1. Discourses and Framings of Climate Change: What Literatures Do We Need to Review?
To realize synergies there is a need to indentify common objectives for adaptation and DRR, it will not be enough to add on adaptation to DRR or vice versa. Defining this common ground/objective will be important in the SREX, and it will have important implications for what literature and perspectives are included.
Karen O’Brien,
Department of Sociology and Human Geography
University of Oslo, Norway

2. The Objectives of SREX:
To promote understanding of the vulnerability to and impacts of climate change, current and future climate variability and extreme events, and the implications for sustainable development.
To collect and analyze information on adaptation actions and advances towards integrating disaster risk reduction strategies and climate change adaptation into national policies and programs.
To prepare a comprehensive assessment of the guides, frameworks, and tools used by various institutions, organizations, and communities to build the capacity for reducing vulnerability and risk to develop early warning systems; to strengthen community capacity and social resilience, particularly among the most vulnerable; to improve construction practices; and to establish preparedness to respond to inevitable climate impacts.

3. SREX Focus

4. Outline
The importance of framings in the SREX (limiting versus inclusive, narrow versus comprehensive);
The role of discourses (different approaches to understanding disaster risk management and climate change adaptation);
Which literatures are we including in the assessment? And what are we excluding?

5. Framings Structure our knowledge Create boundaries Limit assessment
Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance
Climate Change Adaptation (SREX)
Create boundaries
Limit assessment
The framing of an issue creates boundaries around social groups, biophysical entities, or their interactions, to establish an ordered vision of events (Forsyth, 2003). Framings influence the questions that are asked and structure the kind of knowledge that is produced. They determine what is included on the agenda, and what is silenced. Framings emerge from discourses that are embedded in institutions, actors and academic disciplines.
Influence the questions asked

6. Framings  Frameworks Risk management frameworks
Social vulnerability frameworks
Adaptation frameworks
Pressure and release frameworks
Sustainable livelihoods frameworks
etc.

9. The Pressure and Release (PAR) model
Source: Source: according to Wisner et al. 2004: 51

11. Frameworks are often associated with different discourses (which can reflect different ways of seeing and understanding the world)

12. Discourses “A shared way of apprehending the world.” (Dryzek 1997)
“an area of language use expressing a particular standpoint and related to a certain set of institutions. Concerned with a limited range of objects, a discourse emphasizes some concepts at the expense of others.” (Peet and Watts 2001)
“the process through which social reality inevitably comes into being.” (Escobar 1996)

13. Why do discourses matter?
Through discourses we interpret what certain phrases mean, control how they are used, frame the questions that are asked, and identify the methods and types of analysis that are prioritized. More importantly, discourses influence the solutions that are prescribed.
All discourses are not equal; some have more power and influence, and are institutionally embedded.

14. The same language is often used across discourses, hiding different interpretations and assumptions;
Examples: disaster risk reduction, climate change adaptation
How are these concepts interpreted and operationalized within a global managerial discourse, economic rationalism discourse, ecological modernization discourse, social vulnerability discourse, and so on?

15. Approaches to disaster risk reduction
Reduction of exposure (early warning systems; changed building requirements; flood management strategies)
vs.
Reduction of social vulnerability (enhancing social networks, increase burden sharing; promoting gender equity);

16. Approaches to climate change adaptation
Adapt to specific climate scenarios and impacts (identify institutional, technological, and managerial responses to climate change impacts)
vs.
Enhance society’s capacity to adapt to variability and uncertainty (reduce social vulnerability, enhance human agency, promote resilience and adaptive management)

17. What are the assumptions embedded in research, and in our assessment of research?

18. Questions for SREX:
Are we assessing literature from within one framework, or using different approaches and frameworks? (Risk management framework? Social vulnerability framework?)
How can we include and integrate multiple perspectives, representing different discourses, approaches, methodologies?
Are we leaving out important literatures? (Cultural and religious dimensions; psychological implications and consequences; legal and ethical aspects; behavioral psychology; and so on).
How do we bring in context-specific factors? (e.g. literatures that are relevant to Asia)

19. What literatures do we need to review?
Those those that help us understand how systems, behaviors, cultures and individual experiences are affected by climate change and extreme events.