate change: adaptation.

It is a humbling era that requires significant responsibility from us and our brethren around the world. Still, the two themes that the WBCSD’s Bakker elucidated – enhanced engagement from corporations and cities, and forthright inclusion of climate action finance – suggest we are in a good place from which to act for the betterment of humanity.

COP21's Outcome: Adapt or Bust

This blog appeared on Triple Pundit 21/12/15 http://www.triplepundit.com/2015/12/paris-outcome-adapt-or-bust/ As the Paris climate negotiations closed Saturday, you heard a great deal of hope and optimism as well as congratulations for vision and progress emanating from COP21. Indeed, important commitments have been made – but they’re pledges, not actions, and they don’t reverse the adverse climate change underway.

Which is why adaptation is more important than ever.

Among conference influencers, I heard many reasons against adaptation. Such projects aren’t bankable, contended the head of Regions20, a United Nations investor collaboration. Mitigation is more interesting, maintained a global nonprofit agriculture sustainability advocate. And from the United Nation’s adaptation chief: Lessening greenhouse gases is the only thing insurance companies should spend money on.

But these leaders, among the most active climate actors at the historic conference, postpone adaptation at their peril – and so does the rest of the world. Consider the warnings that sound so loudly from Stanford and Berkeley calculations: Global incomes could decline 23 percent by 2100 relative to a world without climate change. And by 2030, annual costs of adaptation could be $150-300 billion a year, by the UN’s own estimate. .

UN officials acknowledge that even in the best-case scenarios of greenhouse gas mitigation under the agreement, climate change will persist for at least three-to-four decades. So much for helping the health and safety of our children and grandchildren.

On the other hand, one group that seemed willing to consider adaptation at COP21 was the private sector:

1. The sustainability director of Mars Inc. notes that he often starts discussions with climate adaptation in discussions when conferring with his government hosts about doing chocolate business in Cote D’Ivoire, Ghana and Nigeria.
2. An executive of nonprofit health plan Kaiser Permanente defined his role as climate adaptive in supporting human resilience.
3. Investment firm South Pole Carbon, leveraging its growth in mitigation markets, has seen exponential growth in its developing-country water purification adaptation investment partnership.
4. PepsiCo, a historic adaptation leader, continues to innovate throughout its food-and-beverage supply chain.
5. The UN Global Compact had the courage and foresight to release a paper of adaptation best practices at its Caring for Climate business forum. ND-GAIN participated in creating The Business case for Responsible Corporate Adaptation

The biggest adapters at the COP21 negotiations seemed to be – wait for it – the United States government, which Thursday pledged $800 million for adaptation.

As I joined other tired souls exiting the climate talks and onto the crowded bus to the metro station, I thought to myself: Adapt or Bust. For while I share hope that countries will make good on the significant commitments emanating from COP21, I’m a pragmatist. I recognize from similar pledges made in both private and local government sectors over the years that the best of intentions differs from impact. And making good on mitigation commitments can be slow, failure-prone work.

Still, recognizing the important mitigation actions galvanized by COP21, I’m encouraged that the private sector is opening doors to new markets, creating collateral benefits, building efficiencies and innovating for adaptation. Well beyond the hope and promise of the Paris Agreement, private sector voices will help ensure that extreme events do not become disasters.

The Paris Agreement: A Not Bad Outcome Compels Corporate Action

This post appeared on 9 December 2015 on the RANE Network https://www.ranenetwork.com/rane-blog/the-paris-agreement-a-not-bad-outcome-compels-corporate-action/  

As the Paris Climate Talks enter the final frenzied hours attempting to come to an agreement about mitigation targets for the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, how to finance needed mitigation and adaptation to meet those targets, and what to do with loss and damage from unavoidable climate change, I reflect on three important and timely elements of COP21 related to the corporate sector:

1. Business does not fit in much to the agreement. In the 28 page draft, the private sector is mentioned 11 times, mostly as it relates to access to capital. And while carbon pricing is mentioned a few times, along with euphemisms for international emissions trading, the document is likely to remain silent on the word “market” through its finalization.
2. Good progress on both national commitments and an international agreement is being made. Although the most zealous climate mitigators continue to call for a 1.5 degree Celsius target (versus the two degree target that COP21 ostensibly called for), this may not be in climate mitigators best interest. Those in the know suggest that a “not bad” outcome will be less likely to die upon return to each national government. Thus, ironically, those who want to kill the Paris Agreement may also be want this ambitious outcome, which would no doubt die upon return to Washington, New Delhi and other climate-agreement tenuous capitals.
3. While the lead up to COP21, and the discussions for the last two weeks, have created the foundation of an agreement with national targets and plans, for business, from 2016 onward, the point will be delivering on the low carbon pathways discussed and committed to here. Corporate innovation, influence, political will and finance will move us forward to a climate-abled future.

This is why, while the world will debate the merit of the diplomatic outcome of COP21, we are positive about Paris’ conclusions.

COP21: A Chance in Paris to Save Lives and Improve Livelihoods through Climate Adaptation

I wouldn’t miss the United Nations conference on climate change that begins Monday in Paris, even though it’s the event’s 21^st birthday and there’s little to toast from past events. Why is COP21 a must-attend confab for me? This is the first time that climate adaptation will be on the table for discussion. That’s a big deal. Adapting to climate vagaries – think of ocean ports raising sea barriers and drought-tolerant crops being planted in the world’s expanding arid regions – is more important than ever. Adaptation must rise to the top of the climate agenda, ignited by the 6.5 million people displaced in Syria’s drought-driven civil conflict and the 7,000 who died in the superstorm Typhoon Yolanda that hit the Philippines.

The Grave Omission of COPs

So we’re in solidarity with those who will be in Paris to work to decrease global climate emissions. And we are focusing our resources on preventing the avoidable and preparing for the unpreventable in the face of climate change. What’s been the grave omission in the COPs of the past decade are agreements on adaptation commitments. Meanwhile, insurers such as Swiss Re report how weather-related catastrophes are mounting and every year we don’t adapt, more lives are lost.

I’m also going to Paris to gauge the potency of Pope Francis’ recent strong encyclical outlining the moral dimensions of climate change. I want to find out to what extent the political elite are embracing the Pope’s assertion that climate change is a principal challenge facing humanity.

I want to meet and hear the new voices emerging in the battle against climate change. Not the familiar voices of the big pollution emitters – China, Europe and the U.S. – but those from the small island nations and poorer countries who are raising persistent and impassioned concerns about how their populations are being harmed. Places such as Tuvalu, Kiribati, the Maldives, the Marshall Islands, Sudan, Rwanda, Bangladesh and Angola.

I’ve spent half of my career focused on adaptation, beginning in Chicago where I worked for City government on a climate-mitigation strategy at the City that, frankly, hasn’t made much of a dent in curbing energy demand. Why? Because that demand continues to grow along with welcome economic progress. In Paris, I want to see if there’s any city whose economy is prospering that’s experiencing a drop in energy use. And, if one or more exist, I want to know what they’ve done to curb customary energy demand.

A Mother’s Duty

There’s another reason why I’m going. Because I’m a mother. Of an inquisitive grade-schooler fascinated by time machines and is animated by the contrast between my Jurassic-era past and his unexplored future filled with technology and innovation.

He gets somber during our annual pilgrimage to my hometown of Boulder, Colo., when he sees the devastating aftermath of forest fires there and the wreckage from the “once-in-100-years” flood in the canyon near our favorite hikes. He wonders if there’s going to be enough tech in the world to get by.

I want to find out what hope we have for his uncertain future, especially as a major World Bank and International Finance Corporation study recently estimated the economic costs of climate change to our physical environment, health and food security at $70-180 billion annually to 2030 – and rising to $900 billion a year in 2050.

And I go there as a devastating drought bites further across California, causing over $2.2 billion in damage, and as an area equivalent to a quarter of New York State deals with the aftermath of drought-induced fires in the Northwest.

For the sake of people everywhere, Adaptation to save lives and improve livelihoods must be at the forefront of climate action next week and forever.

Buffering Against Climate Risk: Lessons for the Refugee Crisis

This blog was initially published by our partner, the RANE network:  https://www.ranenetwork.com/rane-blog/buffering-against-climate-risk-lessons-for-the-refugee-crisis/ As the world watches countless economic migrants and war refugees journey perilously from their volatile homelands to relatively stable countries that respond with tactics as varied as their histories, two overarching questions arise: How did we arrive at this stage of human suffering? And what can we do to avoid it from occurring again?

I think it is worth examining why some countries withstand stress while others don’t. In my work with the Notre Dame Global Adaptation Index, I focus on how countries adapt to the stresses and shocks of climate change. I think there are valuable lessons from this examination of climate risks to help explain why some countries are buffered from creating refuges when times get tough.

In ND-GAIN’s country index, we identify those countries that have significantly improved their economic, social or governance components (which we examine as a way to understand a country’s readiness to take on adaptation investment) and have decreased their climate vulnerability over the past two decades

There is a unique set of 10 countries who have decreased their vulnerability and increased their readiness more over the last 20 years.

While this set of countries seem more diverse than similar – different locations, government type, history and economic systems, these countries share common features, and one in particular stands out from the 46 indicators ND-GAIN examines: political stability. It turns out that the stability afforded by good governance in the form of political stability may buffering them from stress turning to crisis in the case of both climate risk and emigration.

It is interesting to examine the diversity in these countries’ approach to gaining political stability. The countries can be categorized into three groups: those who improved, those who worsened but then rebuilt and those who remained mostly unchanged.

In the first group are Rwanda, Angola, Georgia and Turkey. Each has improved its political stability since 1995. Rwanda and Angola, for instance, have made significant peacekeeping strides from their violent past of civil wars and genocides. Human rights have improved there, too.

The group of countries whose political stability worsened but then rebounded includes Saudi Arabia, Belarus and Oman. Saudi Arabia’s leader suffered a stroke, which led to an odd period of leadership. The war in Iraq and al-Qaeda’s presence in the region also affected it and led to decreased political stability. Since, however, the Saudi government has retained some of its lost political stability, which helps it prepare for climate change.

Oman also suffered from events in Iraq but made great progress since in its elections and freedoms. Belarus, which gained independence in 1991 from the Soviet Union but then endured abusive authoritarian rule, regained political stability after its people protested.

Those countries that remained mostly politically stable in the past 20 years include Uruguay, Mauritius and the United Arab Emirates. While they experienced quite a bit of change during this period, they dealt with it within their current political system, and this has led to their success in climate change preparedness.

As Rockefeller Foundation President Judith Rodin notes, “… it’s what doesn’t happen that proves success. When disruptions do not become disasters, we’ve won. When a community is resilient and stays strong in the face of a crisis, (we) mark a victory.”

These 10 countries, then, may well hold lessons to today’s heart-breaking emigration from Syria and elsewhere. In the 10, we see political stability as a buffer to the shocks and stresses of climate change — and perhaps as well to the tragedy of exodus from them.

Countries whose vulnerability to climate change, other global challenges decreased while readiness to improve resilience improved. (Top 10 out of 182)

Country	ND-GAIN Country Index Score Improvement 1995-2013
United Arab Emirates	16.06
Saudi Arabia	13.98
Turkey	12.56
Rwanda	12.24
Oman	12.04
Georgia	11.23
Mauritius	11.11
Angola	10.85
Uruguay	10.65
Belarus	10.56

Joyce Coffee is managing director of the Notre Dame Global Adaptation Index (ND-GAIN). 

The Insurance Industry: Adaptation Drivers

An edifying conversation with Tom Herbstein, programme manager for the ClimateWise[1] initiative of the University of Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership, led me to peruse a ClimateWise case study I had skimmed when published in 2010. It is Adapting to the extreme weather impacts of climate change – how can the insurance industry help? And I was delighted to grasp so much from a resource whose lessons remain very relevant today. Here are my takeaways.  

Overall, the case study reminded me that the insurance industry provides a great resource for adaptation thought leadership. For instance, Swiss Re’s Sigma annual publication on natural catastrophes and man-made disasters and the intriguing and helpful Global Risk Map published by the United Nations’ Principals for Sustainable Insurance are referenced frequently referenced by those of us working in adaptation. Key is that insurance serves as an integral element of the entire risk-management cycle – from identification to risk transfer and recovery. The insurance industry:

• Contributes to a better understanding of risk through, for example, the development of forward-looking risk models.
• Adds to risk awareness through risk-based terms and conditions and advice to its customers, and offers incentives to increase prevention and other risk-management measures.
• Assists policymakers to guide society with such tools as land use planning and building codes.

The insurance industry and ND-GAIN possess a special relationship. ND-GAIN pursues its mission to increase global awareness of the need to adapt and thus inform investments that save lives and improve livelihoods. This helps the insurance industry enhance its customer understanding of risk and risk-reduction measures. As a third-party, university-lead entity, we serve as a tool used by the insurance industry to better promote adaptation with its clients.

It’s important to note that efforts to maintain or create insurability – a key adaptive capacity – provide business opportunities for the insurance and risk-management sector. A range of factors such as profit protection, strategic aims, public relations and corporate social responsibility drives insurers’ engagement in adaptation. But these factors do not necessarily drive insurers to operate in lower-income and least-developed countries, thus potentially contributing to a high percentage of uninsured. When considering adapting to climate change in developing countries, the insurance industry can support adaptation through:

• Expertise in risk management
  • Placing a price tag on risk.
  • Influencing the design of risk-reduction and risk-transfer activities.
• Expertise in adaptive capacity
  • Putting a price tag on resilience measures.
  • Influencing the design of adaptive capacity actions.

This expertise should help to incentivize loss reduction by informing stakeholders (governments and regulators, clients and business partners, business and industry, civil society and academia) about the risks they face, advising them on risk mitigation/adaptive capacity options and providing them with existing insurance options for loss reduction.

[1] The ClimateWise Principles were launched in September 2007 by the CEOs of 16 leading insurance industry players, thereby committing their organizations to a wide range of actions on climate change, to reporting in public on those actions on an annual basis and to subjecting themselves to independent review of their progress.

The World’s Poor: Pope Francis Clarifies Their Disproportionate Risk to Climate Disruption

The Papal Encyclical released today focuses on the moral obligation to safeguard the earth and mankind’s common good. In it, Pope Francis defines "the urgent challenge to protect our common home" and reminds us of our shared humanity, our shared risk, and our shared responsibility to save lives and improve livelihoods in the face of climate change.

His opus defines the issue about us as humans and notes that climate change is "one of the principal challenges facing humanity in our day." Although many were expecting an encyclical on the environment, his emphasis on climate change helps us to see that specific issue as a humanitarian crisis, not just an environmental problem.

The biblical proportion of climate change's shocks and stress are causing disproportionate harm to those already suffering from poverty, illness and other inequities.  Increasingly, droughts, food insecurity, superstorms and civil conflicts impact poverty and injustice.   Notre Dame Global Adaptation Index quantifies the  disproportionate risk  the Pope describes when he repeatedly returns to his message about global inequities in a climate changed world. He specifically identifies Africa as continent impacted by climate change, defining a "debt" that exists between the global south and north,

The pope defines climate change as a “complex crisis” and urges an integration of the “ecological approach” and the “social approach.”   He clarifies: “Strategies for a solution demand an integrated approach to combating poverty, restoring dignity to the underprivileged, and at the same time protecting nature.” He notes that "for poor countries, the priorities must be eliminating extreme poverty and promoting the social development of their people.”

He mentions both climate vulnerabilities (specifically water and food insecurity; sanitation and water quality; ecosystem degradation (dependence on natural capital and urban concentrations); and social, economic and governance problems (such as justice, deterioration in social cohesion, corruption, governance, and institutional effectiveness). This helps leaders to bridge from issues that keep them up at night – transparency, rule of law, education and such – to issues of climate change.

Pope Francis notes that “the world's problems cannot be analyzed or explained in isolation." He acknowledges our human ability to transform reality and calls on us to use it with an understanding of the impact on earth and humanity.

While the Pope is critical of corporate motives, he notes that “it is right to rejoice over these advances and to be excited by the immense possibilities which they continue to open up before us, for “science and technology are wonderful products of a God-given human creativity.” He adds that “technology has remedied countless evils which used to harm and limit human beings, explaining:

“Technoscience, when well directed, can produce important means of improving the quality of human life”

For ND-GAIN, the encyclical shines a holy light on both injustices and the need to combine the “elimination of extreme poverty” with climate adaptation. It motivates us to help the world's poor and disenfranchised to adapt to the unprecedented and overwhelming impacts of climate change. We must do so in service to justice for human solidarity and concern for the common good.

Shifts in thinking in our unbalanced world

At the World Bank’s recent Financing Urban Resilience Workshop, I grasped three clear trends – indeed, shifts – occurring that are changing how adaptation leaders and others are managing an unbalanced world.  

(The workshop was led by Stephen Hammer, Lead Specialist, Cities and Climate Change, Social, Urban, Rural and Resilience Global Practice World Bank and attended by the Rockefeller Foundation, IFC, IDB, Munich Re, cities such as New Orleans, Mexico City, Acclimitise, Arup, AECOM etc.)

The detected changes:

1. A shift within the traditional sustainability community from natural hazards to other types of shocks such as economic crises, health epidemics, etc. This reflects an overall shift to a more multidisciplinary approach, and it includes a switch from managing risks from specific disaster hazards to handling climate adaptation, which acknowledges the challenge of multiple hazards.

2. A change from striving to put the world into balance (the aim of much sustainability work) to seeking to manage in an unbalanced world. Among other things, this allows for “safe failures” for affected systems while, at the same time, requiring redundancy, robustness and diversity may differ from what previously was believed to be needed.

3. A shifting time horizon (the biggie for me) that requires grasping with uncertainties. Development presumes that the pace of change of natural systems remains relatively constant. For instance, the pace of climate change means we cannot rely simply on a natural system’s typical temporal resilience (evolution, migration or other change to accommodate shifts in ecosystems). We must be aware of thresholds, the most common of which is the rise in seas. This is illustrated graphically by Florida in the United States and by Bangladesh and other countries. (See a few trusted visualizations of sea level rise: http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2015/02/climate-change-economics/coastal-cities-map http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/11/24/opinion/sunday/what-could-disappear.html?_r=0

While I consider my work well underway on the first two identified shifts, I’m grappling with the temporal change. The radical actions this requires will take courage from many – starting with an acknowledgement that more coastal development puts more lives at risk, unnecessarily.

Cities in Emerging Markets as Investment Meccas

I enjoyed great conversations last week with delegates and speakers from around the world at the first Chicago Forum on Global Cities, http://www.chicagoforum.org/ held in partnership with the Financial Times, and I hope it becomes an annual event. I drew three key takeaways from the three-day event:

1. Savvy investors again are snapping up opportunities in emerging markets again – including former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright’s Albright Capital Management LLC; the Abraaj Group (which just committed US $30 million to the Auvest MENASA Opportunities Fund I L.P.; and Athena Financial Services, a holding company that licenses promising technologies in emerging economies. (Session: The Foreign Policy of Cities.)

2. Global Cities may be places of inequity.

American author Richard Longworth, whose new e-book “On Global Cities” was released as part of the forum, received the money question: Can you be a global city and possess junk bond status (such as Chicago). His response: an unequivocal yes. What happens, he explained, is that as taxes rise to take care of a city’s financial issues, prices rise as well. That makes such cities islands of the wealthy and the working class gets pushed to the hinterlands. The major question becomes: While equity is seen as the heart of the new urban agenda where sustainable development goals replace millennium development goals, will these investors help global cities share the fruits of globalization with all of its citizens through job growth? (Sessions: Defining the Global City, The Foreign Policy of Cities.)

3. Big companies are bullish on cities and consider it their responsibility in part to create jobs there. In sessions “Global Cities Driving the Global Economy,” “Smart Cities: Data, Innovation, and Social Apps,” and “Emerging Economy Cities and Boom Towns,” such leaders as Siemens AG’s Pedro Miranda, the head of corporate development, noted that youth employment must be married with technology for global cities to thrive.

MasterCard President and CEO Ajay Banga provided the most tweeted statement: "A global city is a city where even the rich use public transit" (rather than "even the poor have a car.")

Mark Hoplamazian, president and CEO of Hyatt Hotels, noted that tourism represents roughly 10 percent of global GDP and 275 million jobs, including many entry-level posts that do not require significant skills. He noted the importance of entry-level jobs in cities as rungs up the ladder and out of poverty.

As ND-GAIN grows from an exclusive country focus to embrace the global city, a clinching statement from Benjamin Barber, senior research scholar at The Graduate Center, proved especially noteworthy to me. He said, “Countries are monocultural and global cities are multicultural.” That seemed to be the prevailing sentiment that explains why cities are the first places where investors are looking for their next diamond find.

ND-GAIN connects on climate adaptation at regional conferences

Members of the ND-GAIN team recently attended the European Climate Change Adaptation (ECCA) Conference in Copenhagen, Denmark as well as the North American National Adaptation Forum (NAF) in St. Louis, Missouri. The team members took an active role with both speaking roles as well as advising for each conference.

The European Climate Change Adaptation Conference discussed a broad range of issues related to climate change and international adaptation. This conference featured ND-GAIN’s Data Scientist Dr. Martin Murillo as he presented a paper discussing adaptation in cities, specifically a quantitative evaluation of climate change vulnerability of urban and other smaller political/administrative entities. This paper allowed ND-GAIN to connect with others working in this same area, and created a variety of connections to assist in this area of work.

The team also took a substantial role in the North American National Adaptation Forum as Joyce Coffee, Dr. Jessica Hellmann, and Dr. Chen Chen spoke on a variety of topics at the conference. ND-GAIN also hosted the Kresge-ND-GAIN Urban Adaptation Advisors session.  The urban adaptation assessment hopes to advance consensus around standards for adaptation measurement for cities across the U.S. The project also helped to elevate critical needs on climate actions and thereby inform decisions about infrastructure, land use, water resources management, transportation and other policy and funding issues. The ultimate goal is to inform communities so that government, corporations and people are motivated to build social, physical, and natural systems that are resilient to the impacts of climate change.

At the North American National Adaptation Forum ND-GAIN’s Joyce Coffee presented on the panel “The Adaptation Blind Spot: Distant Climate Change Risks that Matter Locally” about societal teleconnections. Joyce also facilitated a session on “International Development and Climate Adaptation,” which highlighted the difference between domestic and international adaptation, and focused on ecosystem and human system vulnerability. Dr. Hellmann talked on “Public Private Partnership” to address the issues involving the partnership of the public and private sectors in the light of climate change adaptation. She also discussed “Urban Resilience Indicators in Action,” which showed the particular measurements ND-GAIN utilizes as well as how they differ from others in this field. Dr. Chen, a data analyst with ND-GAIN, discussed “Data-Driven Assessment Tool of Vulnerability and Preparedness to Climate Change Adaptation” in the Tools Café session. This showcased ND-GAIN’s Country Index as a valuable asset in this kind of research,

Two key themes emerged from the conference: the first a heartening emphasis on very local community adaptation. Almost a dozen St. Louis-based community groups were at the forum to learn and celebrate their adaptation progress. The second a sobering reminder that the magnitude and time scale of climate change suggests stakeholders may not be radical enough in our actions.

Burundi Analysis: Vulnerability, Readiness, and Recommendations

Highlights:

Burundi's low ND-GAIN score reflects the nation's standing as one of the fifth poorest nations in the world. Because over 30% of Burundi's GDP depends on agriculture, and most of the population lives in rural areas, climate change could have an extremely negative impact on its economy and human living condition, thus exacerbating its already extreme child malnutrition and increasing its dependence on humanitarian aid. This brief study illustrates the utilization of ND-GAIN as an assessment tool that highlights areas in dire need of improvement so a nation can adapt and cope with the current and future effects of climate change and other challenges.

ND-GAIN

 Increases in climate-related disasters and other climate change-related stresses will lead to increased costs for governments and businesses, complicate political decisions, and threaten the quality of life, especially for vulnerable populations. Making adjustments to human systems intended to reduce vulnerability and to minimize negative impacts from climate change is referred to as climate change adaptation.

The ND-GAIN index aims to help businesses and the public sector better prioritize adaptation investments to decrease vulnerabilities in the face of global shifts such as natural resource constraints, overcrowding, and climate change.

The Index summarizes a country's vulnerability[i] to climate change and other global challenges in combination with its readiness to accept adaptation investments. A country's ND-GAIN score is composed of a vulnerability score and a readiness score. Thirty-six indicators contribute to the measure of vulnerability. Nine indicators contribute to the measure of readiness. The Index measures vulnerability using a range of indicators that reflect medium or long-term climate change impacts in six life-supporting vulnerability sectors, as well as the “readiness” of governance, economic stability and social structures. Readiness indicators suggest a country’s ability to mobilize and absorb adaptation investment. The calculation of the ND-GAIN score of a nation can be illustrated by:

 

Each indicator comes from a reliable public data source such as the World Bank, Food and Agriculture Organization, and the United Nations. The selection of the indicators is based on literature survey and consultation with scholars, adaptation practitioners, and global development experts. The chosen indicators must be i) actionable through adaptation, ii) consistent with current knowledge and best practices, iii) potentially downscalable from national to regional or urban, iv) directly representative of the phenomena they measure, and v) must not include broad socio-economic measures such as GDP per capita or Human Development Index. Moreover, the indicators need to be quantified at the country-level with data that: i) provide global coverage, ii) provide time-series coverage, iii) are transparent and conceptually clear, iv) are freely accessible, and v) are provided by reliable sources that carry out quality checks on such data.

BURUNDI ANALYSIS

As shown in Figure 2a, Burundi’s 2013 ND-GAIN score was 33.8, putting the nation among the ten lowest scoring nations worldwide. This standing reflects its status as one of the five poorest nations in the world. While the nation's ND-GAIN score has consistently increased over the last 18 years (from 27.5 in 1995 to 33.8 in 2013), this raise was due almost entirely to improvement in the country’s readiness score; its vulnerability score, on the other hand, has remained nearly constant (unimproved) for the last 18 years. The ND-GAIN Matrix (Figure 1) depicts Burundi’s trajectory over time on a vulnerability and readiness plane.

Vulnerability

 As shown in Figure 3, Burundi’s vulnerability to climate change is affected the most by its health and food sectors, corresponding to scores of 0.789 and 0.683 respectively. The high score of its habitat and ecosystems’ sectors also play a pivotal role on the nation’s high vulnerability standing. The water sector score (0.332) is the least vulnerable of all the sectors and stands below the African average of 0.571. All other areas score above Africa’s average, meaning they are more vulnerable.

According to FAO, rice, wheat and maize make up two thirds of human food consumption. Projected change in yield of these three crops in a country is an indicator of how climate change may affect that country’s agriculture sector. According to a Representative Country Pathway 4.5 emission scenario (a measure of greenhouse gas concentration trajectories) and the application of the ND-GAIN scoring framework, by 2050, Burundi will become more vulnerable in the food sector due to decreased cereal yields (see Figure 4). Increases in cereal yields (corresponding to lower scores) are generally favorable for lessening a nation's vulnerability. Please refer to the methodology document at http://index.nd-gain.org for detailed rationale on vulnerability indicator direction and overall index computation.

The effects of the change of cereal yields in worsening the nation’s vulnerability could be attributed to a combination of several factors, including:

• more than 87% of Burundi's population live in rural areas, which are mostly agricultural or pastoral (see Figure 5)
• this population is expected to grow from 6.2 million today to 27 million by 2050 (see Figure 8), and
• Burundi's agricultural capacity has not progressed significantly over the last 18 years and this trend might continue (see Figure 6)
• Agriculture is the nation's largest industry, accounting for over 30% of the GDP

Although Burundi's percentage of rural population is expected to lessen (as shown in Figure 5), the rate of this decrease is not enough to lessen its high rural density, which is the cause of deforestation, soil erosion and habitat loss. These, in turn, are contributing to the chronic malnutrition of 56.8% of children under age 5. See Figure 7.

Readiness

 As illustrated in Figures 1 and 9, Burundi’s ND-GAIN readiness component has improved consistently from 1995 to 2013. However, Burundi's readiness score is the 17th lowest score worldwide, at the same level of Afghanistan and Nigeria. This makes Burundi unprepared to leverage finances (from foreign investment, development funds or other sources) to build up adaptive capacity.

As illustrated in Figure 10, Burundi's 2013 Readiness score is impacted the most by its economic component, followed by its social and governance readiness components.

It is important to note that Burundi is landlocked and is one of the smallest countries in Africa. The country has historically suffered from warfare, corruption, poor access to education, and lack of innovation, all of which are problems that still plague the nation, as illustrated in Figures 11 and 12.

Figure 12 highlights the nation's lack of Information and Communications Technologies (ICT) infrastructure, which plays an important role in the nation’s low social score. The lack of ICT infrastructure, the basis for the provision of other ICT services, could be considered alarming at a period when technology is a tool that drives economic growth and innovation. Perhaps one of the underlying reasons for the nation’s poor ICT score is its under-dependence on electricity, as less than 2% of the nation enjoys household electricity. Similarly, its poor education indicator might play an important role in the lack of use and demand of ICT services. Burundi has an excellent social inequality score, far above Africa’s average, which might reflect its relatively homogeneous population as a result of its separation from Rwanda.

RECOMMENDATIONS

In the context of agriculture and livelihoods, we have identified Burundi's ND-GAIN sectors and indicators that contribute to the nation’s poor standing worldwide.  Only two countries (Eritrea and Chad) rank worse than Burundi on the ND-GAIN Index in terms of the countries' vulnerability to climate change and readiness to adapt.

For the nation to considerably improve its capability to cope with these challenges, there will need to be adequate and prompt improvements on the indicators that are actionable in the short and medium-term, and the establishment of adequate platforms for a gradual improvement of the indicators that are actionable in the long term.

In this context, ND-GAIN’s adaptive capacity component describes the availability of social resources to put adaptation into place. Figure 13 illustrates how Burundi compares to Africa’s average and Rwanda, highlighting the adaptive capacity indicators that can be prioritized. A comparison of Burundi and Rwanda illustrates that there are four indicators that can be improved: child malnutrition, access to improved sanitation facilities, disaster preparedness, and protected biome.

Because Burundi's GDP is overly dependent on agriculture, climate change could exacerbate and complicate its already very bad economy, human conditions, child malnutrition, and over dependence on humanitarian aid. While urgent humanitarian aid will focus on the most pressing issues such as child malnutrition and health, medium and long-term international development interventions will need to focus on the provision of a stable basis for development of areas such as control of corruption and political stability and non-violence. Aid is more effective when the policy and institutional environment is "good", because aid is then more likely to be used rationally, and not wasted.

In spite of the steady improvement of the nation’s ND-GAIN readiness component and its positive effect on the improvement of the ND-GAIN score, the nation’s rate of improvement is not enough for coping with urgent issues that are complicated by climate change. Improvement in readiness components is necessary but not sufficient.

Nevertheless, given Burundi’s overdependence on agriculture, the introduction of electricity and ICTs could be a tool that helps in the betterment of education, empowerment of the citizen, and economic diversification. Indeed, given Burundi's high rural population density and small territory, the introduction of reliable electricity and ICTs is feasible under a framework that empowers the citizens, heightens education, and fosters growth of small and medium size enterprises.

Bordering nations such as Rwanda (with similar social and geo-political contexts) are able to demonstrate that better rates of improvement and considerable betterment of vulnerability sectors and indicators are also possible.

About ND-GAIN

ND-Global Adaptation Index is the world’s first private nonprofit organization created to save lives and improve livelihoods in developing countries by promoting the understanding and importance of adapting to global changes brought about by climate, population shifts, urbanization and economic development. It is the leading index showing which countries are best prepared to deal with security risks, droughts, superstorms and other disasters and is the only free and open-source index to measure a country’s vulnerability to climate change and other global forces, as well as its readiness to accept private and public sector investment in adaptation.

Decision-makers use ND-GAIN’s country-level rankings to determine how vulnerable countries are to global changes and how ready they are to adapt, thus informing strategic operational and reputational decisions regarding supply chains, policy choices, capital projects and community engagements.   The Index helps leaders avoid costs, manage liabilities and build resilience. ND-GAIN also informs market expansion by identifying which countries are ready for products and services that increase adaptation. Key elements of the metrics behind ND-GAIN include water, energy and transportation availability, along with economic, governance and human health factors. The Index was created in consultation with world-class scientists, civil society representatives and business leaders. The Global Adaptation Institute was founded in 2010, and moved to the University of Notre Dame from Washington, D.C. in April 2013, becoming the Notre Dame Global Adaptation Index.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

All information encountered (including illustrations) in this document is obtained from ND-GAIN data found at http://index.gain.org. Please refer to the Methodology document found at that address for further insights on the methodology and computation of the ND-GAIN index.

Preparing for New Realities: Planners Weigh in on Adapting to Climate Change

This post originally appeared on Triple Pundit: http://www.triplepundit.com/2015/05/preparing-new-realities-planners-weigh-adapting-climate-change/

With climate uncertainty a new normal, planners from around the world are tussling with how to work with thrift so they don’t create and employ plans that may not work in an uncertain future. At last weekend’s annual American Planning Association conference in Seattle, for instance, planners mulled how to approach climate change and natural hazards at both the local level and worldwide. The Lincoln Institute of Land Policy sponsored the planning and climate change symposia.

In some ways, adaptation and planning are interchangeable. Yet very few sessions at the conference dealt with climate adaptation and, oddly, while the event coincided on Earth Day weekend, none of the sessions or side conversations I participated in even mentioned it.

Of course, planners focus generally on people and the built form. And though the environmental movement and Earth Day may be moving for humans, APA has not come to meet Earth Day.

With decades of expertise on how to create change at the local level, I took careful notes about the recommendations from these experts on how best to be an adapter/planner. Here are my Top 10 takeaways:

1. Since the future is random and chaotic, and climate change will create a new normal, plan with thrift and create double-duty solutions (which Judith Rodin outlines in her “The Resilience Dividend” about bouncing back from a crisis and achieving revitalization.). In addition, build in elasticity and steward resources toward prevention and recovery for when the real need arises. Be ready for surprise. (Julie Wormser, Boston Harbor Association.)
2. Institutionalize a national legislative directive to reduce climate risk and build resilience in the face of climate change. At the same time, develop a capacity-building program to enable local government to translate directive into practical reality (Bruce Glavovic, Massy University (New Zealand)
3. Just as planning isn’t only about bricks and mortar, adaptation must reflect mixing incomes and neighborhoods and focusing on social cohesion as both a prerequisite for adaptation and an outcome of it. (Lexi Bambas Nolan Episcopal Diocese of Texas)
4. Planners are experts at bringing innovation to elected officials, recognizing that the only way to gain innovation (adaptation, planning or otherwise) is to make it politically attractive so elected officials are protected from the risk of losing constituents. (Gary Lawrence, AECOM)
5. Resilience favors diversity and more choices. Use all of the amazing scenario analysis tools planners have introduced (even to the gaming world, remember SimCity?) to offer lots of choices (Jason Oliveira, Autodesk)
6. Employ the influence of the money already spent on infrastructure (which will be around in that uncertain new normal) rather than demand a new pot of resilience-only money (Harriet Tregoning, HUD)
7. For many planning constituents, a new plan can solve an unexplained problem, which makes it unattractive. Make certain the problem is clear, spelling out the opportunity cost of not pursuing the new plan. (George McCarthy, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy)
8. Focus on solutions, not problems. The public needs to hear: “We are going to protect this neighborhood from flooding.” Not, “This is what a 100-year storm will look like in a climate changed world.” (Laura Tam, SPUR)
9. Adaptation can be grouped into three categories: anticipatory; reactive; retreat. Our challenge is to move from static responses that, historically, have left us with ruins after disasters, to adaptive pathways. (Peter Byrne, Georgetown Climate Center)
10. My personal favorite: Deal with planning conflicts (e.g., over water use, right-of-way interpretations, etc.) the same way you would deal with family conflict. Set religion and politics aside and, in their place, arrange a table with a large dish to pass, providing sustenance to the vigorous debate of each member of the family about the issue. (Lawrence)

Several of the planners I spoke with were bewildered, quite frankly, by my emphasis on climate adaptation. They reminded me that adaptation isn’t just about preparing for some future unexpected event. It’s about investing in your community in a way that delivers benefits every single day. Planners take into account wider social trends that may have no apparent association with natural hazard risk. They are expert at the avoidance imperative inherent in planning safer streets, stable housing markets and reliable infrastructure that we must use in all cases for adaptation.

All key elements of adaptation action lie at the heart of planners’ work. Perhaps that is why, several weeks ago at a Climate Change Resilient Development conferenceorganized by USAID in the District of Columbia, Heather McCray, director of vulnerability and adaptation and a part of WRI’s new Ross Center for Sustainable Cities, summed up a panel of planners from Vietnam to Uzbekistan by noting that climate adaptation experts have just discovered urban planners as their embedded allies.

Joyce Coffee is managing director of the Notre Dame Global Adaptation Index, a program of the Environmental Change Initiative. She has a degree in city planning.

Advancing Climate Resilient Development

USAID and its Climate Change Resilient Development project hosted a symposium in mid-March on Advancing Climate Resilient Development at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. The project, led by Engility/IRQ, was tagged as a project to watch in ND-GAIN’s 2014 Corporate Adaptation Prize competition. The Wednesday morning panel, Urban Day: Applying Technical Research and Tools in Developing Cities, focused on lessons learned from putting urban adaptation projects in place. A top-notch panel included John Furlow, USAID; Glen Anderson, Engility Corp.; Charles Cadwell, The Urban Institute; and Heather McGray, World Resources Institute (and lead rapporteur).

Heather issued a compelling report and to that, I offer this set of actions for all of us who consider ourselves climate-adaptation catalysts.

1. We need to look before we leap, especially when it relates to pilot projects, where a healthy skepticism exists. We deserve to be impatient with small-scale action. The failure to glean lessons from pilots stands as a definite problem. Pilots should be chosen with comparability and scale-out in mind. One potential solution: Select an external group of leaders hold you accountable. In Chicago, we tapped a Green Ribbon Committee for our Chicago Climate Action Plan. At ND-GAIN, Kresge-ND-GAIN Advisors serves as our Urban Adaptation Assessment.
2. We must integrate climate resilience into our work. A segregation/distinction between adaptation and development no longer exists. This is beneficial in a variety of ways, especially helping constituents recognize they already have built momentum and achieved success on adaptation (by reviewing their development work from the adaptation perspective.) But we should not assume all development professionals ask the climate adaptation question of their work, and we should continue to provide assets to help them to do so.
3. We must emphasize that a good climate tool is one that is customized to the user and crafted from the user perspective. This holds true particularly with the climate scenarios and modeling. While data becomes more and more available, we also need data that is easy to access and interpret. We should invite our IT colleagues to help keep climate leaders on the cutting edge of data access.
4. We must step up our collaboration with urban planners*, who climate change practitioners only recently have discovered. This is especially important since adaptation is a local issue. (As I have written about before, urban planners serve on the front lines of response, prevention and opportunity.)  Many urban planners reading this might contend they have been pragmatic climate-change practitioners for a long time, dealing with droughts, excessive precipitation, extreme heat, scarce natural resources, and the like.  
5. We need to grasp that while the Private sector is an important driver of adaptation, it is markets – not plans – that drive what the private sector does.  We should make sure plans and markets follow the same direction. To do this, we must understand that market growth pertains to sustaining lives and supporting livelihoods. Generally, the corporate stakeholder is a sustainability stakeholder when helping to build markets. From that perspective, we review the work of corporate stakeholders, provide them with knowledge and collaborate with them in a way that furthers all of our goals.

*and here is a shameless plug for MIT's Department of Urban Studies and Planning!

Momentum for Change -Apply to Receive UN Award!

Organizations, cities, industries, governments and other key players thatare taking the lead on addressing climate change adaptation in developing countries are encouraged to nominate their projects for a prestigious United Nations award. http://momentum.unfccc.int/ The United Nations Climate Change secretariat is currently accepting applications for the 2015 Momentum for Change Awards as part of wider efforts to mobilize action and ambition as national governments work toward adopting a new universal climate agreement this year. Winning initiatives, called ‘Lighthouse Activities,’ highlight some of the most innovative, scalable and replicable examples of what people are doing to address climate change, in the hope of inspiring others to do the same.  Adaptation project applications are encouraged.

The 2015 Momentum for Change Lighthouse Activities will recognize climate action that is already achieving real results in four key areas:

action by and for the urban poor,

action that fosters women’s leadership,

action that unlocks climate finance and

action that uses ICT-enabled solutions.

The winning activities will be announced in November 2015 and officially recognized and celebrated during a series of special events in December at the UN Climate Change Conference in Paris, France.

Winning activities will receive a wide range of benefits, including fully covered attendance to the conference in Paris, France; access to policy makers and potential funders during the conference; public recognition by the UN Climate Change secretariat; public relations support and media training; high-quality promotional videos and podcasts; a dedicated page about the project on the UNFCCC website; and graphic assets such as infographics and professional photography.

Applications for the 2015 Momentum for Change Awards are being accepted until 24 April 2015 at http://momentum.unfccc.int/

UNISDR Launches RISE Initiative for Disaster Risk-Sensitive INVESTMENT

“Economic losses from disasters are out of control and can only be reduced in partnership with the private sector.” ̶ United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon

The United Nation’s Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, or UNISDR, and PwC, the global professional services network, launched their ambitious R!SE Initiative in the United States early this month in Boston, seeking to embed disaster risk management into investment decisions.

R!SE reflects a new way of collaborating on a global scale to unlock the potential for public and private sector entities to take leadership on disaster risk reduction. The one-day event on March 2 focused on whether cities should be transparent and share their resilience gaps. That’s also the key question for ND-GAIN as we embark on our Urban Adaptation Assessment with the Kresge Foundation.

The R!SE agenda at its launch encompassed a wide band of issues to define and discuss what R!SE seeks to do and why it matters:

• A session defined the initiative, its different activity streams and projects already underway.
• One explained why preparedness is important to the U.S. government and how the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s new strategy supports this approach. (In short, the FEMA strategy involves an expeditionary organization that is survivor-centric and enables disaster risk reduction nationally.)
• Another highlighted public-private partnerships that already promote resilience across the country. It examined the long-term governance structure needed to increase resilience across cities, states and the nation and the correct balance necessary to engage with the public and private sectors.
• Afternoon breakout sessions explored two-to-three specific questions centering on how to leverage R!SE across the nation to enhance disaster-sensitive investments and to enhance society’s resilience.

Here are five key takeaways:

1. Transparency is critical, but it’s not always easy from a political perspective to communicate gaps in resilience.
2. Increasing trust throughout the communication process – by measuring such issues as economic impact that matter to citizens – proves necessary to demonstrate to citizens and communities that resilience investment will benefit them and help cities win battles over other priorities.
3. A shift has occurred over the past few years toward increasing transparency, perhaps reflecting the rise in the number of activities to actually help increase resilience, not just assess it. The aim: Base every decision on an understanding of resilience.
4. Since “city leader” isn’t synonymous with government, arming corporate and nonprofit leaders with information to help them develop capacity to increase resilience allows governments to be more transparent about gaps that exist with their constituents.
5. A key asset of the R!SE Initiative is the Disaster Resilience Scorecard for Cities, created by AECOM, the professional and technical services firm for infrastructure, and IBM for UNISDR. San Francisco has used the scorecard to inform capital asset decisions, which suggests that in the name of transparency, scorecard results should be made available to the public.

Oh, and given the similarities with R!SE, please watch this space as ND-GAIN transitions to a focus on urban adaptation issues in 2015.

Lunar New Year Predictions from the Climate Leadership Conference

At a session this week (2-23) organized by the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions at the Climate Leadership Conference, C2E Staff Scientist Joe Casola facilitated a discussion that asked the 60-plus corporate, nonprofit and government leaders attending to foresee 2035 and predict what business resilience will look like. The absorbing conversation was part of the session “Emerging Best Practices for Identifying Climate Risk and Increasing Resilience.” Other leaders were Rutgers Energy Institute’s Robert Kopp, fourtwentyseven’s Emilie Mazzacurati and Pacific Gas & Electric’s Christopher Benjamin.

Since we are in the midst of the Lunar New Year season, a great time for fortune telling, I thought you would enjoy the group’s top ideas:

Top Six:

1. Supply-chain risk synonymous with climate risk, making supply-chain, climate-risk mitigation business as usual.
2. A doubling of interest in small business and Main Street, aided by Chambers of Commerce that help build public/private partnerships to increase local government adaptation.
3. Climate risk as a shared responsibility across corporate verticals, no longer an exclusive fit with offices of sustainability.
4. Insurance priced accurately, providing a forcing function on business and land use decisions.
5. Future cost projections of climate change incorporated into financial and economic estimates for all return-on-investment and strategic decisions.
6. A generational change in which the leaders in 2035 naturally focus on the question of climate with their work, integrating resilience into their decision making (my favorite).

To these, let me add three of my own:

• A realization that climate change harms the promise of the growing middle class in lower-income countries, sparking a redoubling of interest in investing in resilience in the global south.

• A move away from recovery and toward prevention, facilitated in part by mature warning systems, advanced risk prediction and assessment methods that prove the ROI of resilience.

• A solid pyramid of policies that stack atop each other and form the foundation of good governance. This allows corporations to make resilient business decisions throughout their value chains and to contribute to the good of the commons (worker-protection laws against heat distress, flood plain buffer requirements, landscape water-pricing requirements, etc.)

All of these will be better informed by an agreed-upon measurement of adaptation that rivals the elegant MTCO2E and provides an easy way for everyone to quantify their progress.

What do you think?