Prioritization of Territorial Areas for Implementing Inclusive Climate Risk Transfer Mechanisms. Colombia as a Case Study.

Abstract

The methodologies for prioritizing populated areas regarding the implementation of risk transfer schemes are still limited due to the exclusion of social components. This research proposes a methodology for prioritizing territorial areas when implementing Climate Risk Transfer Mechanisms (CRTM) using the differential risk transfer approach and considering three Colombian regions as a case study. In order to achieve this, we carried out a literature review to identify existing related methodologies. We targeted components such as gender, ethnicity, poverty, exposure and governance. Workshops were also conducted to generate a multisectoral agreement concerning the variables to be included in the multicriteria analysis. Subsequently, we produced a ranking system applying the criteria to 12 departments both with and without Climate Change (CC) conditions. The results of our investigations showed that there are no records of methodologies for prioritizing areas that include variables of vulnerability and governance. The CC rankings indicated modifications to the previous rankings. The prioritized departments thus highlighted were La Guajira, Bolívar, Chocó, Magdalena, San Andres and Sucre. This research applied differential risk transfer to successfully improve the accuracy of the risk transfer mechanism and provides a methodological guide for optimizing technical and financial resources in the decision-making process for CRTM. This methodology is especially useful for territorial areas with low technical and economic capacities and can be replicated worldwide since the data is available through open access.

Community and governmental perspectives on climate disaster risk finance instruments in Colombia

“…As of June 2023, Colombia has seven DRF departmental strategies out of 32 (Fernández et al. , 2023a, b).…”

“…Colombia, as one of the V20 members, has made significant progress in DRM and DRF, as evidenced by its robust public policy, regulatory framework and a well-established (sub)national DRM system (Fernández, 2020; Fernández et al. , 2023a, b). Then, its contributions should be included throughout the process to establish the “Global Shield” and include the interviewees’ perspectives.…”

“…This prioritization was based on CC conditions with a representative concentration pathway (RCP) of 6.0 for the period 2011–2040, as presented by Fernández et al. (2023a, b).…”

“…There is widespread discussion about DRF in Colombia, and Fernández et al. (2023a, b) report the limitations in comprehension and effective implementation due to vague guidelines and a lack of context-specific guidance. While governmental institutions, UN agencies and international development organizations endorse DRF to reduce economic vulnerability, the focus has often been on rapid implementation rather than on a comprehensive strategy that incorporates local perspectives, as highlighted by Delavallade et al.…”