IAV: challenges and future steps Workshop on Climate Change Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability (IAV) Community Coordination January 8-9, 2009 NCAR Paty Romero Lankao

Outline How to Go beyond RH & connect IAV (local) with WG1/ESM, WG3 (global)? Make the best of a diverse IAV community? Deal with North-South divide, research gap? Wilhelmi (2007)

Pros & Cons of Risk Hazard (RH) Well represented in IPCC Emphasizes exposure, mostly to climate hazards Relatively “simple”, fits with WG2 and WG3 approaches Vulnerability as outcome of relatively linear analysis Does not capture complexity & dynamics of vulnerability, adaptive capacity & adaptation Risk-hazard framework has been well represented in IPCC, as it is a relatively linear analysis fitting with the approach of WGI and III to emissions and concentrations. Applications of this model generally emphasized exposure and sensitivity to perturbations and stressors and worked from the hazard to the impacts. Vulnerability is equated with an outcome of a relatively linear analysis that begins with the Sources: Hibbard et al (2007), Turner et al (2003),

Implications of multi-scale nature of climate drivers and impacts Selected scale can frame investigation and shape results Selection of a single scale can frame a project to narrowly Detailed scale Information contains more variance, but turns modeling more difficult Full learning hence requires attention to a variety of scales & real collaboration between WG1, WG2 & WG1 Source: Wilbanks (2002)

Lineages of vulnerability research Diverse approaches A fully complex reality Highly fragmentary Competing paradigms Fewer data Results attached to particular approaches Difficult to generalize Make research-results compatible & comparable Use quantitative tools (build bridges with ESM and WGII) & combine them with qualitative tools Identify prototypic causal loops Do not forget importance of context, multi-scales, and innovative concepts, frameworks (e.g. responsive capacity) Include other communities (e.g., development, urban designers)

North-South divide, research gap Initiatives to foster research and participation (IPCC, AIACC). Yet constraints persist: a) Financial and institutional capacity b) data, state of the art c) language barriers Source Rozensweig and Casassa et al 2007. Locations of significant changes in observations of physical systems (e.g. snow & ice) and biological systems (terrestrial, marine & freshwater), are shown together with surface air temperature changes over the period 1970 to 2004 North dominates agenda Agenda biases, emphasis in certain regions themes (mitigation) dimensions (physical, cost-analysis) Source: De Sherbinin et al. (2007). The hazard risk of each city represents a cumulative score based on risk of cyclones, flooding, landslides & drought

Thank you !