In the following section, institutional mechanisms to address DRR and CCA over different South Asian countries with initiatives to interlink DRR and CCA were briefed, considering adopted methodologies, salient features, and loopholes.
4.1 Method for Developing Project Inventory
Initially, the evolution of institutional setup for DRR and CCA and initiatives for interlinking DRR and CCA in the form of projects and programs across the SAARC member countries have been reviewed to identify the gaps and key challenges. The review has been made considering the information available in the public domain and subsequently by the desk-based literature review, expert interviews, and by using questionnaire survey. Documents based on review of reports, minutes, lectures, case studies, projects, and literature on DRR and CCA from various sources, including SAARC member states have been thoroughly analyzed to explore the promising areas of regional cooperation. A total of 371 projects and cases that were relevant to CCA and/or DRR were considered, with at least one project or case study from every member state (Table
2). The developed inventory was diverse in nature in terms of location, scale, sectoral focus, and strategic importance and ranged from community-based efforts to regional- and national-level programs. All the projects were reviewed for their objectives, nodal agencies, target population, methodologies, and expected/derived outcome, and further classified into individual sector (like natural resources, health, and so on) and their corresponding funding agencies (Table
3) to explore possible regional cooperation. The complete list of all the projects with details may be found in UNISDR/SDMC (
2014).
Table 2
Climate change adaptation (CCA) and disaster risk reduction (DRR) related sector-wise projects completed/ongoing in the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) member states
Source: UNISDR/SDMC (
2014)
Afghanistan | 21 | – | 1 | – | 2 | 1 | 3 | 28 |
Bangladesh | 27 | 2 | 1 | – | 9 | – | 15 | 54 |
Bhutan | 32 | 2 | 1 | 6 | 2 | – | 10 | 53 |
India | 33 | 2 | – | 1 | 5 | 1 | 10 | 53 |
Maldives | 16 | – | 1 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 4 | 28 |
Nepal | 13 | – | – | – | – | 1 | 7 | 21 |
Pakistan | 5 | – | – | – | 1 | – | 2 | 8 |
Sri Lanka | 8 | – | – | – | – | – | 2 | 10 |
Regional CCA and DRR | CCA Projects (26) + DRR Projects (90) = Total Regional Projects (116) |
Total | (255 + 116) 371 |
Table 3
Comparative funding for climate change adaptation (CCA) and disaster risk reduction (DRR) by different agencies within the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) member states
1 | Afghanistan | – | – | 4 | – | 10 | 14 | – | – |
2 | Bangladesh | 3 | 2 | 10 | – | – | 30 | 6 | 3 |
3 | Bhutan | – | – | 39 | – | 1 | 13 | – | – |
4 | India | 2 | 3 | 7 | 1 | 2 | 31 | 3 | 4 |
5 | Maldives | – | – | 9 | – | – | 18 | – | 1 |
6 | Nepal | 3 | – | 2 | – | – | 11 | 4 | 1 |
7 | Pakistan | 2 | – | 2 | – | – | 2 | 1 | 1 |
8 | Sri Lanka | – | – | 2 | – | – | 7 | – | 1 |
Country-wise total | 10 | 5 | 75 | 1 | 13 | 126 | 14 | 11 |
9 | Regional |
| CCA | 13 | 2 | 7 | – | – | 4 | – | – |
| DRR | 20 | 28 | 20 | 2 | 10 | 8 | 2 | – |
| Total | 43 | 35 | 102 | 3 | 23 | 138 | 16 | 11 |
After completing the literature review, we have conducted several interviews with disaster and climate change experts from government/United Nations/nongovernmental organization officials, and academics from the SAARC member states and other part of the world to identify the key challenges and issues in the existing policy and planning from a regional perspective. Accordingly, 16 interviews were conducted with disaster and climate change experts of SAARC member states. Additionally, two focused workshop with 20–25 participants in each were also conducted to discuss the findings from the literature review and interviews. All such information was analyzed to understand the detailed modalities of adopting DRR and CCA for the benefit of SAARC member states as per the Thimphu Statement. Finally, a consultation workshop among the experts of SAARC member states was organized during 29–31 August 2013 at Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi to discuss the key challenges and ways forward, which may serve as an efficient guide for policy planners and practitioners.
4.2 Salient Features of Projects Interlinking Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation
Table
2 reveals that out of 28 projects initiated in Afghanistan, 21 target management of natural resources (agriculture, water, land, biodiversity, forestry, and coastal and wetland areas) while the least targeted sector was health. Climate change adaptation and DRR projects at both the national and the regional levels stand at a total count of 371 (National: 255; regional: 116). Meta-analysis of the projects on a national scale, completed or ongoing, reveals that among the South Asian states, Bangladesh (21.0% share), India (20.7%), and Bhutan (20.7%) were proactive in implementing such projects. In contrast, Pakistan’s share of such projects is minimum (2.8%). Projects in natural resources management, including agriculture, water, land, biodiversity, forestry, and coastal and wetland areas make up 61% of all projects, while health (2%) and communication (2%) represent the most neglected sectors. Among the member states, projects in natural resources management are recorded as largest in India (approximately 13%) and smallest in Pakistan (approximately 2%). In terms of sectors, meta-analysis identified two facts: first, DRR is the most important among all the sectors; and second, Bangladesh leads the rest of the member states, with 6% of its DRR-based projects with respect to the total number of projects. Conclusively, Bangladesh holds the highest count of DRR including CCA projects implemented or yet to be implemented, whether overall or sector-based projects.
The numbers of projects for augmenting measures to integrate the process of DRR and CCA were highly deficient. This suggests a need to step up such efforts in the SAARC region and to formulate and execute more such projects for the benefit of the people. Further, United Nations organizations followed by national agencies of the respective countries have funded the majority of the implemented projects (Table
3). There are a similar number of activities by regional inter-governmental organizations, United Nations agencies, and multilateral and bilateral funding institutions, with the GFDRR (Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery) having the highest number of regional activities, followed by the ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations), ADB (Asian Development Bank), and SOPAC (Pacific Islands Applied Geoscience Commission). These multilateral and bilateral funding institutions and United Nations agencies have funded most activities related to climate risks. Differentiation between DRR and CCA projects was found to be extremely challenging and proving CCA as a subset of DRR as many of the projects and programs have the same domains; multiple sources of funding; and complex terms, strategies, locations, and impacts. These issues made comparisons among the cases extremely difficult. However, it appears that the portfolio of DRR including CCA activities in the region has expanded considerably. The sectors now include areas such as improving forecasting capacity, improving the supplies and efficiency of the irrigation sector, and adaptation measures in urban and rural sectors.
4.3 Identified Challenges and Possible Ways Forward
Meta-analysis of the institutional setup for DRR and CCA within the South Asian region revealed a lack of coordination and awareness among the nodal agencies, which critically limits their proper functioning. In most cases, stand-alone adaptation and disaster reduction policies were found to exist and DRR including CCA policies seemed extremely challenging due to the involvement of multiple institutions within similar kind of projects. In certain cases, duplication or even triplication in the execution of similar projects was identified, which often hindered the pace of effective execution in terms of both economy and benefit to the people. A lack of coordination also implies an excessive budgetary burden in executing similar types of projects and plans by different institutions and agencies. It was recognized that institutional development among SAARC member states to address all environmental hazards (DRR domain) and climate change-influenced environmental hazards (CCA domain) has evolved independently with minimum linkages.
One example is the case of Bangladesh, where geographic location and river morphology significantly contribute to all environmental hazards while uneven rainfall and earthquakes add to the susceptibility of the region to various form of hazards. Recently the effects of climate change have been more visible in terms of uneven distribution of rainfall and with increased frequency of tropical cyclones. In 2003, the Bangladesh MoFDM launched the Comprehensive Disaster Management Programme (CDMP) while in 2010, the Bangladesh government approved the National Plan for Disaster Management (NPDM), 2010–2015. The MoEF is the nodal agency to address CCA over Bangladesh, which has prepared the NAPA in 2005, updated it in 2009, and has the Bangladesh Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan (BCCSAP) in 2009. The MoFDM, now renamed as Ministry of Disaster and Relief (MoDMR) has the responsibility for addressing disaster management efforts across the nation. However, the MoDMR and the MoEF lack coordination of DRR including CCA policies, programs, and projects, while the scope for integration is plenty. According to Shamsuddoha et al. (
2013), the existing National Disaster Management Council and National Environment Committee should coordinate and provide specific guidelines to relevant authorities for better DRR including CCA approaches. Similar evidence is also found in India where MoEF manages CCA while DRR comes under the purview of the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA). Different ministries related to water resources, agriculture, health, social welfare, and space are an integral part of both CCA and DRR but they share different interfaces with the nodal authorities.
The entire South Asian region faces several challenges in addressing DRR including CCA in terms of magnitude, scale, dedicated funding, and lack of institutional mechanisms for sharing knowledge and technology. Therefore, member states need to develop coordinated programs to address such intricate issues at both the national and local levels. Some of the specific challenges and issues are as follows.
(1)
Variability in spatiotemporal scale
The domain in which CCA has primarily been implemented is on a global, regional, or national scale, while there is a need to integrate CCA on a local scale. There is some evidence of CCA implementation on a local scale, but such actions are limited in number. The principal reasons for these limited applications are unavailability of projected climate information on a smaller scale due to lack of proper computational facilities, scientific complexity, and unavailability of local conditions. In contrast, DRR is practised in specific regions and localities where disasters usually occur (on a meso- or local/microscale). The climate change communities function on global or regional climate models and predict long-term global and regional climate scenarios. The DRR community, in contrast, focuses primarily on local vulnerabilities and risks of specific area, hazards, and groups of people potentially or actually affected. Thus, the difficulties that DRR and CCA managers usually face are lack of local and downscaled data for climatic conditions.
(2)
Diverse institutional structures and functional challenges
The existing institutional arrangements for DRR and CCA at the regional, national, and subnational levels within the member states are not following the DRR including CCA approach to the extent of harnessing maximum benefits. Although different nations have diverse challenges and contexts to address DRR and CCA, for a region like South Asia, where disaster and climate change impacts are often cross-boundary, there is an urgent need to integrate different institutions that address DRR including CCA issues over the region. Over South Asia, several parallel institutions function to address DRR and CCA within different member states. In most of the cases, these institutions lack coherence and coordination in addressing DRR and CCA issues, more commonly for those having similar boundaries, and therefore create structural barriers. Further, as institutional arrangements for both DRR and CCA evolved independently, in most instances, DRR structures have backup from legislation, institutions, policy guidelines, and financial mechanisms, while legal instruments to address CCA are extremely limited among most of the countries.
The DRR structures in most of the member states of the SAARC region have a highly evolved and institutionalized setup that has its presence in policies, legislation, government orders, and functionality at all levels of administration (national to local) and therefore, can serve as a good platform for the CCA interventions to initiate at the national, regional, and local levels. In most SAARC countries, CCA issues have been managed by the environment and/or climate change, science and technology ministries in coordination with meteorological department, whereas DRR lies within the purview of the ministry of home, defence, relief, and national security. There is a scope of DRR including CCA in different countries through the common stakeholders and its parallel yet similar interfaces within the two structures. However, the integration should be both horizontal and vertical, in order to ensure proper functioning and improved communication among the institutions. A mechanism is therefore required to put in place within individual countries as well as for the region as a whole, for ensuring complete policies, plans, and programs undertaken for DRR including CCA.
(3)
Missing links in policies
Across South Asia, planning, policies, and programs for DRR and CCA have taken place in isolation without sharing their respective aims, objectives, knowledge, and methodologies. Despite having multiple common attributes, there is limited evidence of DRR including CCA in planning and policies. Further, the approaches to manage disaster risks are still more of a reactive emergency management type while effective implementations of CCA require a lot of concentrated efforts. Therefore, it appears to be a critical disconnection between policies for CCA and DRR over the region, which are often regulated by different departments with little or no positive interactions.
(4)
Lack of knowledge sharing
The SAARC member states lack an appropriate platform for sharing information and knowledge on progress made in CCA and DRR related issues. Important socioeconomic data, changing scenarios for regional vulnerability, and suitable adaptation strategies are not available in any one place. Efforts have been made to establish a SAARC Disaster Management Centre that can provide advices and facilitate capacity-building services, including strategic learning, training, and research for DRR, to SAARC member states.
(5)
Lack of funding mechanisms
Promotion and execution of adequate DRR including CCA plans require long-term financial support and consistent monitoring. The United Nations, intergovernmental, regional, multilateral, and bilateral cooperation initiatives, and national agencies have been funding various projects related to DRR including CCA within South Asia. However, there is no mechanism in place yet to avoid duplication and to ensure better coordination among projects.
(6)
Lack of coherence in project implementation
A review of various projects and case studies revealed a lack of coherence in project implementation. In most cases, the implemented projects were diverse in nature, scale, and sectoral focus with different strategies. Therefore, in most cases, individual attempts failed to deliver the targeted objectives.