Share
Increased investment in climate resilience is crucial for mitigating and adapting to climate change, especially in vulnerable regions like Asia and the Pacific. Effective resource mobilization and capacity building are essential for incorporating climate resilience into infrastructure and decision-making processes.
Rapidly rising damage from climate change demands that countries invest far more to build resilience. But as gains from greater resilience in the form of avoided damage occur with a time lag, such investment is not always attractive politically and is typically crowded out by other priorities.
Yet, filling this gap swiftly and smartly with financial and human resources determines development outcomes—especially in Asia and the Pacific which is on the frontline of climate disasters.
Resilience pathways, including ones made urgent by climate change, have received attention when thinking of risk and disaster management.
Importantly, climate resilience involves two inter-related aspects. One side involves mitigation, especially in large emitting countries like the People’s Republic of China, India, and Indonesia, to keep climate change moderate rather than extreme.
On the other they call for adaptation, especially at places at the knife’s edge of disasters like the Pacific Islands or the Philippines and Viet Nam. Both require a clear recognition of the role of mitigation and adaptation and developing capacities for design and implementation.
What’s more, in the sphere of climate resilience, countries and external financiers need to progressively raise the bar for resilience to enhance preparedness for catastrophes, be they floods and storms or heatwaves and forest fires.
This focus on prevention sees the recovery from a calamity as not just being a return to the status quo but planning for better resilience going forward. If the predominant thinking in disaster management in the past was the idea of bouncing back to how things were, what’s needed now are efforts to bounce forward by building elements of prevention against worse eventualities.
Emphasizing prevention, not just response, requires a change in the mindset regarding disaster management.
In the face of these tough challenges, the response to the imperative for stronger resilience building has a long way to go both in low-income and middle-income countries in the region.
Filling the gap in resilience building with adequate financial and human resources is critical for development outcomes, especially in Asia and the Pacific, which face significant climate disasters.
Regional and country-level regulations, including those from government agencies and institutions, often overlook climate risks and the need for greater resilience.
This shortfall includes vital areas of decision-making and implementation aspects at the macro-level for growth policies and investment, as well as the more micro-level of project design, locational zoning, and public procurement of inputs especially in the case of water, transport, and energy. Only a limited number of municipalities or sub-national entities incorporate climate resilience into their infrastructure design.
Linked to these institutional gaps is the financing side of climate adaptation and resilience. The availability of funding, both external and domestic, remains grossly inadequate and sporadic in low- and middle-income countries.
There is low penetration of products and services, including financial instruments, aimed at addressing climate vulnerabilities including in extremely vulnerable countries like Afghanistan and Pakistan.
In India, despite directives from the government to state or local entities, progress in climate resilience remains sluggish. Many state governments and utilities in India are not structured on cost recovery principles, leading to weakened financial sustainability and imposing additional financial burdens on the state.
Resource mobilization and deployment face especially tough roadblocks in Fragile and Conflict-Affected Situations and Small Island Developing States, highlighting the need for differentiated approaches in such areas.
Given limited budgets, resource mobilization and deployment need to be effective. Budgets assigned for disaster management are out of step with rising needs almost everywhere.
One lesson from accelerating climate risks is that disasters are sure to occur, and it pays to allocate disaster financing ahead of time so that precious time is not lost getting approvals in the middle of a crisis.
Financing is integrally linked to capacity development. High on the list of priorities is ensuring that staff have the right skill sets and capabilities in ministries and other agencies.
For example, in water and urban development, an upgrading of skills in climate-resilient infrastructure is urgently needed. Staffing gaps can be highly varied across geographic jurisdictions. In such situations, it would help to develop pooling arrangements to share capabilities across municipalities and states.
Capacity building – the process of strengthening skills, resources, and capabilities for sustainable development – is often not accounted for in the benefits stream of cost-benefit analyses, despite being included in financial models for investments.
Tracking outcomes is essential, with key metrics like the share of national or sub-national entities incorporating climate-resilient designs in statewide infrastructure projects and establishing baselines for progress in public management systems.
Efforts should also focus on understanding the role of capacity building initiatives and the underlying mechanisms in behavioral insights to address biases, thereby enhancing climate resilience in decision-making.
source: blogs.adb.org
