130 / 140
128 SISSEL HAUGDAL JORE
local community, but also how other communities have addressed the challenges of
natural disasters. This means learning after a natural disaster what went wrong, and
knowing what worked well.
The four characteristics of a resilient system are all related to knowledge
concerning possible scenarios, vulnerabilities, and the means a local community has
available in a crisis to utilise the resilience it has developed. If we consider that black
swan events are related to the level of knowledge, one of the most important
strategies in adapting to climate change is to gain knowledge and update it, and
ensure that stakeholders at all levels
−
including the municipalities who carry the
responsibility of implementation, have access to this knowledge.
Challenges for municipalities managing the risks related to
climate change
Municipalities are in the front line in the challenge to adapt to climate change in
Norway because extreme weather always hits on a local level, and it is the
stakeholders at this level who know about and understand the vulnerabilities and
risks involved (Ministry of the Environment, 2013). Municipalities are also obliged
to include risks related to climate change in their risk and vulnerability analysis and
incorporate this knowledge in the city, town and country planning processes.
Although, theoretically, this seems adequate in confronting and dealing with the
effects of climate change, there are several challenges related to the responsibility
vested in municipalities in addressing climate.
For example, it is not obvious to a municipality how a local community should
respond to a climate threat which is characterised by uncertainty, ambiguity and
complexity. The municipalities are also responsible for economic growth in the
region. To enhance safety due to current and future climate changes is just one of
their many responsibilities. Risk and vulnerability analysis has not always been used
to make safe decisions. Several studies have shown that risk and vulnerability
analysis often has been used to safeguard existing operations, rather than to decide
whether or not an activity should be established (Tierney, 1999; 2014).
Management of risks and hazards often relies on partial analysis which
considers only a limited period. This may lead to a paradoxical situation in which
risk management and extended use of risk analysis could hamper long-term
sustainable development. Sustainable development indicates that long-term
decisions need to be made. From this perspective, climate mitigation and adaptation
should be considered in a long-term perspective, anything from a decade to a century
(Olsen, Langhelle and Engen, 2006).
Risk analysis is also often limited to specific areas or sectors, so conducting
cross-sector risk analysis or risk analysis that covers broader geographical areas has
proved to be a challenge in Norway and other countries. In Norway, municipalities
have been obliged to conduct an overall risk analysis for the whole municipality.
Although this has been the responsibility of individual municipalities since 2010,
many municipalities in Norway have not yet conducted such an analysis (Directorate