The interface between scientists and governments is a priority for disaster management

After debating the IPCC SREX report on climate extremes, researchers analyze and make recommendations for risk management.

By Fábio de Castro

Agência FAPESP –  Two changes are essential to better manage the risks posed by climate extremes and disasters: improving the dialogue between scientists and decision makers (especially local authorities) and obtaining more active participation from governments in the evaluation of vulnerabilities and adaptation initiatives.

These recommendations are part of the diagnostic assessment that was produced by scientists and managers during the workshop “Risk Management for Extreme Climate and Disasters in Central and South America: What Can We Learn from the IPCC Special Report on SREX Extremes?”, which was held on August 16 and 17th, 2012 in São Paulo.

The workshop focused on the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Special Report for Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (IPCC- SREX) and the options for managing the impacts of climate extremes in Central and South America.

The workshop was sponsored by FAPESP and the National Institute for Space Research (INPE), in partnership with the IPCC, and the Overseas Development Institute (ODI) and the Climate Development Knowledge Network (CKDN) from the U.K. It was also supported by Norway’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Climate and Pollution Agency.

After two days of debates, the participants split into workgroups to synthesize the conclusions of the discussions. According to INPE researcher José Marengo, the event coordinator and a member of the IPCC-SREX organizing committee, one main conclusion that was reached among the groups was the urgent need to bring climate information to decision makers and the public.

In an interview with Agência FAPESP, Marengo commented that “It is clear that the interface with managers and local communities is a critical point. There is a lot of noise in this communication. There are discussions, for example, on terms such as ‘uncertainty’, which are derived from the climatic model area and that we, as scientists, understand but that have not been appropriately translated to the public at large.” 

The need for more active government participation in decision making related to issues of vulnerability and adaptation was also highlighted by Marengo: “The role of the IPCC is to produce scientific subsidies, but the Panel cannot interfere in national matters; this is the government’s role. Still, governments have proven to be ill-prepared and still keep getting caught off guard by meteorological events that are increasing in frequency and intensity, as the reports show, and that should augment even more in the future.”

According to Marengo, in many instances, there are resources available for risk mapping and removal of populations from vulnerable areas, but they end up being transferred to other areas.

“This lack of available resources shows a failure in our dialogue with local governments. It is not a secret that the climate is changing, and people die every day because of disasters that could be avoided if these resources had been invested,” he stated.

Marengo highlighted that climate science is fundamentally interdisciplinary, and the SREX’s preparation demonstrated that scientists from disciplines such as physics and meteorology can effectively collaborate with social scientists.

“SREX’s preparation involved the participation of more than 1,500 scientists from all fields and showed that interaction with social scientists is feasible and productive. One of the conclusions is that social scientists are best at transmitting the technical and scientific language in a comprehensible format for decision makers and communities. We have to take better advantage of this competence,” he said.

The workgroups also identified other necessities, such as integrating local and state government actions, improving communication among the scientific community and local authorities and granting greater access to information about the climate. “Local communities often need information and don’t know where to look for it,” said Marengo.

The researchers also identified the need to increase financing for climate change studies, with the support of governmental and non-governmental institutions. The groups recommended strengthening local risk management institutions. “We don’t need to create new institutions, but to strengthen the existing ones,” he affirmed.

Another recommendation was to improve the educational system and professional training for those students who are dedicated to climate change issues. Another challenge is that the national systems that are capable of addressing the challenges of extreme events are not integrated in an adequate manner. There is a need to establish guidelines for different levels of government.

The groups also identified a lack of action in establishing policies, budgets or long-term plans. They recommended that the budgets for handling natural disasters be disconnected from short-term elections as a means of establishing long-term state policies.

According to specialists, local governments often take action only in emergency situations and do not work effectively to prevent risks and vulnerabilities. There is a lack of institutional integration at many levels of government. The lack of urban planning was also cited as a critical problem for disaster management.

Specialists also recommended that regional councils that are focused on environmental issues be integrated into civil defense, the health system and academia.

The groups also identified a need to provide communities with more integrated, less fragmented information about risks and vulnerabilities. They suggested that civil defense systems discard the existing reactive paradigm and become more proactive in the prevention of emergency situations.

More information about the workshop is available at: www.fapesp.br/ipccsrex.