Page - 535 - in Loss and Damage from Climate Change - Concepts, Methods and Policy Options

22 Technology forClimate Justice… 535 ofFig.22.4.Thekeyglobalagreementsand interrelatedregional,nationaland local counterparts each have their own specific transparencymechanism, awayofmea- suring, reporting and in some cases validating progress, with each their particular focus. This plethora of reporting and reviewing mechanisms covers impacts and risksonly toa limitedextentanddoesnotadequatelyhelp tounveil injustices,as the reportingisoftenbasedonself-reportingatahighlyaggregate levelwithinsufficient ground-trutheddata. Therefore, credible, timely and high-quality data is an essential input for the transparencymechanism, andas shownon the left sidewouldbekept andupdated in another repository element. Reporting frameworks need to have data on access to technology that reflects actual need and on the role that technology can play in reducinglossesanddamage,bothbackward-and-forwardlooking.Thereareseveral approaches,methodologiesandtoolsavailabletocollectpre-disasterdataontherisk components, i.e. vulnerability, hazards and coping capacity, anddata on the actual losses and damages (Surminski et al. 2012). Tomaximise utility, these databases must be inclusive, capture the poor and vulnerable, be interoperable, preferably open-access, timely (regularly updated) and represent different granularity levels fromglobal to local. It is essential to narrow the gaps in representing the poor and vulnerable of developing countries in climate data, with the ultimate objective to provide an evidencebase that canbeused in thepolicy and fundingdebate around climate change, aswell as forDRRanddevelopment.Apart fromdata, knowledge isessential toassessexistingandforeseenewtechnologies foradaptationandtrans- formation, i.e. the repositorieswe referred toearlier. Applying theTechnology forClimateJusticeReportingFramework Weapplied the technology justice components as explained inTable 22.1 to trans- boundaryearlywarningsystemsfor theBrahmaputraRiver (Bangladesh–India)and theKarnaliRiver(India–Nepal).5 Sevenkeyexperts inNepal, IndiaandBangladesh provided informationboth inwritingand through follow-up interviews. Whereas theMDGs had no reference at all to EWS, the SDG framework has twoEWStargets.Target3d is“Strengthen thecapacityofallcountries, inparticular developingcountries, forearlywarning, risk reductionandmanagementofnational andglobalhealthrisks.”Target13.3isto“Improveeducation,awareness-raisingand human and institutional capacity on climate changemitigation, adaptation, impact reduction andearlywarning” (SDG2016).Article 7 andArticle 8of theParisCli- mateAgreement6 placeagreateremphasisonunderstanding,actionandsupport for EWS, but no reporting is as of yet available. Pre-2015 reports such as the national communications or theNAPAsdonot have relevant data on earlywarning, except formoregeneral statements.HFAandSendaidohaverelevant reporting.Table22.4 summarises the injustices for eachof thecomponents. 5The component on sustainable use does not directly apply to EWS, as EWS cause negligible intrusions suchas throughgauges that areput into riversor radar installations. 6Article7 ison“Enhancingadaptivecapacity, strengthening resilienceand reducingvulnerability to climate change” andArticle 8 is loss anddamageand“the importanceof averting,minimizing andaddressing lossanddamageassociatedwith theadverseeffectsof climatechange”.