Focus: Environmental degradation and disasters
In cooperation with
UNU-EHS Institute for Environment and Human Security
Together for people in need.
1. Disaster risk, environmental degradation and global sustainability policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Peter Mucke
2. WorldRiskIndex 2012: Concept, updating and results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Torsten Welle, JĂśrn Birkmann, Jakob Rhyner, Maximilian Witting, Jan Wolfertz
2.1 Concept and structure of the WorldRiskIndex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 2.2 Updating and modifying the indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 2.3 Risk assessment at global level for 2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3. Focus: Environmental degradation and disasters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 3.1 Environmental degradation as a risk factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Torsten Welle, Michael W. Beck, Peter Mucke
3.2 Coastal Habitats and Risk Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Michael W. Beck, Christine C. Shepard
3.3 Agrofuels, land-grabbing and landslides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Katja Maurer
3.4 Environmental degradation, poverty and disaster risk on the international development agenda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Jens Martens
4. Disaster risk reduction â€“ a key element of global sustainability policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Peter Mucke, Jens Martens, Katrin Radtke
Annex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
WorldRiskReport 2012 ] 3
4 [ WorldRiskReport 2012
1. Disaster risk, environmental degradation and global sustainability policy Peter Mucke
When the full force of nature hits human settlements, this can have disastrous results: The lives of countless people are threatened, and through the destruction of buildings and infrastructure, progress made over years of development is destroyed in many countries. However, it is not alone the strength of a natural event that determines the extent of harm and damages. The risk a country runs of becoming a victim depends crucially on social, economic and institutional factors – in a nutshell, the condition of society within that country. The WorldRiskReport 2012 has devoted its IRFXVWRDVLJQL¿FDQWGULYHURIGLVDVWHUVWKHZRUOGZLGHLQFUHDVHLQ environmental degradation. WorldRiskReport 2012 ] 5
uman Â intervention Â in Â the Â global Â ecosystem Â raises Â the Â threat Â and Â increases Â the Â extent Â of Â disasters Â ensuing Â from Â extreme Â natural Â events. Â More Â and Â more Â people Â in Â all Â parts Â RIWKHZRUOGDUHH[SRVHGWRĂ€RRGVGURXJKW earthquakes Â and Â cyclones. Â In Â the Â decade Â of Â 2002-Â2011, Â 4,130 Â disasters Â were Â recorded Â worldwide. Â More Â than Â a Â million Â people Â became Â victims Â of Â them, Â and Â economic Â damages Â amounted Â to Â at Â least Â USD Â 1.195 Â billion. Â A Â total Â of Â 302 Â such Â disasters Â occurred Â alone Â in Â 2011, Â affecting Â more Â than Â 200 Â million Â people Â and Â causing Â economic Â damage Â of Â an Â estimated Â USD Â 366 Â billion Â (UNISDR Â 2012). Â The Â tendency Â is Â on Â the Â rise.
a Â natural Â event Â turns Â into Â a Â disaster Â depends Â on Â the Â strength Â of Â the Â hazard Â as Â well Â as Â on Â the Â vulnerability Â of Â the Â people. Â Vulnerability Â develops Â through Â high Â susceptibility, Â a Â lack Â of Â coping Â capacities Â and Â a Â lack Â of Â adaptive Â capacities. Â It Â is Â this Â core Â understanding Â that Â forms Â the Â basis Â of Â the Â WorldRiskIndex, Â which Â gives Â the Â probability Â with Â which Â a Â country Â or Â a Â region Â will Â be Â hit Â by Â a Â disaster Â (Alliance Â Development Â Works Â 2011). Â Four Â components Â characterize Â this Â basic Â notion, Â and Â they Â are Â put Â LQWRFRQFUHWHWHUPVE\ÂżYHFDWHJRULHVHDFK,Q turn, Â the Â four Â components Â are Â mathematically Â combined Â as Â modules, Â thus Â forming Â the Â WorldRiskIndex Â (see Â Figure Â 1).
So Â far, Â people Â have Â rarely Â been Â the Â direct Â trigger Â of Â such Â disasters. Â But Â with Â their Â devastating Â interventions Â in Â nature, Â they Â have Â massively Â raised Â the Â hazard Â potential. Â The Â destruction Â of Â mangrove Â forests Â and Â coral Â reefs, Â for Â example Â off Â the Â coasts Â of Â Southeast Â Asia, Â has Â reduced Â protection Â DJDLQVWWLGDOZDYHVDQGĂ€RRGLQJ7KHFOHDU cutting Â of Â mountain Â forests Â exacerbates Â soil Â erosion Â and Â thus, Â as Â in Â Pakistan, Â the Â extent Â RIĂ€RRGV&OLPDWHFKDQJHDQGWKHPRUH frequent Â occurrence Â of Â â€œclimate Â extremesâ€? Â are Â permanently Â aggravating Â the Â hazard Â VLWXDWLRQDQGLQFUHDVLQJYXOQHUDELOLW\,3&& 2012a). Â The Â United Â Nations Â Secretariat Â notes: Â â€œEnvironmental Â degradation Â and Â climate Â change Â contribute Â to Â the Â increasing Â occurrence Â of Â disasters Â linked Â to Â natural Â hazards.â€? Â (UN Â DESA Â 2011) Â
The Â WorldRiskIndex Â seeks Â answers Â to Â the Â following Â questions:
Additionally, Â there Â is Â an Â increasing Â danger Â of Â natural Â disasters Â being Â directly Â triggered Â by Â human Â action Â or Â uncontrollable Â high Â WHFKQRORJ\7KHQXFOHDUVXSHU0&$RI Fukushima Â in Â March Â 2011 Â is Â the Â most Â obvious Â example Â of Â this. Â Increasingly Â discussed Â proposals Â to Â permanently Â manipulate Â the Â climate Â by Â technological Â interventions Â in Â the Â shape Â of Â â€œgeo-Âengineeringâ€? Â bear Â a Â new Â dimension Â of Â incalculable Â risks Â for Â humans Â DQGIRUQDWXUH(7&*URXS :KHWKHU
6 [ WorldRiskReport 2012
+ How probable is an extreme natural event, and will it affect people? + How vulnerable are the people to the natural hazards? + To what extent can societies cope with acute disasters? + Is a society taking preventive measures to face natural hazards to be reckoned with in the future? The Â concept Â of Â the Â WorldRiskIndex, Â with Â its Â modular Â structure, Â was Â developed Â jointly Â by Â scientists Â and Â development Â experts. Â The Â calculation Â of Â the Â Index, Â which Â the Â United Â Nations Â University Â Institute Â for Â Environment Â and Â Human Â Security, Â Bonn Â (UNU-ÂEHS), Â has Â been Â commissioned Â to Â perform Â by Â Alliance Â Development Â Works, Â is Â carried Â out Â via Â the Â four Â components: + Exposure towards natural hazards such as earthquakes, cyclones, flooding, drought and sea level rise + susceptibility depending on infrastructure, nutrition, housing situation and economic framework conditions + coping capacities depending on governance, disaster preparedness and early warning,
Natural hazard sphere
Vulnerability â€“ Societal sphere
Exposure to natural hazards
Likelihood of suffering harm
Capacities to reduce negative consequences
Capacities for long-term strategies for societal change
WorldRiskIndex Figure 1: The WorldRiskIndex and its components
medical services and social and material coverage + adaptive capacities relating to forthcoming natural events, to climate change and to other challenges. In Â order Â to Â provide Â an Â optimum Â representa-Â tion Â of Â the Â disaster Â risk Â for Â all Â the Â countries Â in Â the Â world, Â globally Â available Â data Â are Â used. Â One Â of Â the Â special Â features Â of Â the Â approach Â ex-Â plained Â in Â detail Â in Â the Â WorldRiskReport Â 2011 Â is Â that Â categories Â are Â also Â considered Â for Â which Â no Â global Â data Â base Â exists Â so Â far. Â Whereas, Â for Â example, Â the Â number Â of Â hospital Â beds Â or Â per Â capita Â income Â are Â regularly Â established Â at Â the Â level Â of Â the Â national Â states, Â the Â data Â on Â nation-Â al Â disaster Â preparedness Â policy, Â on Â self-Âhelp Â capacities, Â social Â networks Â and Â neighborly Â help, Â on Â the Â urban Â and Â spatial Â structure Â and Â on Â national Â adaptation Â strategies Â are Â not Â glob-Â ally Â available. Â But Â these Â data Â are Â of Â consider-Â able Â importance Â for Â risk Â assessment Â and Â have Â therefore Â been Â included Â in Â the Â concept Â of Â the Â WorldRiskIndex.
The Â preponderance Â of Â technical Â or Â economic Â factors, Â which Â are Â easier Â to Â measure, Â and Â which Â can Â frequently Â be Â observed Â in Â worldwide Â analyses, Â is Â to Â be Â overcome Â in Â the Â WorldRiskIndex Â in Â the Â course Â of Â the Â next Â few Â years. Â The Â modular Â structure Â of Â the Â WorldRiskIndex Â allows Â for Â this Â since Â it Â enables Â supplements Â and Â extensions Â to Â be Â made Â (Alliance Â Development Â Works Â 2011). Â Once Â new, Â globally Â available Â and Â secure Â data Â are Â newly Â available, Â they Â can Â be Â used Â to Â FDOFXODWHWKH,QGH[&XUUHQWO\KRZHYHULQ drawing Â conclusions Â in Â risk Â assessment, Â it Â still Â has Â to Â be Â borne Â in Â mind Â that Â the Â social Â factors Â in Â the Â WorldRiskIndex Â have Â less Â of Â an Â effect Â than Â the Â technical Â or Â economic Â ones. The Â structure Â of Â the Â WorldRiskIndex Â can Â be Â used Â analogously Â for Â a Â local Â or Â regional Â risk Â index. Â Often, Â other Â or Â further Â data Â will Â be Â available Â at Â regional Â level Â that Â is Â relevant Â to Â a Â risk Â assessment. Â In Â the Â WorldRiskReport Â 2011 Â this Â was Â demonstrated Â by Â the Â UNU-Â EHS Â Institute Â with Â the Â example Â of Â several Â
WorldRiskReport 2012 ] 7
administrative Â units Â in Â Indonesia Â (Birkmann Â et Â al. Â 2011).
The printed version of the WorldRiskIndex has a volume ensuring fast readability. The texts of the Report are supplemented and further illustrated by maps, diagrams and images. Additional, more in-depth information, scientific details of the methodology and tables are available at www. WorldRiskReport.org. There, the 2011 and 2012 Reports as well as teaching material on the topic are available for downloading.
In Â the Â case Â of Â both Â the Â local Â and Â the Â global Â level, Â unsolved Â problems Â relating Â to Â poverty, Â a Â scarcity Â of Â resources Â and Â weak Â governance Â raise Â the Â susceptibility Â of Â societies Â to Â natural Â hazards Â as Â well Â as Â the Â lack Â of Â coping Â and Â adaptive Â capacities. Â At Â the Â same Â time, Â these Â social Â parameters Â are Â QHJDWLYHO\LQĂ€XHQFHGE\ extreme Â natural Â events. Â In Â a Â nutshell, Â disasters Â prevent Â development Â progress, Â and Â a Â lack Â of Â development Â progress Â raises Â the Â disaster Â risk. Â In Â order Â to Â break Â this Â cycle, Â disaster Â risk Â reduction Â strategies Â would Â have Â to Â become Â an Â integral Â part Â of Â comprehensive Â sustainable Â development Â strategies. Â The Â links Â between Â the Â topics Â of Â environmental Â degradation, Â poverty Â and Â disaster Â risk Â have Â already Â been Â discussed Â since Â the Â 1970s, Â although Â the Â political Â discourses Â on Â the Â issue Â have Â frequently Â been Â pursued Â independently Â of Â one Â another. Â :LWKWKH81&RQIHUHQFHRQ6XVWDLQDEOH Development Â (â€œRio+20â€?) Â in Â June Â 2012, Â this Â has Â visibly Â changed: Â Disaster Â risk Â reduction Â has Â become Â one Â of Â the Â emerging Â issues Â on Â the Â international Â agenda. Â The Â term Â resilience Â towards Â natural Â hazards, Â which Â was Â already Â coined Â in Â the Â Anti-ÂDisaster Â Program Â of Â Hyogo, Â became Â a Â central Â keyword Â at Â the Â Rio Â &RQIHUHQFH At Â the Â same Â time, Â intensive Â debates Â have Â now Â started Â on Â the Â future Â of Â the Â Millennium Â 'HYHORSPHQW*RDOV0'*V DJUHHGDW81 level, Â after Â their Â target Â year Â of Â 2015. Â In Â this Â context, Â more Â fundamental Â debates Â are Â also Â taking Â place Â in Â politics, Â science Â and Â civil Â society Â on Â the Â future Â concept Â of Â the Â international Â development Â agenda. Â This Â offers Â
8 [ WorldRiskReport 2012
the Â opportunity Â to Â comprehensively Â consider Â the Â links Â between Â poverty, Â environmental Â degradation Â and Â disaster Â risks. It Â is Â for Â this Â reason Â that Â the Â WorldRiskReport Â 2012 Â focuses Â on Â â€œEnvironmental Â Degradation Â and Â Disastersâ€?. Â It Â is Â supplemented Â by Â case Â studies Â demonstrating Â how Â the Â members Â of Â Alliance Â Development Â Works Â are Â acting Â at Â the Â interface Â between Â the Â reduction Â of Â disaster Â risk Â and Â addressing Â progressive Â climate Â change Â and Â environmental Â degradation. The Â Report Â aims Â to Â replace Â what Â has Â as Â a Â rule Â been Â a Â short-Âterm Â observation Â of Â disasters Â with Â a Â development Â approach: Â Aspects Â such Â as Â prevention, Â the Â protection Â of Â particularly Â susceptible Â groups Â and Â risk Â management Â have Â to Â be Â at Â the Â forefront Â of Â analyses Â and Â future Â measures. Â The Â social, Â ecological Â and Â economic Â dimensions Â of Â risk Â are Â combined Â with Â classical Â hazard Â analyses Â of Â natural Â events Â in Â the Â WorldRiskReport. Â This Â enables Â risk Â assessment Â to Â be Â extended. The Â concept Â of Â Alliance Â Development Â Works Â is Â to Â regard Â emergency Â relief Â and Â development Â cooperation Â as Â a Â combined Â entity Â and Â link Â the Â two Â aspects Â more Â closely Â in Â practice. Â Risk Â assessment, Â prevention, Â and Â coping Â and Â adaptive Â strategies Â are Â components Â of Â this Â concept Â â€“ Â the Â claim Â the Â Alliance Â makes Â in Â the Â WorldRiskReport Â 2011 Â still Â applies Â unchanged: Â â€œWhether Â an Â earthquake Â or Â a Â WVXQDPLDKXUULFDQHRUDĂ€RRGWKHULVNWKDW a Â natural Â event Â will Â develop Â into Â a Â disaster Â depends Â only Â partially Â on Â the Â strength Â of Â the Â event Â itself. Â A Â substantial Â cause Â lies Â in Â the Â living Â conditions Â of Â people Â in Â the Â affected Â regions Â and Â the Â opportunities Â to Â quickly Â respond Â and Â help. Â Those Â who Â are Â prepared Â and Â who Â know Â what Â to Â do Â during Â an Â extreme Â natural Â event Â have Â higher Â survival Â chances. Â The Â countries Â that Â anticipate Â natural Â hazards, Â prepare Â for Â the Â consequences Â of Â climate Â FKDQJHDQGSURYLGHWKHQHFHVVDU\ÂżQDQFLDO resources Â are Â better Â equipped Â for Â the Â future.â€? Â
Results at a glance
WorldRiskIndex The Index identifies global disaster risk hotspots: for example in Oceania, in Southeast Asia, in the southern Sahel and in Central America. There, high exposure to natural hazards and climate change coincides with very vulnerable societies. What is conspicuous is that among the 15 countries with the highest risk worldwide (see right-hand table), eight happen to be island states â€“ including Vanuatu, Tonga and the Philippines at positions 1 to 3. Owing to their proximity to the sea, island states are particularly exposed to the natural hazards of cyclones, flooding and sea level rise. Very high exposure is a significant risk driver, although a high development level of society can counteract this substantially, as the example of the Netherlands shows. In terms of exposure, this country ranks twelfth among the states most at risk worldwide. However, thanks to social, economic, ecological and institutional factors, the Netherlands has reduced its disaster risk enormously, and in terms of risk ranking worldwide, it is ranked 51st. Liberia is the opposite example. Despite a low level of exposure (position 113 in the Exposure Index), extreme social vulnerability (position 7 in the Vulnerability Index) results in this country being ranked 60th in the WorldRiskIndex â€“ and thus coming into the second-highest risk class. Liberia stands for many countries in Africa, the hotspot of social vulnerability: There are 13 African states among the 15 countries showing the greatest vulnerability, alongside Haiti and Afghanistan.
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.
Vanuatu Tonga Philippines Guatemala Bangladesh Solomon Islands Costa Rica Cambodia Timor-Leste El Salvador Brunei Darussalam Papua New Guinea Mauritius Nicaragua Fiji
Risk (%) 36.31 28.62 27.98 20.75 20.22 18.15 17.38 17.17 17.13 16.89 15.92 15.81 15.39 15.36 13.69
159. 160. 161. 162. 163. 164. 165. 166. 167. 168. 169. 170. 171. 172. 173.
Estonia Israel Egypt Norway Finland Sweden United Arab Emirates Bahrain Kiribati Iceland Grenada Saudi Arabia Barbados Malta Qatar
2.50 2.43 2.33 2.31 2.24 2.15 2.07 1.81 1.78 1.53 1.46 1.31 1.15 0.61 0.10
WorldRiskReport 2012 ] 9
10 [ WorldRiskReport 2012
2. WorldRiskIndex 2012: Concept, updating and results Torsten Welle, Jörn Birkmann, Jakob Rhyner, Maximilian Witting, Jan Wolfertz
Whether natural hazards will turn into disasters depends not only on the intensity of an event but is also crucially determined by a society’s level of development. The WorldRiskIndex, which estimates the risk that 173 states worldwide are exposed to of becoming victims of disasters resulting from extreme natural events, sets out from this understanding. The Index shows that the global hotspots for a risk are located where a high exposure to natural hazards and climate change coincides with vulnerable societies – for example in Oceania, Southeast Asia, the Southern Sahel and &HQWUDO$PHULFD WorldRiskReport 2012 ] 11
Susceptibility Public infrastructure
Population exposed to:
B Storms Insufficient global data available
Share of the population without access to improved sanitation Share of the population without access to an improved water source
Housing conditions share of the population living in slums; proportion of semi-solid and fragile dwellings
D Droughts E Sea level rise
Number of people in a country who are exposed to the natural hazards earthquakes (A), cyclones (B) and/or flooding (C)
Share of population undernourished
Poverty and dependencies D
Dependency ratio (share of under 15- and over 65-year-olds in relation to the
Number of people in this country who are threatened by drought (D) and/or sea level rise (E)
(each weighted half owing to the uncertainty of the data base)
Extreme poverty population living with USD 1.25 per day or less (purchasing power parity)
Economic capacity and income distribution
Number of total population in country
Gross domestic product per capita (purchasing power parity) Gini index
WorldRiskIndex Figure 2: Calculation of the World Risk Index
2.1 Concept and structure of the WorldRiskIndex
he WorldRiskIndex is a tool to assess the disaster risk that a society or country is exposed to by external and internal factors. Setting out from 173 countries, it illustrates that a country’s disaster risk may depend on several factors, so that a country also has several means at its disposal to reduce risks FI%LUNPDQQHWDO,3&& 7KH aim of the Index is to sensitize the public as
12 [ WorldRiskReport 2012
well as political decision-makers towards the important topic of disaster risks. The Index focuses attention on the people, countries and regions, precisely because the emergence of disasters is crucially determined by domestic social factors. Thus the WorldRiskIndex is based on the core understanding that DVRFLHW\¶VGLVDVWHUULVNLVLQÀXHQFHGE\ its structure, processes and framework
Insufficient global data available
Government and authorities
Education and research
Corruption Perceptions Index Good governance (Failed States Index)
Disaster preparedness and early warning
Gender equity C D
National disaster risk management policy according to report to the United Nations Medical services C D Insufficient global data available
Material coverage E
Gender parity in education Share of female representatives in the National Parliament
Environmental status / Ecosystem protection
Number of physicians per 10,000 inhabitants Number of hospital beds per 10,000 inhabitants
Neighbors, family and self-help
Adult literacy rate Combined gross school enrollment
G H Insufficient global data available
Water resources Biodiversity and habitat protection Forest management Agricultural management
Adaptation strategies Projects and strategies to adapt to natural hazards and climate change
Insurances (life insurances excluded)
Investment I J K
Public health expenditure Life expectancy at birth Private health expenditure
conditions, which in turn may be affected by natural events and the effects of climate change.
hazard can turn into a disaster. One advantage that the Index has is its modular structure based on four components:
The concept of the Index stresses that not only the magnitude of frequency of a natural event but indeed also the social, economic and ecological factors characterizing a country essentially determine whether a natural
+ + + +
Exposure to natural hazards Susceptibility Coping capacities Adaptive capacities
WorldRiskReport 2012 ] 13
The Â modular Â structure Â may Â be Â applied Â not Â only Â at Â national Â but Â also Â at Â regional Â and Â local Â level. Â A Â detailed Â description Â of Â the Â individ-Â ual Â components Â and Â the Â methodology Â can Â be Â found Â in Â the Â WorldRiskReport Â 2011. Â This Â WorldRiskReport Â (Alliance Â Development Â Works Â 2011) Â is Â available Â for Â downloading Â at Â www.WorldRiskReport.org.
Risk Â is Â understood Â as Â interaction Â between Â a Â KD]DUGHDUWKTXDNHĂ€RRGF\FORQHGURXJKW rising Â sea Â level) Â and Â the Â vulnerability Â of Â societies. Â In Â this Â context, Â vulnerability Â refers Â to Â social, Â physical, Â economic Â and Â environ-Â ment-Ârelated Â factors Â that Â make Â people Â or Â systems Â susceptible Â to Â the Â impacts Â of Â natural Â hazards Â and Â adverse Â consequences Â of Â climate Â change. Â Additionally, Â the Â Index Â examines Â the Â abilities Â and Â capacities Â of Â people Â or Â systems Â to Â cope Â with Â and Â adapt Â to Â negative Â impacts Â of Â natural Â hazards. Â Vulnerability Â comprises Â the Â components Â of Â susceptibility, Â coping Â capaci-Â ties Â and Â adaptive Â capacities Â (cf. Â Birkmann Â et Â al. Â 2011). Â
The Â term Â exposure Â refers Â to Â entities Â (popula-Â tion, Â built-Âup Â area, Â infrastructure Â component, Â environmental Â areas) Â being Â exposed Â to Â the Â effects Â of Â one Â or Â more Â natural Â hazards Â (earth-Â TXDNHVF\FORQHVGURXJKWVDQGĂ€RRGV ,Q the Â WorldRiskIndex, Â exposure Â relates Â to Â the Â annual Â average Â number Â of Â individuals Â who Â are Â potentially Â exposed Â to Â hazard Â events. Â In Â this Â regard, Â the Â frequency Â of Â hazards Â is Â also Â taken Â into Â account. Â Additionally, Â the Â number Â of Â people Â are Â considered Â who Â would Â poten-Â tially Â be Â affected Â by Â the Â sea Â level Â rising Â by Â one Â meter. Â To Â calculate Â exposure Â to Â earthquakes, Â F\FORQHVĂ€RRGVDQGGURXJKWVWKH3K\VLFDO ([SRVXUHGDWDRIWKH35(9,(:*OREDO5LVN Data Â Platform Â (http://preview.grid.unep.ch/) Â of Â the Â United Â Nations Â Environmental Â Pro-Â gram Â (UNEP) Â have Â been Â used. Â These Â include Â the Â number Â of Â people Â per Â approx. Â 20 Â square Â kilometers Â who Â are Â exposed Â on Â average Â to Â the Â above-Âmentioned Â natural Â hazards Â per Â country Â and Â per Â year. Â
The Â WorldRiskIndex Â is Â based Â on Â 28 Â indica-Â tors. Â The Â data Â required Â for Â its Â calculation Â are Â freely Â available Â and Â can Â all Â be Â called Â up Â in Â the Â Internet, Â which Â ensures Â transparency Â and Â YHULÂżDELOLW\,QRUGHUWREHPDWKHPDWLFDOO\DJ-Â gregated Â into Â indices, Â the Â indicators Â are Â trans-Â formed Â in Â dimensionless Â rank Â levels Â between Â 0 Â and Â 1, Â i.e. Â they Â can Â be Â read Â as Â percentage Â values. Â Figure Â 1 Â shows Â the Â modular Â structure Â of Â the Â indices Â for Â exposure, Â susceptibility, Â coping Â capacities Â and Â adaptive Â capacities Â as Â well Â as Â their Â corresponding Â sub-Âcategories Â and Â weighting Â factors. Â For Â better Â comprehension Â and Â cartographic Â transformation, Â the Â indi-Â vidual Â indices Â have Â been Â transformed Â into Â SHUFHQWDJHYDOXHVDQGFODVVLÂżHGZLWKWKHDLG of Â the Â quantile Â method Â integrated Â into Â the Â $UF*,6VRIWZDUHSDFNHW7KHÂżYHFODVVHVFDO-Â culated Â contain Â the Â same Â number Â of Â cases Â and Â DUHWUDQVODWHGLQWRDTXDOLWDWLYHFODVVLÂżFDWLRQ of Â â€œvery Â high Â â€“ Â high Â â€“ Â medium Â low Â â€“ Â very Â lowâ€? Â (see Â maps Â on Â the Â fold-Âout Â pages Â of Â the Â cover).
&DOFXODWLQJH[SRVXUHWRDULVHLQVHDOHYHOE\ RQHPHWHULVEDVHGRQGDWDIURPWKH&HQWHUIRU 5HPRWH6HQVLQJRI,FH6KHHWV&UH6,6 DWWKH University Â of Â Kansas. Â This Â data Â was Â combined Â ZLWKWKHSRSXODWLRQVWDWLVWLFVRIWKH*OREDO 5XUDO8UEDQ0DSSLQJ3URMHFW*5803 UXQ E\WKH&HQWHUIRU,QWHUQDWLRQDO(DUWK6FLHQFH ,QIRUPDWLRQ1HWZRUN&,(6,1 DW&ROXPELD 8QLYHUVLW\ZLWKWKHDLGRID*HRJUDSKLFDO ,QIRUPDWLRQ6\VWHP*,6 LQRUGHUWRHVWDE-Â lish Â the Â potential Â exposure Â of Â communities Â to Â rising Â sea Â level. Â Only Â half Â of Â the Â number Â of Â individuals Â exposed Â to Â droughts Â and Â also Â to Â sea Â level Â rises Â have Â been Â weighted Â since Â the Â model Â for Â the Â calculation Â of Â droughts Â bears Â some Â uncertainties Â (cf. Â Peduzzi Â et Â al. Â 2009) Â and Â it Â is Â not Â possible Â to Â calculate Â an Â annual Â average Â exposure Â to Â sea Â level Â rise, Â in Â spite Â of Â a Â considerable Â hazard Â potential Â being Â an Â issue Â affecting Â numerous Â coastal Â regions. Â In Â order Â to Â calculate Â the Â exposure Â index Â that Â describes Â the Â share Â of Â the Â population Â exposed Â
14 [ WorldRiskReport 2012
for Â each Â country, Â all Â exposed Â people Â per Â natu-Â ral Â hazard Â have Â been Â added Â up Â and Â divided Â by Â the Â number Â of Â inhabitants Â per Â country. Â Susceptibility Susceptibility Â generally Â refers Â to Â the Â likelihood Â of Â harm, Â loss Â and Â disruption Â in Â an Â extreme Â event Â triggered Â by Â a Â natural Â hazard. Â Thus Â susceptibility Â describes Â structural Â characteristics Â and Â framework Â conditions Â of Â DVRFLHW\7KHIROORZLQJÂżYHVXEFDWHJRULHV (see Â Figure Â 2), Â which Â outline Â the Â living Â situation Â and Â living Â conditions Â in Â a Â country, Â have Â been Â chosen Â to Â represent Â susceptibility: Â â€œpublic Â infrastructureâ€?, Â â€œhousing Â conditionsâ€?, Â â€œnutritionâ€?, Â â€œpoverty Â and Â dependenciesâ€?, Â â€œeconomic Â capacity Â and Â income Â distributionâ€?. Â Housing Â conditions Â are Â an Â important Â factor Â in Â GHÂżQLQJVXVFHSWLELOLW\,Q)LJXUHKRZHYHU they Â are Â marked Â gray, Â since Â they Â have Â so Â far Â not Â been Â included Â in Â Index Â calculations Â owing Â to Â a Â lack Â of Â global Â data. Â While Â data Â and Â methods Â do Â exist Â to Â assess Â housing Â conditions, Â such Â surveys Â have Â so Â far Â only Â been Â carried Â out Â for Â a Â few Â cities Â worldwide Â owing Â to Â the Â high Â time Â and Â cost Â effort Â involved Â so Â that Â presently, Â QRVXIÂżFLHQWLQIRUPDWLRQLVDYDLODEOHIRUWKLV DVSHFWDWJOREDOOHYHO:LWKLQWKHÂżYHVXE FDWHJRULHVWKHVXVFHSWLELOLW\LQGLFDWRUV$* and Â their Â respective Â weighting Â factors Â are Â listed Â in Â percentages. Â The Â index Â Susceptibility Â is Â represented Â worldwide Â as Â Map Â B1 Â (left Â fold-Â out Â page Â of Â the Â cover). Coping capacities &RSLQJDQGFRSLQJFDSDFLWLHVFRPSULVHYDUL-Â ous Â abilities Â of Â societies Â and Â exposed Â elements Â (for Â example Â critical Â infrastructure Â such Â as Â nuclear Â power Â stations) Â to Â minimize Â negative Â impacts Â of Â natural Â hazards Â and Â climate Â change Â through Â direct Â action Â and Â the Â resources Â avail-Â DEOH&RSLQJFDSDFLWLHVHQFRPSDVVPHDVXUHV and Â abilities Â that Â are Â immediately Â available Â to Â reduce Â harm Â and Â damages Â in Â the Â occurrence Â of Â an Â event. Â
)LJXUHVKRZVWKHÂżYHVXEFDWHJRULHVRIFRS-Â ing Â capacities Â (â€œgovernment Â and Â authoritiesâ€?, Â â€œdisaster Â preparedness Â and Â early Â warningâ€?, Â â€œmedical Â servicesâ€?, Â â€œsocial Â networksâ€?, Â â€œmate-Â rial Â coverageâ€?) Â and Â the Â indicators Â used Â (A-ÂE) Â together Â with Â their Â weighting Â factors. Â Due Â to Â their Â high Â importance, Â the Â sub-Âcategories Â â€œdisaster Â preparedness Â and Â early Â warningâ€? Â and Â â€œsocial Â networksâ€? Â are Â included Â in Â the Â coping Â capacities Â component. Â However, Â they Â are Â marked Â gray Â since Â no Â global Â data Â referring Â to Â them Â is Â available. Â Hence Â it Â has Â so Â far Â not Â been Â possible Â to Â establish Â them Â in Â the Â Index. Â To Â calculate Â the Â WorldRiskIndex, Â the Â oppo-Â site Â value, Â i.e. Â the Â lack Â of Â coping Â capacities, Â has Â been Â used, Â which Â results Â from Â the Â value Â 1 Â minus Â the Â coping Â capacities Â (Map Â B2, Â left Â fold-Â out Â page Â of Â the Â cover). Adaptive capacities In Â contrast Â to Â coping, Â adaptation Â is Â under-Â stood Â as Â a Â long-Âterm Â process Â that Â also Â includes Â structural Â changes Â (cf. Â Lavell Â et Â al. Â 2012;Íž Â Birkmann Â 2010). Â In Â addition, Â adaptation Â encompasses Â measures Â and Â strategies Â dealing Â with Â and Â attempting Â to Â address Â the Â negative Â impacts Â of Â natural Â hazards Â and Â climate Â change Â in Â the Â future. Â Five Â sub-Âcategories Â have Â been Â chosen Â for Â calculation Â that Â describe Â capacities Â for Â a Â long-Âterm Â adaptation Â and Â change Â within Â a Â society: Â â€œeducation Â and Â researchâ€?, Â â€œgender Â equityâ€?, Â â€œenvironmental Â status/ecosystem Â protectionâ€?, Â â€œadaptation Â strategiesâ€? Â and Â â€œin-Â YHVWPHQWVÂ´2ZLQJWRLQVXIÂżFLHQWJOREDOGDWD )LJXUHVKRZVWKHVHÂżYHVXEFDWHJRULHVDQG the Â eleven Â selected Â indicators Â (A-ÂK) Â as Â well Â as Â their Â corresponding Â weightings. Â The Â sub-Âcat-Â egory Â of Â adaptation Â strategies Â (marked Â grey) Â could Â not Â be Â integrated Â into Â the Â calculations Â either. Â In Â analogy Â to Â the Â coping Â capacities, Â the Â lack Â of Â adaptive Â capacities Â is Â included Â in Â the Â WorldRiskIndex Â (Map Â B3, Â left Â fold-Âout Â page Â of Â the Â cover). Â
WorldRiskReport 2012 ] 15
WorldRiskIndex -XVWOLNHLQWKHÂżUVW:RUOG5LVN5HSRUW the Â WorldRiskIndex Â is Â calculated Â by Â combin-Â ing Â the Â four Â individually Â calculated Â compo-Â nents Â of Â exposure, Â susceptibility, Â lack Â of Â cop-Â ing Â capacities Â and Â lack Â of Â adaptive Â capacities Â (see Â Figure Â 2). Â In Â this Â context, Â the Â susceptibil-Â ity, Â the Â lack Â of Â coping Â capacities Â and Â the Â lack Â of Â adaptive Â capacities Â describe Â the Â societal Â elements Â of Â the Â risk, Â and Â combined, Â they Â yield Â the Â vulnerability Â index. Â The Â latter Â indicates Â whether Â a Â disaster Â may Â actually Â ensue Â should Â an Â extreme Â natural Â event Â occur. Â The Â vulnera-Â bility Â index Â (Map Â B, Â right Â fold-Âout Â page Â of Â the Â cover) Â multiplied Â by Â the Â exposure Â index Â (Map Â $ \LHOGVWKH:RUOG5LVN,QGH[0DS&DQG Diagram Â on Â pages Â 24/25). WorldRiskIndex as a communicating instrument The Â WorldRiskReport Â 2011 Â was Â focused Â on Â in Â at Â least Â 450 Â press Â articles Â and Â reports Â in Â more Â than Â 30 Â countries. Â More Â than Â 300 Â articles Â
DSSHDUHGLQ*HUPDQ\DORQH%XWQRWRQO\GLG the Â WorldRiskReport Â 2011 Â enjoy Â considerable Â press Â coverage, Â it Â was Â also Â given Â much Â DWWHQWLRQDQGUHĂ€HFWHGLQSROLWLFVVFLHQFH DQGFLYLOVRFLHW\7KHGLVFXVVLRQVFRQÂżUPWKH VLJQLÂżFDQFHRIVRFLDOYXOQHUDELOLW\DVDNH\ factor Â in Â lowering Â disaster Â risks Â due Â to Â natural Â hazards Â and Â climate Â change. Â In Â addition, Â there Â have Â also Â been Â controversial Â debates Â over Â the Â good Â values Â that Â some Â Middle Â East Â states Â scored Â in Â comparison Â to Â the Â hotspots Â in Â /DWLQ$PHULFD)RUH[DPSOHUHJDUGLQJ&KLOH the Â opinion Â was Â held Â that Â the Â very Â high Â risk Â FDWHJRU\ZDVXQMXVWLÂżHGVLQFH&KLOHJHQHUDOO\ had Â good Â coping Â and Â adaptive Â capacities Â and Â bore Â a Â low Â level Â of Â susceptibility Â thanks Â to Â its Â experiences Â with Â disasters Â in Â the Â wake Â of Â extreme Â natural Â events. Â Interestingly, Â in Â some Â cases, Â the Â discussion Â in Â the Â press Â and Â in Â SROLWLFVOHGEDFNWRVFLHQFHDQGVSHFLÂżFDOO\ to Â decision-Âmakers Â such Â as Â the Â national Â authority Â for Â disaster Â preparedness Â in Â the Â Philippines, Â which Â uses Â the Â Index Â and Â the Â Report Â to Â draw Â attention Â to Â the Â relevance Â of Â disaster Â preparedness. Â Â
2.2 Updating and modifying the indicators
s Â shown Â above, Â the Â WorldRiskIndex Â comprises Â 28 Â indicators Â that Â are Â available Â worldwide. Â All Â the Â 28 Â indicators Â referred Â to Â in Â the Â following Â are Â described Â in Â GHWDLOLQVSHFLÂżFWHPSODWHV,QFDOFXODWLQJ the Â WorldRiskIndex Â 2012, Â 26 Â of Â the Â 28 Â indicators Â have Â been Â updated, Â while Â the Â same Â data Â apply Â for Â the Â remaining Â ones Â as Â did Â last Â year. Â The Â templates Â for Â the Â indicators Â and Â the Â latest Â available Â data Â sets Â as Â well Â as Â their Â sources Â in Â comparison Â to Â the Â data Â from Â the Â 2011 Â Index Â are Â listed Â in Â tables Â at Â the Â website Â www.WorldRiskReport.org.
16 [ WorldRiskReport 2012
Exposure to natural hazards In Â the Â WorldRiskIndex, Â the Â data Â on Â exposure Â has Â been Â updated Â regarding: + Indicator A: Earthquakes + Indicator B: &\FORQHV + Indicator C: Floods + Indicator E: Sea Â level Â rise. Â Exposure Â to Â sea Â level Â rise Â (Indicator Â E) Â has Â been Â newly Â calculated Â since Â more Â recent Â population Â statistics Â are Â available Â with Â a Â better Â
VSDWLDOVROXWLRQ&,(6,1 )RUH[SRVXUH to Â drought Â (Indicator Â D), Â the Â data Â have Â been Â taken Â from Â the Â WorldRiskIndex Â 2011, Â since Â the Â authors Â hold Â the Â opinion Â that Â these Â data Â bear Â less Â uncertainty Â than Â the Â more Â up-Âto-Âdate Â data Â available Â in Â the Â data Â bank Â on Â exposure Â to Â drought. Â Â
+ Indicator E: Insurances. Â
([WHQVLYHPRGLÂżFDWLRQVKDYHEHHQPDGH to Â the Â component Â adaptive Â capacities. Â For Â one Â thing, Â data Â has Â been Â updated Â for Â all Â Indicators: Â Â + Indicator A: Adult Â literacy Â rate + Indicator B: &RPELQHGJURVVVFKRRO enrolment + Indicator C: *HQGHUSDULW\LQHGXFDWLRQ + Indicator D: Share Â of Â female Â representatives Â in Â the Â National Â Parliament Â + Indicator E: Water Â resources + Indicator F: Biodiversity Â and Â habitat Â protection + Indicator G: Forest Â management + Indicator H: Agricultural Â management Â + Indicator I: Public Â health Â expenditure Â + Indicator J: Life Â expectancy + Indicator K: Private Â health Â expenditure. Â
Within Â the Â component Â of Â susceptibility, Â 6 Â out Â of Â 7 Â indicators Â have Â been Â updated: Â + Indicator A: Share Â of Â population Â without Â access Â to Â improved Â sanitation + Indicator B: Share Â of Â population Â without Â access Â to Â clean Â water + Indicator C: Share Â of Â population Â undernourished + Indicator D: Share Â of Â under Â 15-Â Â and Â over Â 65-Âyear-Âolds Â in Â the Â working Â population + Indicator F: *URVVGRPHVWLFSURGXFWSHU capita Â (purchasing Â power Â parity) + Indicator G: *LQLLQGH[ However, Â new Â values Â are Â only Â available Â for Â some Â of Â the Â countries Â regarding Â Indicator Â *WKHGLVWULEXWLRQRIDVVHWVRULQFRPH*LQL index). Â No Â updated Â values Â are Â available Â in Â the Â data Â banks Â for Â Indicator Â E, Â the Â share Â of Â population Â living Â on Â less Â than Â USD Â 1.25 Â per Â day Â (purchasing Â power Â parity). Â This Â is Â why Â here, Â the Â data Â from Â the Â WorldRiskIndex Â 2011 Â have Â once Â again Â been Â used. Coping capacities All Â the Â indicators Â of Â the Â component Â coping Â capacities Â have Â been Â updated: Â Â + Indicator A: Perception Â of Â corruption + Indicator B: *RRGJRYHUQDQFH + Indicator C: Number Â of Â physicians Â per Â 10,000 Â inhabitants + Indicator D: Number Â of Â hospital Â beds Â per Â 10,000 Â inhabitants Â
+RZHYHUOLNHZLWKWKH*LQLLQGH[QHZGDWD RQPHGLFDOVHUYLFHV,QGLFDWRUV&DQG' LVQRW available Â for Â all Â countries. Â Â Adaptive capacities
+HUHWRRKRZHYHUDVZLWKWKH*LQLLQGH[WKH restriction Â applies Â that Â the Â latest Â and Â new Â data Â are Â not Â available Â for Â all Â countries Â (Indicators Â $%&' 0RGLÂżFDWLRQVRIWKHGDWDEDVH in Â the Â sub-Âcategory Â environmental Â status/ ecosystems Â protection Â within Â the Â individual Â LQGLFDWRUV()*+ UHSUHVHQWDIXUWKHU major Â change Â that Â also Â applies Â retrospectively Â to Â the Â previous Â years. Â The Â indicators Â have Â been Â taken Â from Â the Â Environmental Â Performance Â Index Â 2012, Â which Â has Â undergone Â methodological Â redevelopments Â DQGWKHUHIRUHSURYLGHVDPRGLÂżHGGDWDEDVH and Â weighting Â for Â the Â indicators Â (for Â details Â see Â Emerson Â et Â al. Â 2012).
WorldRiskReport 2012 ] 17
2.3 Risk assessment at global level for 2012
ur Â core Â statement Â is Â that Â a Â countryâ€™s Â exposure Â to Â a Â natural Â hazard Â and Â the Â effects Â of Â climate Â change Â is Â not Â the Â only Â factor Â responsible Â for Â the Â disaster Â risk, Â but Â that Â rather, Â it Â is Â also Â the Â social Â framework Â conditions Â and Â capacities Â to Â take Â action Â WKDWDUHUHĂ€HFWHGLQVXVFHSWLELOLW\FRSLQJ capacities Â and Â adaptive Â capacities. Â These Â three Â components Â describe Â a Â societyâ€™s Â vulnerability Â and Â can Â shed Â light Â on Â whether Â the Â occurrence Â of Â an Â extreme Â natural Â event Â can Â result Â in Â a Â disaster. Â Here, Â however, Â it Â has Â to Â be Â borne Â in Â mind Â that Â the Â results Â of Â the Â WorldRiskIndex Â describe Â a Â potential Â risk Â at Â macro Â level Â and Â cannot Â forecast Â individual Â events Â and Â disasters. Â WorldRiskIndex Also Â in Â 2012, Â Vanuatu Â is Â the Â country Â with Â the Â largest Â disaster Â risk Â worldwide, Â followed Â E\7RQJDWKH3KLOLSSLQHV*XDWHPDODDQG Bangladesh. Â The Â WorldRiskIndex Â 2012 Â shows Â that Â these Â countries Â bear Â the Â disastrous Â combination Â of Â extreme Â exposure Â and Â high Â vulnerability. Â The Â WorldRiskIndex Â 2012 Â is Â the Â product Â of Â exposure Â and Â vulnerability. Â The Â individual Â values Â for Â 173 Â countries Â are Â given Â in Â the Â detailed Â table Â in Â the Â Annex. Â For Â a Â graphic Â UHSUHVHQWDWLRQVHH0DS&RQWKHIROGRXW page Â of Â the Â cover Â and Â the Â map Â of Â the Â world Â on Â pages Â 24/25. Eleven Â of Â the Â countries Â bearing Â the Â greatest Â risk Â are Â also Â among Â the Â top Â 15 Â of Â the Â most Â exposed Â countries. Â But Â the Â examples Â of Â Japan Â (ranking Â 4th Â in Â terms Â of Â exposure) Â and Â the Â Netherlands Â (ranking Â 12th Â in Â exposure) Â show Â that Â exposure Â to Â natural Â hazards Â and Â climate Â change Â alone Â need Â not Â imply Â an Â especially Â high Â disaster Â risk. Â The Â Netherlands Â and Â
18 [ WorldRiskReport 2012
Japan Â show Â similarly Â high Â exposure Â values Â to Â natural Â hazards Â as Â Bangladesh Â (ranking Â 10th Â in Â exposure), Â but Â with Â low Â vulnerability Â values Â (27.76 Â for Â the Â Netherlands, Â 29.46 Â for Â Japan), Â they Â can Â lower Â the Â risk Â value Â (to Â 8.48, Â giving Â the Â Netherlands Â rank Â 51, Â and Â to Â 13.53 Â and Â rank Â 16 Â for Â Japan). Â Thus Â it Â is Â owing Â to Â the Â social, Â economic, Â ecological Â and Â institutional Â conditions Â in Â a Â society Â that Â one Â country Â will Â be Â vulnerable Â while Â another Â will Â not. Â For Â example, Â while Â de Â facto, Â no Â extreme Â poverty Â exists Â in Â the Â Netherlands, Â almost Â half Â of Â the Â population Â of Â Bangladesh Â (49.60 Â percent) Â have Â to Â survive Â on Â less Â than Â USD Â 1.25 Â a Â day. Â Whereas Â in Â the Â Netherlands, Â public Â infrastructure Â is Â very Â well Â developed, Â governance Â is Â transparent Â and Â in Â accordance Â with Â democratic Â principles, Â and Â there Â are Â 39 Â physicians Â per Â 100,000 Â inhabitants Â on Â average, Â Bangladesh Â has Â a Â mere Â three Â physicians Â per Â 10,000 Â inhabitants, Â the Â country Â shows Â poor Â values Â for Â governance, Â DQGHYHU\ÂżIWKLQKDELWDQWODFNVDFFHVVWRFOHDQ drinking Â water. Â The 15 countries with the highest risk Rank 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.
Country Vanuatu Tonga Philippines Guatemala Bangladesh Solomon Islands Costa Rica Cambodia Timor-Leste El Salvador Brunei Darussalam Papua New Guinea Mauritius Nicaragua Fiji
WorldRiskIndex (%) 36.31 28.62 27.98 20.75 20.22 18.15 17.38 17.17 17.13 16.89 15.92 15.81 15.39 15.36 13.69
The Â Netherlands Â are Â also Â ahead Â of Â Bangladesh Â in Â terms Â of Â adaptive Â capacities: Â The Â literacy Â rate Â is Â much Â higher Â (Netherlands: Â 99 Â percent, Â %DQJODGHVKSHUFHQW VLJQLÂżFDQWO\ more Â people Â enjoy Â access Â to Â education Â (Netherlands: Â 99.4 Â percent, Â Bangladesh: Â 48.7 Â percent), Â the Â protection Â of Â biodiversity Â and Â habitats Â (index Â value Â 84.67 Â percent) Â and Â forest Â management Â (index Â value Â 95.32 Â SHUFHQW DUHSXWVLJQLÂżFDQWO\PRUHHPSKDVLV on Â in Â the Â Netherlands Â than Â in Â Bangladesh Â (23.57 Â percent Â for Â biodiversity Â protection Â and Â 81.39 Â percent Â for Â forest Â management). Â
strongly Â affected Â by Â earthquakes Â owing Â to Â their Â geographical Â location Â in Â the Â immediate Â proximity Â of Â the Â tectonic Â plate Â borders Â while Â the Â greatest Â threat Â to Â the Â Netherlands Â is Â the Â rise Â in Â sea Â level Â that Â has Â to Â be Â reckoned Â with. Â The Â latter Â also Â poses Â a Â threat Â to Â Vanuatu Â and Â Tonga, Â with Â the Â two Â island Â states Â additionally Â being Â exposed Â to Â storms Â and, Â especially, Â earthquakes. Â For Â Vanuatu, Â the Â model Â calculations Â from Â the Â PREVIEW Â data Â bank Â (http://preview.grid.unep.ch/) Â suggest Â that Â approx. Â 37 Â percent Â of Â the Â population Â are Â exposed Â to Â an Â earthquake Â threat. Â
Hence, Â only Â the Â interaction Â of Â high Â exposure Â and Â high Â vulnerability Â bears Â a Â high Â risk. Â Thus, Â as Â a Â rule, Â high Â vulnerability Â values Â will Â result Â in Â a Â greater Â risk, Â which Â is Â shown Â by Â the Â H[DPSOHVRI&DPERGLDDQG%DQJODGHVK,Q WHUPVRIH[SRVXUH&DPERGLDLVUDQNHGWK but Â owing Â to Â vulnerability Â values Â of Â 62.07, Â its Â overall Â risk Â gives Â it Â position Â 8. Â The Â situation Â for Â Bangladesh Â is Â comparable Â here. Â With Â its Â exposure Â ranked Â at Â 10 Â and Â with Â relatively Â high Â vulnerability Â values Â of Â 63.78, Â it Â attains Â an Â even Â higher Â risk Â value Â (rank Â 5). Â These Â examples Â KLJKOLJKWWKHLQĂ€XHQFHRIYXOQHUDELOLW\RQ a Â society Â regarding Â its Â potential Â to Â sustain Â considerable Â harm Â and Â damage Â in Â the Â event Â of Â natural Â hazards Â and Â climate Â change.
Although, Â for Â methodological Â reasons, Â exposure Â to Â sea Â level Â rise Â is Â only Â weighted Â half Â as Â strongly Â as Â exposure Â to Â earthquakes, Â F\FORQHVDQGĂ€RRGVVHDOHYHOULVHGRHV constitute Â a Â relevant Â factor. Â This Â also Â applies Â in Â particular Â to Â the Â Small Â Island Â Developing Â States Â (such Â as Â Vanuatu Â and Â Tonga) Â and Â the Â countries Â with Â a Â high Â population Â concentration Â in Â low-Âlying Â coastal Â areas Â (such Â as Â the Â Netherlands Â and Â Bangladesh). Â Overall, Â an Â estimated Â 13 Â percent Â of Â the Â global Â population Â live Â in Â coastal Â areas Â lying Â less Â than Â ten Â meters Â above Â sea Â level Â (UN-ÂHabitat Â 2011). Â This Â shows Â that Â the Â expected Â rise Â in Â sea Â level Â implies Â a Â considerable Â need Â for Â adaptation, Â
Exposure to natural hazards The Â world Â map Â of Â exposure Â (Map Â A, Â right Â fold-Âout Â page Â of Â the Â cover) Â shows Â Southeast Â $VLD&HQWUDO$PHULFDWKH3DFLÂżFLVODQGVDQG parts Â of Â Southeast Â Europe Â as Â global Â hotspot Â regions. Â It Â gives Â the Â populationâ€™s Â exposure Â to Â the Â natural Â hazards Â of Â earthquakes, Â cyclones, Â Ă€RRGVDQGGURXJKWVDQGWRDULVHLQVHDOHYHO of Â one Â metre. Â Eleven Â of Â the Â 15 Â most Â exposed Â countries Â are Â situated Â in Â the Â hotspot Â regions. Â Individual Â FRXQWULHVVXFKDV&KLOH-DSDQDQGWKH Netherlands Â are Â also Â highly Â exposed, Â with Â &KLOHDQG-DSDQEHLQJSRWHQWLDOO\YHU\
The 15 most exposed countries Rank 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.
Country Vanuatu Tonga Philippines Japan Costa Rica Brunei Darussalam Mauritius Guatemala El Salvador Bangladesh Chile Netherlands Solomon Islands Fiji Cambodia
Exposure (%) 63.66 55.27 52.46 45.91 42.61 41.10 37.35 36.30 32.60 31.70 30.95 30.57 29.98 27.71 27.65
WorldRiskReport 2012 ] 19
especially Â also Â in Â the Â regions Â and Â countries Â in Â which Â population Â growth Â has Â recently Â been Â registered Â in Â the Â low-Âlying Â coastal Â regions. Â Out Â of Â the Â European Â countries, Â in Â addition Â WRWKH1HWKHUODQGV*UHHFH6HUELDDQG Albania Â have Â also Â been Â included Â in Â the Â highest Â exposure Â class Â owing Â to Â their Â exposure Â to Â earthquakes Â and Â drought. The 15 most vulnerable countries Rank 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.
Country Eritrea Niger Chad Afghanistan Haiti Sierra Leone Liberia Mozambique Guinea Central African Republic Ethiopia Mali Burundi Nigeria Togo
Vulnerability (%) 75.35 75.17 74.74 74.32 73.54 72.20 71.74 71.37 71.05 70.69 70.21 69.76 69.32 68.70 68.39
Vulnerability The Â global Â vulnerability Â hotspot Â is Â in Â Africa, Â as Â shown Â by Â the Â vulnerability Â map Â (Map Â B, Â right Â fold-Âout Â page Â of Â the Â cover), Â which Â summarizes Â the Â components Â of Â susceptibility, Â the Â lack Â of Â coping Â capacities Â and Â the Â lack Â of Â adaptive Â capacities. Â 13 Â of Â the Â worldâ€™s Â 15 Â most Â vulnerable Â countries Â lie Â in Â Africa. Â These Â countries Â bear Â both Â a Â very Â high Â susceptibility Â and, Â partly, Â very Â low Â coping Â and Â adaptive Â capacities. Â Afghanistan Â and Â Haiti Â complete Â the Â table Â of Â vulnerability Â at Â positions Â 4 Â and Â 5. Â Additionally, Â Yemen, Â Pakistan Â and Â Bangladesh, Â for Â example, Â have Â to Â be Â regarded Â as Â particularly Â vulnerable. Â ,Q&HQWUDO$PHULFD*XDWHPDOD+RQGXUDV and Â Nicaragua Â in Â particular Â are Â characterized Â
20 [ WorldRiskReport 2012
by Â a Â high Â level Â of Â vulnerability. Â Within Â Europe, Â Bosnia Â and Â Herzegovina, Â Albania Â and Â Moldavia Â are Â the Â most Â vulnerable Â countries, Â although Â on Â a Â global Â scale, Â these Â countries Â ought Â to Â be Â regarded Â more Â as Â moderately Â YXOQHUDEOH+RZHYHUFRPSDUHGWR*HUPDQ\ for Â example, Â they Â do Â show Â high Â values Â in Â all Â three Â components: Â higher Â susceptibility Â values Â (for Â example Â Bosnia Â and Â Herzegovina: Â SHUFHQW*HUPDQ\SHUFHQW D greater Â lack Â of Â coping Â capacities Â (Bosnia Â DQG+HU]HJRYLQDSHUFHQW*HUPDQ\ 38.58 Â percent) Â and Â lower Â values Â for Â adaptive Â capacities Â (Bosnia Â and Â Herzegovina: Â 48.58 Â SHUFHQW*HUPDQ\SHUFHQW Susceptibility The Â countries Â of Â the Â Sahel Â and Â in Â the Â tropical Â regions Â of Â Africa Â show Â a Â very Â high Â level Â of Â susceptibility Â (Map Â B1, Â left Â fold-Âout Â page Â of Â WKHFRYHU 7KLVLVDOVRUHĂ€HFWHGLQWKHOLVWRI the Â 15 Â most Â susceptible Â countries Â worldwide, Â which, Â alongside Â Haiti Â (position Â 8) Â contains Â 14 Â African Â countries. Â In Â the Â cases Â of Â Mozambique Â and Â Tanzania, Â the Â countries Â at Â positions Â 1 Â and Â 2, Â the Â enormous Â level Â of Â susceptibility Â is, Â for Â example, Â apparent Â in Â the Â poor Â values Â in Â the Â area Â of Â public Â infrastructure. Â In Â Mozambique, Â The 15 most susceptible countries Rank 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.
Country Mozambique Tanzania Eritrea Liberia Niger Chad Madagascar Haiti Sierra Leone Burundi Zambia Central African Republic Ethiopia Rwanda Zimbabwe
Susceptibility (%) 67.63 67.34 66.62 65.11 64.87 64.69 64.39 62.70 62.48 61.99 61.81 61.52 58.93 58.47 58.45
less Â than Â half Â of Â the Â population Â has Â access Â to Â FOHDQZDWHUDQGRQO\HYHU\ÂżIWKLQGLYLGXDOKDV access Â to Â improved Â sanitation. Â In Â Tanzania, Â just Â ten Â percent Â of Â the Â population Â has Â access Â to Â improved Â sanitation. Â In Â addition, Â in Â both Â countries, Â more Â than Â three Â quarters Â of Â the Â population Â live Â in Â extreme Â poverty, Â and Â 38 Â percent Â of Â the Â population Â in Â Mozambique Â and Â 34 Â percent Â in Â Tanzania Â are Â undernourished. Â The Â international Â community Â has Â to Â provide Â special Â support Â for Â Africa, Â the Â global Â hotspot Â of Â susceptibility Â to Â natural Â hazards Â and Â climate Â change, Â with Â special Â support Â to Â reduce Â this Â susceptibility. Â Â However, Â poverty Â and Â poor Â living Â conditions Â have Â also Â brought Â Afghanistan Â (position Â 18) Â DQG3DSXD1HZ*XLQHDSRVLWLRQ LQWRWKH highest Â susceptibility Â class. Â On Â a Â European Â scale, Â Romania Â and Â Moldavia Â come Â off Â worst, Â for Â here, Â not Â all Â people, Â as Â would Â be Â the Â usual Â case Â in Â the Â rest Â of Â Europe, Â have Â access Â to Â improved Â sanitation Â and Â clean Â water. Â Also, Â measured Â in Â terms Â of Â the Â gross Â domestic Â SURGXFW*'3 SHUFDSLWDSXUFKDVLQJSRZHU parity), Â economic Â performance Â tends Â to Â be Â poor Â compared Â with Â the Â rest Â of Â Europe, Â with Â Moldavia Â at Â USD Â 3,110 Â a Â year Â and Â Romania Â at Â USD Â 14,287 Â a Â year. Â By Â comparison, Â per Â capita Â *'3LV86'D\HDULQ*HUPDQ\ Lack of coping capacities The Â cartographic Â representation Â of Â the Â lack Â of Â coping Â capacities Â (Map Â B2, Â left Â fold-Âout Â page Â of Â the Â cover) Â reveals Â that Â the Â countries Â with Â low Â capacities Â and Â resources Â for Â a Â disaster Â event Â are Â mainly Â concentrated Â in Â the Â African Â continent, Â with Â Afghanistan Â (position Â 1), Â Haiti Â (position Â 4), Â Myanmar Â (position Â 6), Â Yemen Â (position Â 9) Â and Â Iraq Â (position Â 10) Â belonging Â to Â the Â top Â 15 Â list Â of Â countries Â with Â the Â greatest Â lack Â of Â coping Â capacities. Â Almost Â always, Â governance Â indicators Â are Â particularly Â alarming: Â here, Â poor Â values Â in Â the Â area Â of Â corruption Â and Â governance Â clearly Â show Â that Â
The 15 countries with the lowest coping capacities Rank 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.
Country Lack of coping capacities (%) Afghanistan 92.07 Chad 91.80 Sudan 91.70 Haiti 90.43 Guinea 90.16 Myanmar 89.82 Burundi 89.53 Central African Republic 89.44 Yemen 88.92 Iraq 88.83 Niger 88.73 CĂ´te dâ€™Ivoire 88.55 Guinea-Bissau 88.48 Ethiopia 88.34 Uganda 88.11
should Â an Â extreme Â natural Â event Â occur, Â the Â states Â and Â governmental Â institutions Â have Â only Â few Â functioning Â capacities Â of Â their Â own Â owing Â to Â a Â lack Â of Â coordinating Â institutions Â such Â DVLQ*HUPDQ\WKHÂł7HFKQLVFKHV+LOIVZHUNÂ´ 7+:Âą*HUPDQ)HGHUDO$JHQF\IRU7HFKQLFDO Relief) Â to Â be Â able Â to Â provide Â effective Â help Â for Â people Â in Â emergencies. Â Moreover, Â if Â a Â natural Â hazard Â occurs, Â only Â few Â people Â have Â the Â RSSRUWXQLW\WREHQHÂżWIURPZHOOGHYHORSHG healthcare. Â Â Within Â Europe, Â the Â countries Â of Â Albania, Â Bosnia Â and Â Moldavia Â tend Â to Â show Â poor Â values Â for Â coping Â capacities, Â which Â is Â partly Â due Â to Â poorer Â insurance Â against Â natural Â hazards Â in Â these Â countries. Lack of adaptive capacities The Â cartographic Â representation Â of Â the Â lack Â of Â adaptive Â capacities Â (Map Â B3, Â left Â fold-Âout Â page Â of Â the Â cover) Â shows Â clearly Â recognizable Â hotspot Â regions Â in Â the Â Southeast Â Asian Â area, Â with Â India Â at Â the Â centre, Â and Â in Â West Â Africa Â DQGSDUWVRI&HQWUDO$IULFD,QDGGLWLRQ two Â further Â but Â smaller Â hotspot Â regions Â can Â EHLGHQWLÂżHGLQ(DVW$IULFDZLWK(WKLRSLD and Â Eritrea, Â and Â in Â the Â southern Â part, Â
WorldRiskReport 2012 ] 21
The 15 countries with the lowest adaptive capacities Rank 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.
Country Afghanistan Eritrea Niger Mali Chad Haiti Mauritania Sierra Leone Pakistan Guinea Burkina Faso Liberia Ethiopia Comoros Benin
Lack of adaptive capacities (%) 74.26 72.68 71.93 69.85 67.74 67.48 67.07 66.64 65.35 64.91 64.32 64.22 63.37 63.30 63.00
0DGDJDVFDUWKH&RPRURV0R]DPELTXHDQG Lesotho. Â Haiti Â and Â Yemen Â also Â show Â massive Â problems Â regarding Â their Â adaptive Â capacities. Â In Â contrast, Â Thailand, Â Malaysia Â and Â the Â Phil-Â ippines Â are Â conspicuously Â positive. Â Thanks Â to Â their Â favorable Â scoring Â in Â the Â categories Â â€œed-Â ucation Â and Â researchâ€?, Â â€œenvironmental Â status Â and Â ecosystems Â protectionâ€? Â and Â â€œgender Â par-Â ityâ€?, Â the Â Philippines Â in Â particular, Â which Â are Â ranked Â as Â high Â regarding Â susceptibility Â and Â their Â lack Â of Â coping Â capacities, Â have Â attained Â a Â quite Â good Â result. Â The Â reason Â why, Â for Â example, Â Eritrea Â should Â be Â the Â country Â with Â the Â second Â poorest Â adaptive Â capacities Â can Â be Â demonstrated Â well Â in Â a Â comparison Â with Â Iceland: Â Whereas Â Iceland Â can Â boast Â a Â very Â high Â literacy Â rate Â (99 Â percent) Â and Â really Â good Â education Â participation Â among Â the Â population Â (95.9 Â percent), Â the Â literacy Â rate Â in Â Eritrea Â is Â just Â 66 Â percent, Â and Â education Â participation Â is Â at Â RQO\SHUFHQW&RUUHVSRQGLQJO\HYHQZLWK similar Â exposure Â to Â natural Â hazards Â and Â sea Â level Â rise, Â structurally, Â Eritrea Â is Â in Â a Â much Â poorer Â position Â to Â develop Â adaptive Â capacities Â systematically Â and Â on Â a Â long-Âterm Â basis, Â for Â example Â through Â well-Âtrained Â specialists. Â
22 [ WorldRiskReport 2012
Furthermore, Â public Â and Â private Â health Â expenditure Â highlights Â the Â great Â disparity Â between Â the Â two Â countries Â in Â the Â area Â of Â adaptive Â capacities. Â In Â Iceland, Â public Â health Â expenditure Â in Â 2009 Â amounted Â to Â USD Â 2,546 Â per Â capita, Â and Â private Â expenditure Â to Â USD Â 548. Â In Â Eritrea, Â by Â contrast, Â a Â mere Â USD Â 6 Â per Â capita Â was Â spent Â by Â the Â state Â and Â USD Â 7 Â privately Â on Â the Â area Â of Â health. Â Although, Â obviously, Â the Â healthcare Â model Â of Â the Â so-Â called Â western Â countries Â can Â be Â questioned, Â too, Â these Â dimensions Â show Â the Â massive Â differences Â between Â the Â two Â countries Â regard Â present Â adaptive Â capacities. Discussion of results The Â calculations Â and Â results Â of Â the Â WorldRiskIndex Â 2012 Â show Â that Â a Â complex Â issue Â can Â be Â reduced Â to Â an Â index Â value, Â which Â also Â means Â that Â such Â an Â index Â can Â be Â used Â as Â a Â communicating Â instrument Â by Â politics Â and Â WKHSXEOLF7KLVZDVDOVRFRQÂżUPHGE\WKH positive Â response Â that Â the Â publication Â of Â the Â WorldRiskIndex Â 2011 Â met Â with, Â which Â was Â addressed Â in Â more Â than Â 450 Â media Â reports Â worldwide. Â On Â the Â other Â hand, Â the Â updates Â DQGPRGLÂżFDWLRQVRIWKH,QGH[GHVFULEHGLQ &KDSWHUDOVRVKRZWKHOLPLWVRIVXFKD tool. Â For Â example, Â data Â availability Â and Â data Â quality Â are Â crucial Â to Â the Â quality Â of Â the Â Index Â (Freudenberg Â 2003, Â Meyer Â 2004), Â too. Â 2ZLQJWRWKHPRGLÂżFDWLRQRIVRPHLQGLFDWRUV the Â results Â of Â the Â WorldRiskIndex Â 2012 Â cannot Â directly Â be Â compared Â with Â all Â the Â items Â of Â the Â WorldRiskIndex Â 2011. Â For Â example, Â for Â calculating Â exposure Â to Â sea Â level Â rise, Â a Â new, Â improved Â data Â base Â has Â been Â used Â giving Â a Â better Â spatial Â resolution Â of Â population Â GDWDJOREDOO\0RGLÂżFDWLRQVLQWKHDUHDV of Â other Â components, Â such Â as Â the Â area Â of Â environmental Â status Â /ecosystems Â protection, Â do Â not Â allow Â any Â direct Â comparisons Â with Â the Â previous Â report, Â either. Â The Â differences Â in Â the Â data Â situation Â can Â be Â highlighted Â by Â comparing Â the Â examples Â of Â
Bangladesh Â and Â the Â Netherlands. Â Thanks Â to Â the Â more Â recent Â and Â precise Â data, Â a Â difference Â in Â the Â result Â of Â exposure Â to Â sea Â level Â rise Â of Â just Â under Â 80,000 Â people Â for Â Bangladesh Â and Â half Â a Â million Â people Â for Â the Â Netherlands Â is Â obtained. Â Thus Â the Â exposure Â value Â rises Â for Â both Â countries Â (from Â 27.52 Â to Â 31.70 Â percent Â for Â Bangladesh Â and Â from Â 29.24 Â to Â 30.57 Â percent Â for Â the Â Netherlands). Â 2ZLQJWRWKHPRGLÂżFDWLRQVRIWKHGDWD LQWKHÂżHOGRIHQYLURQPHQWDOSURWHFWLRQ ecosystems Â protection Â referred Â to Â above, Â the Â lack Â of Â adaptive Â capacities Â for Â Bangladesh Â increases Â by Â 2.25 Â percentage Â points, Â and Â for Â the Â Netherlands Â by Â 3.84 Â percentage Â points. Â This Â strong Â increase Â in Â exposure Â cannot Â be Â traced Â back Â accurately Â to Â processes Â of Â change Â in Â the Â country Â but Â results Â from Â a Â better Â data Â situation. Â For Â this Â reason, Â great Â care Â has Â to Â be Â taken Â in Â directly Â comparing Â the Â individual Â index Â values Â with Â those Â of Â the Â WorldRiskIndex Â 2011. Â Nevertheless, Â bearing Â these Â uncertainties Â and Â framework Â conditions Â in Â mind, Â the Â rankings Â of Â last Â yearâ€™s Â and Â this Â yearâ€™s Â Index Â may Â be Â critically Â viewed Â provided Â that Â they Â are Â related Â to Â trends Â rather Â than Â changes Â in Â GHWDLOVSHUFRXQWU\*HQHUDOO\DFFRUGLQJWR Freudenberg Â (2003), Â it Â applies Â that Â changes Â in Â indices Â over Â a Â short Â or Â limited Â period Â are Â GLIÂżFXOWWRLQWHUSUHWVLQFHGDWDTXDOLW\DQG data Â relevance Â will Â partly Â differ Â considerably Â in Â the Â individual Â indicators. Â In Â order Â to Â achieve Â optimum Â comparability, Â all Â indicators Â would Â have Â to Â have Â the Â same Â data Â source Â for Â all Â countries, Â i.e. Â a Â uniform Â year Â of Â reference Â and Â a Â uniform Â method Â of Â establishing Â the Â data. Â However, Â this Â cannot Â be Â put Â into Â practice, Â which Â is Â why Â only Â an Â estimate Â can Â be Â made Â with Â the Â data Â used. Â Nevertheless, Â the Â results Â of Â the Â WorldRiskIndex Â 2012 Â show Â that, Â as Â demonstrated Â by Â the Â examples Â of Â Bangladesh Â and Â the Â Netherlands, Â countries Â with Â a Â similarly Â high Â level Â of Â exposure Â to Â natural Â hazards Â and Â climate Â change Â impacts Â can Â minimize Â their Â risk Â (Netherlands: Â
8.48 Â percent Â and Â Bangladesh: Â 20.22 Â percent) Â through Â lower Â social Â vulnerability Â (Netherlands: Â 27.76 Â percent, Â Bangladesh: Â 63.78 Â percent). Â *HQHUDOO\DPRUHVLJQLÂżFDQWSHUVLVWHQFHRI problems Â can Â be Â observed Â in Â the Â countries Â of Â Africa Â and Â Southeast Â Asia. Â This Â means Â that Â several Â countries Â which Â were Â already Â identi-Â ÂżHGDVKLJKULVNDUHDVLQWKH:RUOG5LVN5HSRUW 2011 Â have Â again Â been Â ranked Â high Â in Â the Â :RUOG5LVN5HSRUW0RUHVLJQLÂżFDQW changes Â can Â only Â be Â expected Â over Â a Â longer Â SHULRGRIWLPH,QDZD\WKLVUHĂ€HFWVGH-Â velopment Â cooperation. Â For Â development Â cooperation Â too, Â a Â long-Âterm Â effort Â is Â needed Â before Â any Â progress Â can Â be Â measured Â on Â a Â world Â scale. Â In Â order Â for Â these Â changes Â to Â lead Â to Â positive Â results Â and Â the Â risk Â to Â decrease Â for Â the Â particularly Â vulnerable Â sections Â of Â the Â population, Â the Â fateful Â cycle Â of Â environmental Â destruction, Â poverty Â and Â disaster Â risk Â has Â to Â be Â broken Â by Â integrated Â measures Â at Â local, Â national Â and Â international Â level. Â
WorldRiskReport 2012 ] 23
26 [ WorldRiskReport 2012
3. Focus: Environmental degradation and disasters
Hundreds of thousands of trees toppled by a severe hurricane are a visible sign of environmental destruction wrought by a disaster. And ÀRRGHGFRDVWDOYLOODJHVDQGZDVKHGDZD\EHDFKHVZKRVHQDWXUDO protective belt of mangroves has been chopped down in pursuit of economic interests are, in turn, a sign of the considerably greater risk in the wake of a natural disaster where the natural environment has been destroyed. There is an interactive link between environmental destruction and disasters that many examples can serve to describe. But so far, these insights have been given too little attention by politics and science. WorldRiskReport 2012 ] 27
3.1 Environmental degradation as a risk factor Torsten Welle, Michael W. Beck, Peter Mucke
QWDFWHFRV\VWHPVFDQVLJQL¿FDQWO\UHGXFH disaster risk in four ways, corresponding to the components of the World Risk Index. + Forests and riparian wetlands or coastal ecosystems such as mangroves, coral reefs and sea-grass reduce exposure to natural hazards by acting as natural buffers and protective barriers that thus reduce the impacts of extreme natural events such as landslides or tidal waves. + When sustainably managed and in good condition, intact ecosystems such as grasslands, forests, rivers or coastal areas can reduce vulnerability. They contribute to nutrition, income and wellbeing. In addition to food, they can also provide medicine and building materials, or they can represent new sources of income, for example via nature-based tourism. Thus they support the livelihoods of inhabitants and supply essential goods. + Ecosystems can enhance coping capacity in the event of a disaster. For example, if supply lines are severed, food and fresh water can be obtained from the immediate environment when that environment is healthy and intact. + ( FRV\VWHPVDOVRGLUHFWO\LQÀXHQFHDGDSWLYH capacities. When the environment is in good condition, there is a greater diversity of future planning options. For example, in Haiti and other deforested and environmentally degraded areas, the RSSRUWXQLWLHVIRUGLYHUVL¿HGVWUDWHJLHVIRU reducing future vulnerability are greatly reduced. It is much easier to manage to reduce future risks when your natural
28 [ WorldRiskReport 2012
resources currently are viable and intact;; your choices simply are greater. The role of the ecosystems and the link between environmental degradation and the increased impact of disasters were clearly made in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) in 2005 particularly with UHJDUGVWRULVNVIURPÀRRGLQJDQGIRUHVW¿UHV This UN MA study also showed that 60 % of the ecosystems are not being sustainably used or are in a state of ongoing degradation (MA, 7KH81*OREDO$VVHVVPHQW5HSRUW RQ'LVDVWHU5LVN5HGXFWLRQLGHQWL¿HG environmental degradation and the decline of ecosystems as one of the chief factors raising the risk of disasters. However, scientists have only recently begun to systematically establish the extent to which HFRV\VWHPVKDYHDGLUHFWLQÀXHQFHRQGLVDVWHU risk. The Secretariat of the United Nations 2I¿FHIRU'LVDVWHU5LVN5HGXFWLRQ81,6'5 has applied the ecosystem approach and referred to the role of the environment and its buffering capacities vis-à-vis natural hazards several times in reports. It has called for detailed studies and analyses on an understanding of ecosystems and their LQÀXHQFHRQWKHUHGXFWLRQRIGLVDVWHUULVNV (UNEP/ISDR 2008). Here, there is still a considerable need for research and action. There are a large number of local and regional studies demonstrating that ecosystem functions and services and their sustainable management have a mitigating effect on disaster risk (PEDRR 2010, Sudmeier-Rieux et al. 2006). For example it is well known that agribusiness increases soil erosion and that deforestation increases risks of landslides (see &KDSWHU
As Â a Â rule, Â ecosystem Â functions Â are Â very Â FRPSOH[DQGWKHGLVDVWHUULVNLVLQĂ€XHQFHG by Â many Â factors. Â At Â the Â global Â level, Â available Â data Â so Â far Â allow Â for Â restricted Â statements Â on Â the Â quantitative Â link Â between Â environmental Â degradation Â and Â risk. Â A Â correlation Â has Â however Â been Â established Â between Â the Â IUHTXHQF\RIĂ€RRGLQJDQGGHIRUHVWDWLRQ %UDGVKDZHWDO ,Q&KDSWHURI this Â report, Â the Â link Â between Â the Â condition Â of Â coastal Â ecosystems Â and Â coastal Â hazard Â mitigation Â through Â wave Â attenuation Â and Â erosion Â reduction Â is Â examined Â globally. There Â are Â several Â reasons Â why Â we Â believe Â that Â LWLVGLIÂżFXOWWRÂżQGJOREDOFRUUHODWLRQVLQRYHU-Â DOOGHJUDGDWLRQDQGULVN)LUVWZHÂżQGWKDWWKH nature Â of Â the Â relationship Â depends Â strongly Â on Â the Â respective Â hazard Â and Â habitat Â type. Â And Â second, Â we Â believe Â that Â the Â global Â analysis Â re-Â quires Â higher Â resolution Â data Â of Â the Â type Â which Â are Â so Â far Â usually Â only Â available Â from Â local Â and Â regional Â surveys. Â Although Â there Â is Â an Â obvious Â need Â for Â further Â research Â in Â this Â area, Â there Â is Â ZLGHVSUHDGVFLHQWLÂżFHYLGHQFHVKRZLQJWKDW the Â state Â of Â the Â ecosystems Â has Â a Â profound Â impact Â on Â disaster Â risk. Increased disaster risk through environmental degradation There Â are Â numerous Â local-Â Â and Â regional-Âscale Â examples Â of Â the Â links Â between Â ecosystem Â condition Â and Â disaster Â risk. Â For Â example, Â the Â loss Â of Â ecosystems, Â such Â as Â the Â degradation Â of Â wetlands Â and Â mangroves Â along Â river Â courses, Â UHVXOWVLQLQFUHDVHGĂ€RRGLQJ7KLVOLQNKDV been Â demonstrated Â along Â the Â Mississippi Â 5LYHULQWKH86$+HUHWKHĂ€RRGZDWHUVWRUDJH capacity Â of Â the Â soil Â has Â fallen Â by Â 80 Â percent Â owing Â to Â the Â degradation Â of Â forest-Âcovered Â wetlands Â along Â the Â river Â through Â canal Â building Â measures, Â leveling Â and Â draining Â for Â GHYHORSPHQWSXUSRVHV0$&KDSWHU 16). Â In Â combination Â with Â severe Â precipitation, Â snowmelt Â and Â a Â low Â level Â of Â evaporation, Â the Â degradation Â of Â alluvial Â zones Â along Â the Â courses Â
of Â rivers, Â river Â regulation Â and Â the Â sealing Â of Â the Â land Â enhance Â surface Â runoff. 7KHUHVXOWLVDKLJKHUULVNRIĂ€RRGLQJVLQFH the Â ground Â and Â the Â vegetation Â can Â no Â longer Â absorb Â the Â water Â (Disse Â and Â Engel Â 2001). Â Furthermore, Â deforestation Â and Â crop Â farming Â RQVORSHVDOVROHDGWRDQLQFUHDVHLQĂ€RRGULVN since Â deforestation Â and Â agriculture Â in Â river Â catchment Â areas Â contribute Â to Â increased Â soil Â erosion Â and Â this Â in Â turn Â raises Â the Â sediment Â load Â in Â rivers. Â This Â process Â can Â result Â in Â the Â silting Â up Â of Â rivers, Â as Â has Â been Â demonstrated Â ZLWKWKHH[DPSOHVRIWKH*DQJHVDQGWKH Brahmaputra Â (Ali Â 2007). 7KHOLQNEHWZHHQGHIRUHVWDWLRQDQGĂ€RRGULVN has Â also Â been Â examined Â in Â several Â studies Â in Â experimental Â hydrological Â research. Â Deforestation Â raises Â the Â annual Â run-Âoff Â volume Â DQGPD[LPXPWKURXJKĂ€RZDQGUHGXFHVWKH evaporation Â rate. Â These Â properties Â cause Â an Â LQFUHDVHGĂ€RRGULVNVLQFHWKHQDWXUDOEXIIHULQJ capacity Â of Â the Â forest Â as Â an Â ecosystem Â is Â ORZHUHG$'3& 'HJUDGDWLRQRIWKLV kind Â can Â lead Â to Â a Â roughly Â fourfold Â increase Â LQWKHH[WHQWRIĂ€RRGLQJLQFRPSDULVRQWR riparian Â landscapes Â with Â intact, Â undisturbed Â vegetation Â cover Â (Atta-Âur-ÂRahman Â and Â Khan Â 2011). Â Marshes, Â mangrove Â forests, Â corals Â and Â sea-Âgrass Â beds Â have Â a Â direct Â impact Â on Â the Â disaster Â risk Â in Â coastal Â areas. Â For Â example, Â the Â alteration Â of Â wetlands Â in Â coastal Â watersheds Â H[DFHUEDWHGĂ€RRGLQJHYHQWVLQ)ORULGDDQG Texas Â (Brody Â et Â al. Â 2007). Â In Â looking Â at Â the Â impacts Â of Â cyclones Â at Â global Â level, Â the Â areas Â covered Â by Â even Â semi-Âaltered Â coastal Â ecosystems Â were Â correlated Â with Â lower Â human Â mortality Â (Perez-ÂMaqueo Â et Â al. Â 2007). Â The Â threat Â of Â a Â landslide Â is Â increased Â by Â severe Â precipitation, Â snowmelt, Â thawing Â of Â the Â ground, Â tremors Â due Â to Â earthquakes Â and, Â last Â but Â not Â least, Â loss Â of Â vegetation Â through Â DQWKURSRJHQLFLQĂ€XHQFH%$)8 Peduzzi Â (2010) Â examined Â the Â link Â between Â
WorldRiskReport 2012 ] 29
++ 23rd to 29th August 2005 ++ Hurricane Katrina in the USA Reaching speeds of more than 250 kilometers an hour, Hurricane Katrina at some points built to a category 5 hurricane (the strongest) and hit the Gulf Coast of the USA, especially Florida, Louisiana and Mississippi, as well as Alabama and Georgia. New Orleans was particularly severely affected. Causing more than 1,800 deaths, Hurricane Katrina was one of the five deadliest hurricanes in the history of the USA. Many coastal ecosystems were heavily damaged by Katrina and the follow-up Hurricane Rita, one month later. Louisianaâ€™s Chandeleur Islands lost around 85 percent of their surface area; these barrier islands were critical nesting and feeding grounds and their loss directly impacted hundreds of thousands birds from sandwich terns to brown pelicans. Through these storms and through saltwater intrusion inland, more than 570 square kilometers of marshland and coastal forests of the Gulf Coast were lost, which was on top of the already rapid decline of these coastal habitats.
++ 14th to 18th April 2006 ++ Sandstorms in China The sandstorms are a meteorological phenomenon that occurs in the months of the spring in China. Industrial pollution and an over-cultivation of the soil, deforestation and overgrazing are massively increasing their intensity and their impact. Owing to the storms, Chinaâ€™s deserts grow by up to 10 meters each year, which leads to a loss of fertile soil. Sandstorms also contain toxic harmful substances (sulfur, soot, ash, carbon monoxide) and heavy metals, which can result in an impairment of air, soil and water properties â€“ for instance through acid rain. Additionally, the heavy metals can cause sustained contamination of forage plants for animals as well as their habitats.
30 [ WorldRiskReport 2012
landslides Â and Â vegetation Â cover Â with Â reference Â to Â the Â earthquake Â in Â northern Â Pakistan Â in Â 2005. Â He Â used Â geological Â data Â for Â this Â purpose Â (such Â as Â remote Â sensing Â data Â like Â satellite Â images) Â from Â which Â the Â vegetation Â was Â deduced, Â digital Â elevation Â models, Â data Â on Â active Â earthquake Â zones Â and Â digital Â infrastructure Â data Â (roads Â and Â rivers), Â and Â he Â compiled Â a Â regression Â model. Â The Â result Â was Â that Â vegetation Â can Â reduce Â the Â occurrence Â of Â ODQGVOLGHVE\WKXVUHSUHVHQWLQJDVLJQLÂżFDQWULVN reducing Â component. Disasters as a cause of environmental destruction A Â number Â of Â local Â and Â regional Â studies Â deal Â with Â damage Â to Â ecosystems Â that Â has Â been Â caused Â by Â natural Â events. Â The Â state Â of Â the Â environment Â is Â examined Â before Â and Â immediately Â after Â the Â event Â â€“ Â usually Â with Â the Â aid Â of Â remote Â sensing Â data, Â provided Â that Â it Â is Â available Â in Â data Â banks. Â ,Q&KLQDDQDQDO\VLVRIVXUIDFHYHJHWDWLRQZDVFDUULHG out Â following Â the Â earthquake Â in Â Wenchuan Â (with Â a Â magnitude Â of Â 8.0) Â in Â May Â 2008. Â Degradation Â by Â the Â earthquake Â was Â at Â 22 Â percent. Â One Â of Â the Â phenomena Â resulting Â from Â the Â earthquake Â was Â a Â large Â number Â of Â landslides. Â However, Â after Â four Â months, Â the Â recovery Â level Â of Â the Â vegetation Â was Â already Â at Â almost Â 100 Â percent Â (Liu Â et Â al. Â 2010). In Â Thailand, Â following Â the Â tsunami Â in Â 2004, Â the Â H[WHQWRIGDPDJHWRÂżYHGLIIHUHQWIRUHVWHFRV\VWHPV was Â examined Â with Â the Â aid Â of Â high-Âresolution Â remote Â sensing Â data Â (Roemer Â et Â al. Â 2010). Â One Â aspect Â revealed Â here Â was Â that Â in Â the Â area Â examined, Â 55 Â percent Â of Â the Â mangrove Â forests Â had Â suffered Â immediate Â damage Â while Â others, Â such Â as Â tea Â tree Â forests, Â had Â only Â suffered Â a Â little Â damage. Â &\FORQHVFDQFDXVHFRQVLGHUDEOHGDPDJHWRHFRV\VWHPV )RUH[DPSOHWKURXJKRXWWKH*XOIRI0H[LFRF\FORQHV consistently Â destroy Â oyster Â reefs Â and Â beds Â to Â the Â extent Â that Â tens Â of Â millions Â of Â dollars Â have Â been Â spent Â in Â WKHSDVWGHFDGHWRKHOSUHYLYHR\VWHUÂżVKLQJJURXQGV IRUVPDOOVFDOHÂżVKLQJFRPPXQLWLHV&\FORQHVKDYH VHULRXVO\KDUPHGFRUDOUHHIVWKURXJKRXWWKH&DULEEHDQ including Â many Â of Â those Â that Â are Â extremely Â important Â to Â communities Â for Â tourism Â and Â diving. Â
,Q3DNLVWDQGDPDJHWRWKHHQYLURQPHQWFDXVHGE\Ă€RRGLQJ ZDVH[DPLQHG)RUQRWRQO\GRHVKHDY\Ă€RRGLQJOHDGWRD loss Â of Â livestock Â and Â harvests. Â Erosion Â processes Â do Â lasting Â harm Â to Â the Â topsoil, Â strongly Â affecting Â the Â livelihoods Â of Â people Â and Â resulting Â in Â an Â increase Â in Â vulnerability. Â +RZHYHUQRGHWDLOHGTXDQWLÂżFDWLRQRIGDPDJHLVDYDLODEOH (Atta-Âur-ÂRahman Â 2011). Â The Â warming Â of Â the Â oceans Â is Â already Â having Â dramatic Â effects Â on Â reefs Â and Â wetlands Â around Â the Â world. Â When Â sea Â surface Â temperature Â increases, Â coral Â reef Â ecosystems Â are Â badly Â impacted. Â In Â the Â 1998 Â El Â Nino Â ocean Â warming Â events, Â huge Â numbers Â of Â corals Â were Â killed Â throughout Â the Â Indian, Â 3DFLÂżFDQG&DULEEHDQVHDV7KHVHHYHQWVDUHSUHGLFWHGWREH much Â more Â common Â in Â the Â coming Â years. A Â large Â number Â of Â local Â and Â regional Â surveys Â demonstrate Â WKDWWKHHQYLURQPHQWGLUHFWO\LQĂ€XHQFHVGLVDVWHUULVN However, Â further Â examinations Â of Â case Â studies Â and Â country Â analyses Â are Â required Â to Â improve Â our Â understanding Â of Â these Â processes;Íž Â further Â we Â need Â better Â data Â for Â comprehensive Â global Â correlations. Â At Â the Â same Â time, Â it Â is Â important Â to Â enhance Â environmental Â conservation Â and Â sustainable Â environmental Â management Â from Â the Â local Â to Â the Â global Â level Â and Â actively Â integrate Â all Â these Â aspects Â into Â disaster Â preparedness.
++ July/August 2010 ++ Flooding in Pakistan The floods were caused by very heavy monsoon rainfalls and were aggravated by deforestation in the Himalayas. The water masses flooded 20 percent of Pakistanâ€™s area, affecting 21 million people. Food supplies and wide stretches of land used for agricultural purposes were rendered useless. More than 3.2 million hectares, which is just under 16 percent of the cultivable area, were destroyed. The availability of clean drinking water was dramatically reduced.
++ 11th March 2011 ++ Earthquake in Japan In the course of the Tohuku earthquake and the subsequent Tsunami, 15,860 people were killed, while a further 3,000 were reported lost. The quake hit the Japanese Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant, resulting in a core meltdown and the emission of radioactive material. This led to a contamination of the air, soil, rivers and lakes, and food (fruit, vegetables, livestock, fish and seafood) for several decades or even centuries.
WorldRiskReport 2012 ] 31
3.2 Coastal Habitats and Risk Reduction Michael W. Beck, Christine C. Shepard
he Â worldâ€™s Â coastal Â zones Â are Â changing Â rapidly Â and Â the Â rate Â of Â change Â is Â predicted Â to Â increase Â from Â further Â coastal Â development Â and Â the Â impacts Â of Â climate Â change, Â both Â of Â which Â will Â dramatically Â increase Â the Â ULVNSRWHQWLDO&RDVWDOHFRV\VWHPVDQG communities Â are Â going Â to Â be Â most Â seriously Â affected Â by Â climate Â change, Â through Â sea Â level Â rise Â and Â increased Â intensity Â and Â frequency Â of Â storms Â and Â extreme Â weather Â events. Â Already, Â the Â proportion Â of Â the Â worldâ€™s Â gross Â domestic Â SURGXFW*'3 DQQXDOO\H[SRVHGWRWURSLFDO cyclones Â has Â increased Â from Â 3.6 Â % Â in Â the Â VWRLQWKHÂżUVWGHFDGHRIWKHV (UNISDR Â 2011). &RDVWDODQGPDULQHKDELWDWVSDUWLFXODUO\FRUDO reefs Â and Â wetlands, Â are Â at Â the Â front Â line Â of Â these Â changes Â and Â are Â suffering Â the Â greatest Â damage Â and Â destruction. Â Up Â to Â 85% Â of Â oyster Â reefs Â worldwide Â have Â been Â lost, Â as Â well Â as Â 30-Â 50% Â of Â wetlands Â (marshes Â and Â mangroves) Â and Â approximately Â 20% Â of Â coral Â reefs Â (Beck Â et Â al. Â 2011). Â In Â most Â cases, Â the Â percent Â loss Â of Â these Â habitats Â is Â far Â greater Â around Â population Â centers. Â It Â may Â reach Â to Â the Â point Â of Â functional Â extinction Â of Â these Â ecosystems. Â That Â is, Â where Â WKHPRVWSHRSOHFRXOGEHQHÂżWIURPWKHVH ecosystems Â is Â often Â where Â their Â impacts Â and Â loss Â have Â been Â the Â greatest. Â Â Effectiveness of Natural Solutions &RDVWDOHFRV\VWHPVVXFKDVZHWODQGVDQG UHHIVSURYLGHVXEVWDQWLDOEHQHÂżWVDQGPDQ\ advantages Â for Â the Â coastal Â inhabitants Â in Â particular. Â The Â loss Â of Â these Â ecosystems Â affects Â millions Â of Â people, Â particularly Â in Â resource-Â GHSHQGHQWFRPPXQLWLHVRIWKHWURSLFV&RUDO reefs Â and Â mangroves Â are Â critical Â to Â tropical, Â GHYHORSLQJQDWLRQV7KH\EHQHÂżWÂżVKHULHV
32 [ WorldRiskReport 2012
tourism, Â culture, Â shoreline Â stabilization Â and Â coastal Â defense. Â Their Â worldwide Â locations Â are Â demonstrated Â on Â the Â double Â page Â 38/39. There Â is Â a Â growing Â awareness Â in Â disaster Â risk Â management Â in Â coastal Â regions. Â Natural Â conservation Â solutions, Â so-Âcalled Â â€œgreen Â solutionsâ€?, Â are Â gaining Â ground. Â They Â take Â advantage Â of Â the Â natural Â properties Â of Â coastal Â habitats Â to Â mitigate Â hazards Â and Â reduce Â risk Â (UNISDR Â 2011). Â Interest Â in Â green Â solutions Â is Â driven Â by Â + evidence of ecosystems playing a major role in coastal protection and reducing risks + their cost effectiveness + the opportunity in some areas to create sustainable livelihood alternatives. Recent Â studies Â show Â quantitatively Â that Â conservation Â and Â management Â of Â coastal Â habitats Â can Â play Â a Â key Â role Â in Â reducing Â coastal Â hazards, Â e.g. Â through Â wave Â attenuation Â and Â erosion Â reduction Â and Â can Â thus Â reduce Â the Â vulnerability Â of Â communities. Â These Â studies Â include Â analyses Â of Â all Â marsh Â studies Â globally Â WKDWPHDVXUHWKHEHQHÂżWVRIFRDVWOLQHVZLWK marshes Â as Â compared Â to Â those Â without Â for Â coastal Â protection. Â There Â is Â also Â clear Â evidence Â that Â mangroves Â provide Â coastal Â protection Â EHQHÂżWVLQPDQ\FLUFXPVWDQFHVLQSDUWLFXODU for Â attenuating Â storm Â surge, Â especially Â with Â UHVSHFWWRDWWHQXDWLQJVWRUPĂ€RRGV*HGDQ et Â al. Â 2011, Â Shepard Â et Â al. Â 2011, Â Zhang Â et Â al. Â 2012). Â The Â second Â major Â factor Â driving Â interest Â LQQDWXUDOVROXWLRQVLVWKHLUFRVWHIÂżFLHQF\ They Â can Â be Â a Â cost Â effective Â part Â of Â Â hazard Â mitigation Â and Â climate Â adaptation Â strategies. Â Third, Â natural Â solutions Â can Â
Coastal Defense – “green” and “gray” solutions The range of solutions for reducing coastal hazards ranges from “green” to “gray” solutions. Green solutions comprise the conservation and restoration of natural coastal ecosystems. Here wetlands and reefs are conserved, replanted or restored to reduce the impacts from waves and erosion on the coastline. There is a growing interest in green solutions – but this is also urgently needed. Worldwide, gray solutions have been used the most. Here, coastlines are artificially hardened, and gabions and breakwaters made of rock and cement are dumped on shorelines to stabilize them. The development of one gray
defense shifts impacts to people downshore, who must then invest in building another artificial defense. Thus more than 22,000 km of the coastal zone in Europe are covered in concrete or asphalt. In the 1990s alone, there was an increase in “hardened” coastline of almost 1,900 kilometers in Europe (Airoldi and Beck 2007). Gray solutions cause continuous maintenance costs, whereas green solutions are more sustainable and can grow naturally. Mangrove forests, wetlands and coral reefs also offer additional benefits to people including fisheries and livelihoods (e.g., harvest and tourism).
WorldRiskReport 2012 ] 33
make Â a Â valuable Â contribution Â to Â addressing Â multiple Â coastal Â management Â objectives Â with Â ZKLFKORFDORIÂżFLDOVDUHFKDUJHGLQFOXGLQJ natural Â resource Â protection Â and Â livelihood Â development. Â Strategies Â that Â aim Â to Â enhance Â the Â resilience Â of Â ecosystems Â to Â enable Â the Â continued Â provision Â of Â goods Â and Â services Â can Â be Â particularly Â important Â for Â communities Â directly Â exposed Â to Â hazards Â that Â depend Â upon Â natural Â resources. Â Coral Reefs and Coastal Protection Here, Â we Â focus Â on Â coral Â reefs Â as Â an Â example Â of Â the Â role Â and Â importance Â of Â coastal Â habitats Â for Â hazard Â mitigation, Â because Â they Â often Â form Â large, Â robust Â offshore Â barriers, Â because Â of Â their Â proximity Â to Â vulnerable Â settlements Â and Â because, Â while Â their Â condition Â is Â declining, Â it Â is Â still Â better Â than Â that Â of Â many Â other Â coastal Â habitats. Â Numerous Â studies Â show Â the Â EHQHÂżWVRIFRUDOUHHIVIRUFRDVWDOSURWHFWLRQ in Â particular Â for Â reducing Â the Â wave Â energy Â and Â height Â that Â impact Â coastlines Â (Kenchet Â al. Â 2009, Â Sheppard Â et Â al. Â 2005). Â In Â many Â places, Â these Â reefs Â serve Â as Â breakwaters Â and Â DUHWKHÂżUVWOLQHRIFRDVWDOGHIHQVHIRUKD]DUGV DVVRFLDWHGZLWKZDYHVHURVLRQDQGĂ€RRGLQJ Studies Â show Â that Â coral Â reefs Â attenuate Â and Â reduce Â more Â than Â 85 Â per Â cent Â of Â incoming Â wave Â energy. Â The Â role Â of Â reefs Â as Â barriers Â is Â something Â that Â is Â visually Â apparent Â from Â shore Â as Â they Â break Â waves Â (sometimes Â very Â large Â waves) Â and Â substantially Â reduce Â the Â energy Â and Â height Â that Â would Â otherwise Â hit Â the Â shore Â far Â more Â directly. Â This Â wave-Âbreaking Â effect Â is Â something Â also Â visible Â from Â aerial Â photos Â (e.g., Â *RRJOH(DUWK )URPDQHQJLQHHULQJSRLQW of Â view, Â some Â of Â the Â most Â critical Â features Â of Â any Â barrier Â whether Â natural Â or Â man-Âmade Â are Â height, Â hardness, Â and Â friction. Â These Â explain Â why Â reefs Â are Â so Â critical;Íž Â they Â are Â huge, Â hard Â and Â structurally Â complex. 7KHQXPEHURISHRSOHWKDWSRWHQWLDOO\EHQHÂżW from Â coral Â reefs Â is Â high. Â As Â a Â broad Â estimate Â RIWKRVHWKDWPLJKWUHFHLYHEHQHÂżWVIURP
34 [ WorldRiskReport 2012
reefs, Â we Â look Â at Â how Â many Â people Â and Â where Â WKHEHQHÂżWVPLJKWEHJUHDWHVWE\DVVHVVLQJ the Â number Â of Â people Â who Â live Â in Â low Â coastal Â areas Â (below Â 10 Â meters) Â near Â a Â reef Â (within Â 50 Â kilometers) Â (see Â maps Â on Â double Â pages). Â These Â are Â the Â 200 Â million Â people Â in Â villages, Â towns Â and Â cities Â living Â near Â the Â coast Â at Â low Â elevations Â who Â may Â receive Â some Â direct Â and Â LQGLUHFWEHQHÂżWVIURPUHHIV7KHVHDUHDOVRWKH communities Â and Â municipalities Â that Â might Â bear Â coastal Â defense Â or Â other Â development Â FRVWVLIUHHIVDUHGHJUDGHGDQGPRUHDUWLÂżFLDO barriers Â and Â hardened Â shorelines Â (â€œgrayâ€? Â infrastructure) Â must Â be Â developed. Â From Â the Â perspective Â of Â risk Â reduction, Â many Â of Â the Â most Â at-Ârisk Â countries Â are Â tropical Â and Â coastal, Â which Â is Â where Â reefs Â are Â most Â abundant. Â Coral Reefs and Risk The Â value Â of Â reefs Â for Â providing Â numerous Â EHQHÂżWVDQGUHGXFLQJGLVDVWHUULVNGHSHQGV crucially Â on Â reef Â condition. Â Unfortunately, Â PDQ\UHHIVDUHLQGHFOLQLQJFRQGLWLRQ&RUDO reefs Â are Â one Â of Â the Â most Â well Â assessed Â coastal Â ecosystems Â and Â the Â Reefs Â at Â Risk Â reports Â provide Â a Â well Â established Â indicator Â of Â global Â coral Â reef Â status Â based Â on Â the Â indicators Â ÂłH[WHQWRIGHVWUXFWLYHÂżVKLQJÂ´ÂłH[WHQW of Â coastal Â developmentâ€?, Â and Â â€œextent Â of Â SROOXWLRQÂ´%XUNHHWDO &RQVLGHUDWLRQV of Â the Â consequences Â of Â climate Â change Â and Â its Â impacts Â on Â coral Â reefs Â from Â thermal Â stress Â and Â DFLGLÂżFDWLRQDUHQRWLQFOXGHG\HWEXWFRXOGEH added Â in Â future. Â )RUH[DPSOHLQWKH&DULEEHDQWKHUHKDYH been Â huge Â losses Â of Â coral Â reefs Â and Â their Â structural Â complexity Â which Â is Â critical Â in Â considerations Â of Â coastal Â protection. Â Among Â the Â corals Â that Â have Â been Â lost, Â most Â are Â the Â staghorn Â and Â elkhorn Â corals, Â which Â are Â complex Â branching Â corals Â that Â exist Â in Â shallower Â high Â energy Â zones Â on Â and Â near Â reef Â crests. Â Their Â loss Â can Â affect Â both Â reef Â height Â and Â complexity Â (i.e., Â friction), Â which Â are Â
critical Â parameters Â from Â a Â coastal Â defense Â standpoint. Â Where Â reefs Â are Â lost Â and Â degraded, Â we Â can Â reasonably Â expect Â that Â exposure Â to Â wave Â energy Â (daily Â and Â from Â storms) Â will Â increase Â and Â so Â will Â the Â need Â for Â investment Â in Â solutions Â (either Â gray Â or Â green) Â to Â stabilize Â shorelines Â and Â protect Â people Â and Â property. Understanding Â the Â overlap Â in Â social Â and Â environmental Â risk Â is Â critical Â for Â informing Â options Â for Â action. Â Some Â of Â the Â nations Â most Â DWULVNDUHLQWKHZHVWHUQ3DFLÂżFLQ2FHDQLD Moreover, Â these Â countries Â have Â the Â greatest Â overall Â proportions Â of Â their Â populations Â in Â low Â coastal Â areas Â near Â reefs Â (28% Â of Â the Â overall Â population). Â The Â good Â news Â is Â that Â these Â are Â the Â areas Â where Â reefs Â are Â in Â the Â best Â shape Â globally Â (69% Â with Â a Â low Â level Â of Â degradation). Â In Â Oceania, Â government Â authorities Â and Â non-Â governmental Â organizations Â should Â focus Â their Â efforts Â on Â reef Â conservation Â near Â people, Â because Â if Â they Â were Â to Â become Â degraded, Â this Â would Â have Â serious Â consequences Â for Â people Â already Â often Â at Â high Â risk. Â In Â many Â other Â areas, Â reefs Â are Â in Â worse Â shape. Â *RYHUQPHQWDQGFLYLOVRFLHW\DFWRUVWKHUH have Â to Â concentrate Â on Â better Â management Â with Â the Â aim Â of Â reef Â recovery, Â which Â can Â have Â DUHDOLQĂ€XHQFHRQUHGXFLQJKD]DUGULVN 1DWLRQVWKURXJKRXWWKH&DULEEHDQKDYHYHU\ high Â exposure Â to Â storms Â and Â the Â role Â of Â barrier Â reefs Â is Â particularly Â important Â there. Â Asia Â has Â by Â far Â the Â greatest Â number Â of Â people Â (127 Â million) Â in Â low Â elevations Â (below Â ten Â meters) Â and Â near Â reefs. Â Here, Â reef Â recovery Â would Â EHQHÂżWDSDUWLFXODUO\ODUJHQXPEHURISHRSOH The Â Map Â of Â the Â World Â on Â double Â page Â 40/41 Â shows Â the Â level Â of Â degradation Â of Â coral Â reefs Â worldwide, Â the Â disaster Â risk Â in Â accordance Â with Â the Â WorldRiskIndex Â and Â number Â of Â people Â in Â low, Â exposed Â areas Â near Â reefs.
Benefits and Limitations of Natural Solutions 7KHEHQHÂżWVIURPJUHHQVROXWLRQVDUHUHDOEXW this Â does Â not Â mean Â that Â they Â are Â a Â panacea. Â Indeed, Â no Â defense Â guarantees Â protection;Íž Â HYHQWKHODUJHVWDQGPRVWIRUWLÂżHGEDUULHUV fail Â to Â offer Â complete Â protection, Â as Â the Â 2011 Â tsunami Â in Â Japan Â showed. Â One Â problem Â is Â that Â a Â protective Â barrier Â â€“ Â green Â or Â gray Â â€“ Â may Â funnel Â waters Â in Â ways Â that Â can Â increase Â hazards Â in Â other Â areas. Â Barriers Â do Â not Â stop Â water, Â they Â merely Â redirect Â it. Â The Â nature Â of Â the Â protection Â is Â dependent Â on Â many Â factors Â including Â hazard Â type Â (tsunami Â or Â storm Â waves;Íž Â direction Â and Â speed) Â and Â structural Â characteristics Â (height, Â width Â and Â friction). Â The Â incorporation Â of Â natural Â solutions Â is Â imperative Â given Â the Â very Â high Â costs Â to Â society Â of Â engineered, Â â€œgrayâ€? Â solutions. Â Mitigation Â of Â coastal Â hazards Â has Â traditionally Â been Â undertaken Â using Â shoreline Â hardening Â and Â engineered Â defenses. Â In Â many Â places Â KRZHYHUSXWWLQJXSHQRXJKDUWLÂżFLDO defences Â is Â impractical, Â too Â expensive, Â and Â requires Â on-Âgoing Â maintenance Â costs. Â Moreover, Â such Â hardening Â prevents Â natural Â change Â in Â habitats, Â thus Â endangering Â them, Â because Â it Â prevents Â the Â inland Â migration Â of Â coastal Â ecosystems Â that Â get Â caught Â in Â the Â squeeze Â between Â the Â rising Â sea Â and Â coastal Â GHYHORSPHQW&KDQJLQJDSSURDFKHVDQGDOVR the Â mindsets Â of Â decision-Âmakers) Â to Â include Â green Â infrastructure Â in Â the Â discussion Â is Â not Â simple, Â and Â faces Â strong Â vested Â interests Â of Â those Â who Â earn Â money Â by Â implementing Â engineered Â approaches. Added Risks or New Opportunities: The Choice is Ours ,QWKH*OREDO$VVHVVPHQW5HSRUWRQ'LVDVWHU Risk Â Reduction, Â the Â estimated Â economic Â ORVVULVNDVVRFLDWHGZLWKĂ€RRGVDQGWURSLFDO cyclones Â is Â increasing Â worldwide. Â These Â risks Â will Â likely Â only Â get Â worse Â with Â increases Â in Â coastal Â development Â and Â with Â climate Â change. Â
WorldRiskReport 2012 ] 35
Future development that is poorly done will lead to even greater problems and put some of the most vulnerable people at greater risk. Development and conservation do not have to be incompatible;; on the contrary, the concept of risk reduction can link environmental, social, and economic goals.
A revival of mangroves and reefs Expertise and success in restoring habitats is increasing. The greatest progress has been made with mangrove forest restoration; the size and scope of reforestation projects has grown rapidly (Spalding et al. 2011). There are also growing efforts in the restoration of oyster reefs and coral reefs. In addition to the ecosystem benefits that these restored habitats provide, the very act of restoration creates employment opportunities as well as a greater environmental awareness. For reefs there have been encouraging developments in the use of semi-natural structures such as reef blocks to help restore the “infrastructure” of coral reefs and oyster reefs. Further ‘underwater nurseries’ have been developed to help grow corals (e.g., staghorn corals), which can be transplanted to reefs and blocks to quickly re-establish the “living skin” around reefs ( Johnson et al. 2011).
36 [ WorldRiskReport 2012
It is well recognized that investments in disaster prevention through sustainable development are cost effective. And it is exactly these sorts of actions which would reduce impacts on ecosystems and WKXVSUHVHUYHWKHLUEHQH¿WVIRUSHRSOH Unfortunately, the UNISDR has consistently found that efforts to reduce underlying risk factors account for the least progress in all commitments to risk reduction based on the Hyogo Framework for Action. Moreover, the UNISDR notes that countries rarely appear to work on reducing risk through natural resource management and the incorporation of disaster risk reduction measures into environmental planning. Therefore, governments at the national and multi- national level need to substantially increase their commitment to these preventive plans and measures. Furthermore development organizations and environmental groups need to be comprehensively involved in these issues, which could meet joint goals in sustainable development, risk reduction and the conservation of habitats. The other major areas of opportunity are in habitat conservation and restoration for ULVNUHGXFWLRQDQGRWKHUHFRV\VWHPEHQH¿WV (e.g., improvement of livelihoods). Improved management and recovery of existing habitats is the most cost-effective approach for UHDOL]LQJHFRV\VWHPEHQH¿WVWRSHRSOH7KLV will be no simple task and will be challenging, but the building blocks for these solutions have been laid (see box). Indeed there is some good news when considering the revitalization of coastal habitats in general and for coral reefs in particular. The recovery of some reefs
after Â the Â global Â impacts Â of Â coral Â bleaching Â from Â hot Â water Â in Â 1998 Â is Â encouraging Â (corals Â die Â and Â only Â the Â white Â â€œbleachedâ€? Â calcium Â carbonate Â skeleton Â remains Â when Â waters Â are Â too Â hot) Â (Baker Â et Â al. Â 2008). Â However, Â these Â warm Â water Â events Â will Â likely Â increase, Â and Â reefs Â will Â need Â to Â be Â better Â managed Â to Â reduce Â VHGLPHQWDWLRQSROOXWLRQDQGRYHUÂżVKLQJVR that Â they Â can Â be Â healthy Â and Â resilient Â to Â these Â added Â climate Â stresses. Looking Â ahead, Â there Â will Â be Â increasing Â investments Â in Â adaptation Â aimed Â at Â reducing Â risk Â to Â the Â growing Â coastal Â hazards Â from Â climate Â change. Â These Â funds Â will Â be Â targeted Â for Â developing Â nations Â of Â which Â the Â most Â at-Ârisk Â are Â tropical Â and Â coastal. Â If Â traditional Â approaches Â are Â applied, Â these Â funds Â will Â mainly Â go Â to Â gray Â infrastructure Â (e.g., Â seawalls, Â gabions, Â and Â breakwaters) Â unless Â organizations Â and Â agencies Â across Â spectrums Â actively Â identify Â the Â places Â where Â conservation Â and Â restoration Â of Â ecosystems Â represent Â particularly Â good Â solutions Â for Â risk Â reduction. Â
conservation Â efforts Â towards Â people Â and Â particularly Â those Â at Â higher Â risk. Â This Â will Â mean Â working Â less Â often Â in Â more Â remote Â areas Â and Â much Â more Â often Â where Â habitats Â like Â coral Â reefs Â are Â closest Â to Â people. Â By Â prioritizing Â conservation Â and Â restoration Â of Â habitats Â near Â human Â communities, Â we Â can Â reduce Â risks Â from Â further Â habitat Â loss Â and, Â most Â importantly, Â focus Â habitat Â restoration Â ZKHUHLWFDQSURYLGHJUHDWHVWEHQHÂżWVWRWKH most Â people.
Environmental Â agencies Â and Â non-Â governmental Â organizations Â will Â have Â to Â change Â the Â way Â that Â they Â work Â to Â focus Â
WorldRiskReport 2012 ] 37
3.3 Agrofuels, land-grabbing and landslides Katja Maurer
rucial Â experiences Â are Â experiences Â that Â expose Â realities Â one Â would Â normally Â have Â no Â access Â to. Â For Â medico Â international, Â one Â such Â crucial Â experience Â was Â Hurricane Â Mitch, Â in Â Nicaragua. Â For Â here, Â a Â link Â between Â envi-Â ronmental Â degradation Â and Â disaster, Â between Â the Â overexploitation Â of Â nature Â and Â marginal-Â ization, Â became Â apparent Â that Â ultimately Â was Â to Â cost Â thousands Â of Â people Â their Â lives. Â Â In Â the Â wake Â of Â the Â hurricane, Â medico Â inter-Â national Â supported Â a Â group Â of Â smallholders Â who Â had Â settled Â on Â the Â slopes Â of Â the Â volcano Â &DVLWDDQGZKRVHKLVWRU\LOOXVWUDWHVWKLVOLQN Scattered Â among Â several Â small Â villages Â on Â the Â slopes, Â in Â the Â shade Â of Â the Â tropical Â trees Â and Â shrubs, Â they Â had Â grown Â beans Â and Â maize Â and Â lived Â largely Â on Â a Â subsistence Â basis. Â From Â /HyQ1LFDUDJXDÂśVVHFRQGODUJHVWFLW\&DVLWD can Â be Â seen Â in Â the Â far Â distance, Â towering Â above Â the Â fertile Â plains. Â A Â peaceful Â scene. Â Following Â days Â of Â rainfall, Â the Â hurricane Â had Â broken Â loose Â a Â roughly Â three-Âmeter Â wide Â avalanche Â of Â clay Â from Â its Â tip Â that Â made Â its Â way Â bit Â by Â bit Â down Â the Â slope, Â turning Â into Â a Â kilometer-Âwide Â avalanche Â of Â mud. Â Within Â a Â matter Â of Â minutes, Â LWEXULHGFRXQWOHVVSHRSOHDQGGHVWUR\HGÂżYH villages. Â The Â survivors Â gathered Â in Â emergency Â shelters Â put Â up Â in Â Posoltega, Â deeply Â traumatized Â by Â WKHLULQFRPSUHKHQVLEOHH[SHULHQFH&KLOGUHQ sons, Â grandmothers Â who Â had Â just Â been Â stand-Â ing Â next Â to Â them Â a Â moment Â before Â had Â been Â caught Â by Â the Â avalanche Â in Â front Â of Â their Â very Â eyes. Â Among Â the Â people Â living Â in Â the Â reset-Â tlement Â project Â that Â medico Â was Â in Â charge Â of Â at Â the Â time, Â there Â were Â individuals Â who Â had Â lost Â up Â to Â 50 Â family Â members. Â In Â a Â room Â for Â workshops Â in Â which Â psychosocial Â measures Â are Â also Â performed, Â an Â exhibition Â is Â still Â on Â
42 [ WorldRiskReport 2012
display Â today Â with Â terrible Â newspaper Â pictures Â that Â show Â the Â traumatizing Â incident. Â This Â is Â how Â journalist Â Stephan Â Hebel Â described Â the Â events Â at Â the Â time: Â â€œThe Â village Â of Â Rolando Â Rodriguez Â had Â also Â been Â situated Â high Â up Â on Â the Â mountain. Â Until Â Mitch Â came. Â When Â Mitch Â ZHQW5RODQGR5RGULJXH]ZDVO\LQJWKUHHÂżYH or Â even Â six Â meters Â under Â the Â mud. Â Anyone Â taking Â a Â look Â around Â here Â will Â be Â walking Â over Â dead Â bodies. Â To Â the Â right Â and Â left Â of Â the Â temporary Â road, Â bushes Â and Â small Â trees Â have Â taken Â root Â in Â the Â dried Â volcano Â soil, Â as Â if Â to Â provide Â a Â merciful Â green Â shroud. Â According Â to Â the Â cold Â statistics, Â Mitch Â killed Â 2,863 Â people Â in Â Nicaragua, Â more Â than Â 2,500 Â in Â the Â villages Â on Â WKHVORSHVRI&DVLWDÂ´ 11,000 killed by landslides A Â total Â of Â 11,000 Â people Â were Â killed Â by Â Hurri-Â FDQH0LWFKLQ&HQWUDO$PHULFDLQ0RVW of Â the Â deaths Â were Â caused Â by Â landslides: Â the Â peasant Â families Â on Â the Â slopes Â of Â the Â volcano Â &DVLWDRUWKHXUEDQSRRULQWKHSRRUGLVWULFWV of Â the Â Honduran Â capital Â of Â Tegucigalpa, Â which Â are Â also Â located Â on Â slopes. Â How Â can Â it Â be Â possible Â that Â in Â a Â region Â in Â which Â hurricanes Â occur Â every Â few Â years, Â people Â should Â be Â living Â on Â slopes Â on Â which Â they Â are Â exposed Â to Â such Â predictable Â hazards? Â 7KHVORSHVRIWKHYROFDQR&DVLWDDUHDJRRG location Â to Â trace Â back Â the Â history Â of Â settle-Â ments Â in Â this Â region Â threatened Â by Â landslides. Â In Â the Â 1950s, Â the Â smallholders Â were Â driven Â away Â from Â the Â fertile Â plains Â to Â the Â mountain Â slopes Â by Â large-Âscale Â plantation Â management, Â with Â cotton Â grown Â preferably. Â Already Â in Â those Â days, Â this Â was Â a Â result Â of Â the Â global Â economy. Â In Â 1950/51, Â the Â world Â market Â price Â of Â cotton Â rose Â by Â 100 Â percent, Â triggering Â a Â boom Â in Â
cotton Â production Â in Â Nicaragua. Â Over Â the Â next Â 15 Â years, Â the Â plains, Â which Â were Â inhabited Â by Â smallholders Â and Â medium-Âsized Â farmers, Â were Â turned Â into Â a Â large-Âscale Â plantation Â zone. Â The Â smallholders Â and Â farmers Â were Â compulsori-Â ly Â expropriated. Â Eighty Â percent Â of Â the Â land Â VXLWDEOHIRUFURSVLQ1LFDUDJXDÂśV3DFLÂżF&RDVW zone Â was Â turned Â into Â cotton Â plantations. The dictatorâ€™s agricultural reforms A Â study Â on Â agricultural Â reform Â and Â environ-Â mental Â policy Â in Â Nicaragua Â states: Â â€œSince Â the Â areas Â needed Â were Â not Â free Â of Â settlements Â or Â other Â use, Â the Â expansion Â of Â cotton-Âgrowing Â caused Â the Â loss Â of Â the Â last Â forest Â stocks Â in Â the Â 3DFLÂżF3ODLQV$QHZZDYHRIH[SURSULDWLRQ and Â displacement Â of Â smallholders Â and Â farm-Â ers Â caused Â a Â decline Â in Â staple Â food Â produc-Â tion. Â In Â the Â provinces Â affected Â most Â severely, Â &KLQDQGHJDDQG/HyQWKHDUHDRIFURSODQG for Â maize-Âgrowing Â was Â halved Â between Â 1950 Â and Â 1977, Â and Â was Â reduced Â by Â two-Âthirds Â for Â beans. Â All Â in Â all, Â staple Â food Â production Â in Â the Â 3DFLÂżFUHJLRQVDQNE\SHUFHQW7KHVPDOO-Â holders Â became Â landless Â seasonal Â workers, Â migrated Â to Â the Â city Â slums Â or Â provided Â rein-Â forcements Â for Â the Â frontera Â agricola.â€? Â (Thielen Â 1988). Â The Â â€œfrontera Â agricolaâ€? Â (agricultural Â front) Â was Â a Â dictatorial Â land Â reform. Â The Â then Â Nicaraguan Â dictator Â Somoza Â brought Â tens Â of Â thousands Â of Â people Â kept Â in Â poverty Â to Â the Â $WODQWLF&RDVWDQGDOORFDWHGODQGWRWKHPWKDW they Â were Â to Â make Â fertile Â with Â development Â aid Â money Â from Â the Â USA. Â This Â was Â a Â settle-Â ment Â policy Â driven Â by Â a Â man Â craving Â for Â status Â that Â failed Â after Â one Â year Â because Â the Â soils Â were Â too Â poor, Â the Â land Â was Â exhausted Â and Â the Â people Â had Â to Â move Â on. Â They Â returned Â to Â the Â regions Â that Â they Â had Â originally Â come Â from. Â Thus Â the Â cycle Â was Â completed. Â The Â former Â smallholders Â and Â farmers Â from Â the Â plains Â HQGHGXSRQWKHVORSHVRI&DVLWD7KHHFRORJ-Â ical Â disaster Â that Â had Â preceded Â the Â hurricane Â was Â due Â to Â a Â development Â model Â celebrating Â
Case study: Vietnam
Salty soil in the river delta Again and again, land is submerged in Vietnam. In 2011, for instance, the full impact of Typhoon â€œNesatâ€? hit the countryâ€™s northern coastal region, flooding the entire area. Cyclones are a familiar phenomenon that people affected in Vietnam have become accustomed to. However, climate change is resulting in an increase in the frequency and intensity of the typhoons. They cause severe flooding, destroy cropland and claim large numbers of human lives. In addition, environmental degradation such as the clearing of protective mangrove forests increases vulnerability towards extreme natural events. The World Bank ranks Vietnam among the five countries most severely affected by climate change (World Bank Group 2011). The rising sea level is also a result of climate change. It is a serious threat to Vietnam, given the countryâ€™s coastline of roughly 3,600 kilometers and the large river delta. This applies especially to the coastal province of Thai Binh, as a survey by Australiaâ€™s â€œInternational Centre for Environmental Managementâ€? demonstrates (Carew-Reid 2008). This province has 50 kilometers of coast and lies about one to two meters above sea level. Furthermore, Thai Binh is crossed by four major rivers. The rising sea level is resulting in more and more saltwater penetrating the delta areas and making the soil salty. Drinking water gained from the water of the rivers is threatened, too. According to statements by Misereorâ€™s partner organization â€œCentre for Community Socio-Economic and Environmental Developmentâ€? (CSEED), saltwater is already reaching up to 20 kilometers into the interior of the country.
WorldRiskReport 2012 ] 43
The populationâ€™s most important sources of income are rice-growing and shrimp farms. Rice-growing is under a huge threat because the rice paddies are irrigated with freshwater from the rivers. Owing to the soil filling up with salt, there has been a massive decline in rice production. A few years ago, each family was still bringing in 200 to 250 kilograms with each harvest. Today, just 80 to 100 kilograms can be harvested in poor climate conditions and 160 to 180 kilograms in good conditions. But each family requires between 200 and 300 kilograms of rice to earn a living. Just how severe the impact of anthropogenic environmental degradation can be is demonstrated by the example of the shrimp farms. The excessive use of pesticides and chemical fertilizer destroys the ecosystem, and polluted water enters the natural cycle. CSEED is addressing this dramatic situation. The primary objectives of this project, which was launched in the summer of 2011, are to secure the populationâ€™s livelihood and check the impact of climate change. The program targets around 1,200 families in five villages, and local authority staff are also involved. The partner organizes training courses aimed at sensitizing the smallholders towards sustainable methods in agriculture and aquaculture. For example, participants learn how to make compost and get to know other biological fertilizing methods. The people affected study the consequences of climate change in workshops and learn how they can cope with them and simultaneously contribute to coastal conservation. One example is the development of mangrove forests along the coast that provide effective protection against flooding and soil erosion. CSEED is supporting the families in the reafforestation of mangroves. One aim is also to involve the population directly. The families help with planting, are responsible for looking after the mangroves and their conservation. Radio broadcasts help boost an awareness of the protection that nature offers and reach other people affected. In this manner, forest stocks can be sustainably maintained. In addition to coastal conservation, treating soil that has been filled with salt is crucial. Supported by Misereor, CSEED is to test salt-tolerant rice varieties and disseminate a technical base for growing these varieties in further training measures. Furthermore, shrimps are to be bred at eco-farms.
44 [ WorldRiskReport 2012
large-Âscale Â plantations Â and Â growth, Â while Â regarding Â the Â lives Â of Â the Â local Â people, Â their Â social Â relationships Â and Â traditions Â and Â their Â knowledge Â handed Â down Â by Â generations Â as Â negligible. Â Through Â slash-Âand-Âburn Â clearing Â to Â obtain Â land Â and Â wood Â for Â its Â poor Â inhabitants, Â the Â land Â on Â the Â slopes Â of Â the Â volcano, Â already Â threatened Â by Â erosion, Â lost Â all Â its Â stability. Â The Â dramatic Â consequences Â of Â this Â vicious Â circle Â of Â poverty, Â environmental Â degradation Â and Â disaster Â have Â now Â been Â etched Â deeply Â into Â the Â collective Â memory Â of Â the Â people Â from Â the Â re-Â gion, Â as Â part Â of Â recollections Â that Â Nicaraguan Â SV\FKRORJLVW0DUWD&DEUHUDFDOOVÂłIXOORISDLQ LQPDQ\ZD\VÂ´&DEUHUD Fertile fallow land In Â 1998, Â at Â the Â time Â of Â the Â hurricane Â disaster, Â the Â boom Â in Â cotton Â production Â had Â long Â ceased Â to Â be. Â It Â had Â shifted Â to Â other Â regions Â across Â the Â world. Â The Â land Â lay Â fallow, Â and Â through Â the Â agricultural Â reforms Â under Â WKH6DQGLQLVWD*RYHUQPHQWZKLFKKDG toppled Â the Â Somoza Â dictatorship, Â it Â had Â been Â nationalized Â or Â collectivized. Â The Â survivors Â RIWKH&DVLWDGLVDVWHURFFXSLHGWKHODQGQRW under Â cultivation Â on Â the Â plains. Â This Â has Â resulted Â in Â the Â creation Â of Â the Â village Â of Â El Â Tanque, Â which Â now Â offers Â almost Â 1,000 Â people Â a Â place Â to Â live Â and Â was Â supported Â by Â medico Â DQG*HUPDQ*RYHUQPHQWIXQGLQJYLDWKH )HGHUDO0LQLVWU\IRU(FRQRPLF&RRSHUDWLRQ and Â Development. Â It Â was Â fortunate Â for Â the Â IRUPHULQKDELWDQWVRIWKH&DVLWDVORSHVIRU worldwide Â economic Â pressure Â to Â take Â a Â break Â towards Â the Â end Â of Â the Â 1990s. Â Thus, Â in Â what Â can Â almost Â be Â described Â as Â favorable Â conditions Â with Â hindsight, Â the Â self-Âinitiative Â of Â the Â peasant Â families Â and Â integrated Â support Â measures Â ranging Â from Â psychosocial Â support Â to Â training Â and Â upgrading Â measures, Â the Â establishment Â of Â credit Â funds Â and Â much Â else Â enabled Â a Â village Â to Â be Â set Â up Â with Â social Â relationships Â and Â a Â more Â or Â less Â sound Â economic Â base. Â The Â result Â
is Â measureable. Â For Â unlike Â many Â of Â their Â neighbors Â who Â survived, Â the Â inhabitants Â have Â not Â returned Â to Â the Â volcano Â slopes. Â They Â have Â built Â up Â a Â new Â home Â for Â themselves. Â The renaissance of large-scale plantations It Â is Â doubtful Â whether Â this Â could Â once Â again Â meet Â with Â success Â nowadays. Â For Â over Â the Â last Â WHQ\HDUVSUHVVXUHRQODQGLQ&HQWUDO$PHULFD has Â been Â building Â up Â enormously. Â Now, Â there Â is Â hardly Â any Â fallow Â land. Â Who Â sells Â land Â fetch-Â es Â a Â good Â price. Â For Â the Â old Â development Â mod-Â el, Â the Â extensive Â management Â of Â cropland Â with Â large-Âscale Â plantations, Â has Â returned. Â Today, Â the Â focus Â is Â not Â on Â cotton, Â coffee Â or Â bananas Â â€“ Â today, Â plants Â are Â in Â demand Â yielding Â products Â that Â include Â agrofuels: Â sugar Â and Â the Â palm Â oil Â tree. Â Unlike Â in Â large-Âscale Â plantation Â man-Â agement Â in Â the Â 1960s, Â in Â which Â US Â American Â agro-Âcorporations Â like Â United Â Fruit Â played Â a Â major Â role, Â there Â are Â powerful Â regional Â com-Â panies Â today, Â such Â as Â the Â Nicaraguan Â group Â Pellas, Â one Â of Â the Â major Â sugar Â cane Â producers Â LQWKHUHJLRQ2UWKH:LGPDQJURXSLQ*XDWH-Â mala. Â These Â companies Â are Â highly Â modern Â en-Â terprises Â with Â a Â department Â for Â social Â market-Â ing, Â working Â with Â state-Âof-Âthe-Âart Â technologies Â and Â promising Â the Â local Â population Â a Â material Â share Â of Â large-Âscale Â cultivation. They Â have Â good Â reasons Â to Â keep Â an Â eye Â on Â their Â image, Â for Â a Â huge Â amount Â of Â money Â is Â at Â stake. Â The Â palm Â oil Â tree Â and Â sugar Â cane Â are Â among Â those Â agricultural Â commodities Â that Â are Â booming Â on Â the Â world Â market Â and Â are Â not Â affected Â by Â any Â crisis. Â On Â the Â contrary, Â VHHNLQJSURÂżWDEOHLQYHVWPHQWJOREDOFDSLWDO sees Â a Â secure Â future Â here Â given Â a Â thirst Â for Â energy Â that Â it Â will Â probably Â be Â impossible Â to Â quench Â over Â the Â next Â few Â years Â and Â even Â decades. Â Thus Â â€œdemand Â for Â palm Â oil Â has Â risen Â rapidly Â over Â the Â last Â few Â years, Â and Â experts Â are Â speaking Â of Â constant Â growth Â rates Â of Â around Â eight Â percent.â€? Â (SĂźddeutsche Â Zeitung, Â 7KHVHFRQGODUJHVWĂ€RWDWLRQLQ 2012 Â following Â Facebook Â is Â the Â stock-Âmarket Â
launch Â by Â Malayan Â plantation Â growers Â Felda Â Ventures. Â Palm Â oil Â is Â included Â not Â only Â in Â agrofuels Â but Â also Â in Â hygiene Â articles Â and Â in Â food Â ranging Â from Â potato Â crisps Â through Â deep-Âfreeze Â pizzas Â to Â chocolate Â bars. Â And Â the Â food Â industry Â is Â just Â as Â crisis-Âproof Â as Â gasoline Â production. Â For Â image Â reasons, Â many Â manufacturers Â use Â the Â euphemism Â â€œbiofuelsâ€?, Â although Â these Â fuels Â bear Â nothing Â â€œbioâ€? Â in Â the Â sense Â of Â sustain Â ability. ,Q&HQWUDO$PHULFDWKHUDSLGVSUHDGLQJRI large-Âscale Â plantations Â has Â been Â the Â dominant Â economic Â growth Â model Â over Â the Â last Â decade. Â *XDWHPDODQVRFLRORJLVW/DXUD+XUWDGRKDV noted Â in Â a Â survey Â that Â over Â the Â last Â decade, Â *XDWHPDODKDVWUDQVIRUPHGIURPDIRRG VHOIVXIÂżFLHQWFRXQWU\WRDIRRGLPSRUWLQJ country. Â The Â very Â food Â corporations Â earning Â SURÂżWVRQWKHJOREDOO\DYDLODEOHUHDG\WRXVH products Â which Â are Â also Â being Â imported Â to Â *XDWHPDODDUHHLWKHUGLUHFWO\RULQGLUHFWO\LQ-Â volved Â in Â the Â spreading Â of Â the Â large-Âscale Â plan-Â tations Â with Â their Â socially Â and Â environmentally Â harmful Â impacts Â (Hurtado Â 2008). Â Destruction of the ecosystem 7KH1DWLRQDO,QVWLWXWHRI6WDWLVWLFVLQ*XDWH-Â mala Â has Â compiled Â a Â detailed Â list Â of Â expan-Â sions Â of Â land Â under Â cultivation. Â Between Â 2003 Â and Â 2011, Â the Â cultivation Â of Â palm Â oil Â trees Â has Â grown Â from Â 31,000 Â to Â approximately Â 100,000 Â hectares, Â and Â according Â to Â the Â survey Â by Â Hurtado, Â the Â cultivation Â area Â for Â sugar Â from Â 188,000 Â in Â 2003 Â to Â almost Â 260,000 Â hectares Â in Â 2007, Â with Â a Â tendency Â to Â rise Â still Â further. Â Hurtado Â notes Â that Â the Â production Â and Â pro-Â cessing Â of Â the Â palm Â oil Â plant Â and Â of Â sugar Â cane Â is Â in Â the Â hands Â of Â a Â small Â number Â of Â enterpris-Â es, Â further Â aggravating Â the Â concentration Â of Â land Â under Â cultivation. Â The Â result Â is: Â â€œThese Â processes Â are Â leading Â to Â a Â displacement Â of Â rural Â communities, Â fundamentally Â chang-Â ing Â areas Â that Â used Â to Â be Â producers Â of Â staple Â foods, Â destroying Â forest Â areas Â and Â generating Â earth Â movements Â through Â large-Âscale Â drain-Â
WorldRiskReport 2012 ] 45
age Â drying Â up Â moorland, Â lagoons Â and Â other Â sources Â of Â water.â€? Â Ultimately, Â it Â is Â argued, Â this Â process Â will Â result Â in Â â€œthe Â destruction Â of Â the Â ecosystem Â and Â the Â loss Â of Â biodiversity.â€? However, Â there Â is Â far Â more Â damage Â to Â the Â environment. Â The Â large-Âscale Â plantations Â exhaust Â cropland, Â rendering Â it Â useless Â for Â a Â long Â time. Â The Â pesticides Â applied Â are Â harmful Â both Â to Â humans Â and Â to Â the Â environment. Â Fre-Â quently, Â they Â cause Â widespread Â contamination Â of Â the Â groundwater Â that Â lasts Â for Â years. Â One Â of Â the Â diseases Â that Â puts Â a Â severe Â strain Â on Â both Â the Â people Â and Â the Â poor Â health Â systems Â in Â these Â countries Â is Â chronic Â kidney Â insuf-Â ÂżFLHQF\7KHIUHTXHQF\RIWKHVHV\PSWRPV is Â characteristic Â in Â Nicaragua Â and Â the Â other Â FRXQWULHVRI&HQWUDO$PHULFD,QFRPSDULVRQWR countries Â without Â sugar Â cane Â cultivation. Â The Â displacement Â of Â the Â rural Â population Â results Â in Â a Â shift Â of Â the Â agricultural Â border. Â If Â they Â do Â not Â migrate Â to Â the Â cities Â or Â even Â leave Â the Â country, Â they Â try Â their Â luck Â in Â regions Â that Â are Â not Â yet Â under Â cultivation, Â which Â leads Â to Â further Â envi-Â ronmental Â degradation Â and Â above Â all Â increas-Â es Â the Â vulnerability Â of Â the Â population Â forced Â to Â migrate. Â Here, Â we Â come Â full Â circle. Â The Â danger Â of Â disasters Â caused Â by Â environmental Â degradation, Â such Â as Â the Â one Â that Â occurred Â RQWKHVORSHVRIWKHYROFDQR&DVLWDEHLQJ repeated Â at Â any Â time Â has Â been Â growing Â considerably Â owing Â to Â large-Âscale Â plantations. Â For Â there Â is Â one Â promise Â that Â the Â enterprises Â make Â again Â and Â again Â but Â do Â not Â keep: Â the Â promise Â of Â modernization, Â development Â and Â secure Â living Â conditions, Â also Â for Â the Â poor. Â Unlike Â in Â Brazil, Â where Â the Â government Â has Â at Â OHDVWGLVWULEXWHGVXUSOXVDJULEXVLQHVVSURÂżWV among Â the Â marginalized Â slum Â inhabitants Â in Â the Â context Â of Â its Â social Â programs, Â none Â of Â WKLVLVKDSSHQLQJLQWKHFRXQWULHVRI&HQWUDO America. Â The Â governments Â almost Â exclusively Â impose Â indirect Â taxes. Â The Â large-Âscale Â enterpris-Â
46 [ WorldRiskReport 2012
es, Â which Â usually Â belong Â to Â the Â established Â oligarchy, Â pay Â virtually Â no Â tax. Â In Â this Â sense, Â WKH&HQWUDO$PHULFDQFRXQWULHVFRQWLQXHWREH â€œbanana Â republicsâ€? Â â€“ Â now Â under Â the Â control Â of Â the Â national Â oligarchies. Â Forced displacement in the Polochic Valley One Â example Â of Â the Â companiesâ€™ Â action Â in Â close Â cooperation Â with Â the Â state, Â and Â above Â DOOPLOLWDU\VWUXFWXUHVLQ*XDWHPDODLVWKH forced Â displacement Â of Â 14 Â communities Â in Â the Â Polochic Â Valley, Â in Â the Â District Â of Â Alta Â Verapaz, Â in Â March Â 2011. Â Hundreds Â of Â police, Â troops Â and Â private Â security Â staff Â drove Â out Â thousands Â of Â inhabitants, Â demolishing Â their Â houses Â and Â burning Â up Â the Â harvest Â under Â the Â pretext Â that Â the Â residents Â had Â illegally Â acquired Â the Â land. Â The Â backdrop Â of Â this Â is Â the Â massive Â spread Â of Â sugar Â cane Â cultivation Â LQWKHYDOOH\E\*XDWHPDODQFRPSDQLHVLQ cooperation Â with Â the Â powerful Â Nicaraguan Â Pellas Â group. Â According Â to Â a Â report Â in Â the Â newspaper Â â€œPrensa Â Libreâ€? Â of Â the Â 01.02.2012, Â the Â company Â invested Â around Â USD Â 18 Â million Â in Â the Â expansion Â of Â the Â area Â under Â cultivation Â in Â 2011 Â and Â was Â also Â planning Â this Â for Â 2012. Â Then Â there Â are Â loans Â totaling Â more Â than Â USD Â 50 Â million Â that Â have Â been Â provided Â by Â the Â Inter-ÂAmerican Â Development Â Bank. But Â things Â are Â not Â quite Â as Â simple Â as Â they Â used Â to Â be Â when Â dictatorial Â regimes Â were Â KROGLQJDJULSRQ&HQWUDO$PHULFDDQG giving Â the Â oligarchs Â a Â free Â hand. Â The Â dispute Â over Â the Â Polochic Â Valley Â has Â become Â a Â symbol Â of Â resistance Â against Â the Â exploitative Â development Â model. Â In Â March Â 2012, Â the Â smallholders Â marched Â hundreds Â of Â kilometers Â and Â managed Â to Â wring Â initial Â concessions Â from Â WKH*RYHUQPHQWLQ*XDWHPDOD&LW\7KH,QWHU $PHULFDQ&RPPLVVLRQIRU+XPDQ5LJKWV sided Â with Â the Â 14 Â communities Â that Â had Â been Â GLVSODFHGXVLQJIRUFH*XDWHPDODQFLYLOVRFLHW\ organizations Â provided Â lawyers Â in Â order Â to Â represent Â the Â interests Â of Â the Â peasants, Â who Â were Â of Â indigenous Â origin. Â Here, Â they Â refer Â
Case study: Burkina Faso
Using stone walls and robust trees to combat erosion Already for the third time in a decade, the people in the Sahel are threatened with acute hunger. The reason for the food crisis is a lack of rainfall and the severe decline in crop yield that it has brought about. That people in the Sahel should be so vulnerable to drought is also due to massive environmental degradation caused by excessively intensive land use. For as a rule, a poor peasant family can only till 1.5 hectares of cropland, whereas a rich peasant family using oxen can manage up to three hectares. Most of the peasants have to make very intensive use of their land and are unable to maintain the fallow periods that are vital for the soil to regenerate. The result is a decline in vegetation or even its complete disappearance, precipitation draining off fast and directly on the surface, water shortage, soil erosion or soil filling with sand and sand carried by the wind destroying infrastructure. The land becomes infertile and barren, and what is known as desertification sets in. A dramatic vicious cycle is triggered, with ever less fertile land being available that necessitates a more and more intensive use of the still existing fertile land, the result being that here too, the degradation process takes over more and more rapidly. Welthungerhilfe has already been working together with its partners to combat desertification in the Sahel for years. Thanks to an appropriate and sustainable use of the water and soil resources, the environmental situation is improving. For example, in Burkina Faso, in cooperation with the organizations “Association Zood Nooma”, “Association de Développement Sougri Nooma” and “Association Lutte contre la Désertification”, soil and water retaining measures are being carried out together with the peasants. In all, these measures reach a total of 1.3
million inhabitants in the four provinces of Bam, Sanmantenga, Ganzourgou and Oubritenga. Here too, a high population density, the excessive use of cropland and pastureland and the decline in annual precipitation levels – in combination with more frequent heavy rain – have led to an erosion of land used for farming. Fertility has declined, and ever larger areas of cropland have to be cultivated to attain the same yields. These areas are gained by clear-cutting the savannah, which additionally robs the soils of their natural protection – the onset of the disastrous cycle of desertification. The consultants from the partner organizations and so-called village trainers train the peasants in constructing and maintaining mechanical and biological erosion protection systems. The peasants join forces to build stone walls and smaller dams, and they plant them with the robust and drought-resistant Jatropha trees and shrubs. Held back by the stone walls, strong rainfall only drains off slowly from the fields, and small erosion channels and holes see to it that water uptake by the soil is improved. In this manner, the groundwater reserves are replenished. Planting the walls also reduces erosion and has a favorable effect on the microclimate. Village committees are established in order to develop this process sustainably. Finance required for necessary investments is also raised by the communities themselves. The dissemination of soil conservation methods is performed chiefly via multipliers from village groups who train other farmer organizations. The partner organizations are ready to provide any advice needed. The project has already shown success during the food crisis in the Sahel. Many of the peasants benefiting from the Welthungerhilfe project have had better harvests and are thus less vulnerable to the drought.
WorldRiskReport 2012 ] 47
to Â international Â legal Â standards Â that Â cannot Â simply Â be Â ignored Â by Â the Â government Â and Â the Â enterprises. Â Such Â disputes Â over Â the Â expansion Â of Â land Â under Â cultivation Â are Â happening Â in Â PDQ\SODFHVLQ*XDWHPDOD2IWHQWKH\DOUHDG\ start Â with Â resistance Â against Â the Â extension Â of Â infrastructure Â projects Â such Â as Â the Â â€œFranja Â Transversalâ€? Â highway. Â Not Â without Â reason, Â the Â population Â fear Â that Â together Â with Â the Â highway, Â large-Âscale Â plantations Â will Â be Â entering Â the Â scene, Â and Â that Â they Â will Â see Â a Â return Â of Â the Â military, Â who Â were Â involved Â in Â a Â systematic Â extermination Â of Â the Â indigenous Â population Â in Â the Â civil Â war Â of Â the Â 1980s. Alternative growth models This Â may Â look Â like Â the Â hopeless Â struggle Â of Â the Â weavers Â against Â the Â machines. Â But Â it Â could Â also Â bear Â similarities Â with Â the Â doubts Â that Â FLWL]HQVLQ*HUPDQ\KDYHDERXWLQIUDVWUXFWXUDO models Â robbing Â them Â of Â sleep. Â The Â humble Â life Â RIWKHSHDVDQWVLQ*XDWHPDODPD\QRWEHDQ
idyll. Â But Â the Â villagers Â are Â aware Â of Â the Â threats Â to Â life Â and Â limb Â that Â migrating Â and Â the Â urban Â slums Â bear. Â The Â Latin Â American Â debates Â over Â alternatives Â to Â the Â exploitative Â growth Â model, Â to Â the Â overexploitation Â of Â nature Â and Â the Â environment, Â which Â also Â consider Â indigenous Â concepts Â of Â how Â nature Â should Â be Â treated Â and Â how Â people Â should Â relate Â to Â it, Â are Â fueling Â these Â disputes Â in Â a Â new Â manner. Â It Â is Â not Â without Â reason Â that Â relief Â and Â human Â rights Â organizations Â such Â as Â medico Â international Â are Â supporting Â the Â actors Â in Â these Â debates. Â The Â Nicaraguan Â village Â of Â El Â Tanque Â is Â an Â example Â of Â an Â integrated Â model Â in Â harmony Â with Â nature Â and Â the Â local Â population Â that Â reduces Â peopleâ€™s Â vulnerability Â in Â the Â context Â of Â environmental Â degradation. Â However, Â one Â village Â cannot Â stop Â the Â global Â market Â and Â its Â possible Â impacts Â harming Â the Â environment. Â So Â it Â is Â essential Â for Â aid Â aiming Â to Â take Â preventive Â measures Â against Â disasters Â to Â participate Â in Â the Â quest Â for Â alternatives Â to Â the Â prevalent Â growth Â models. Â
3.4 Environmental degradation, poverty and disaster risk on the international development agenda Jens Martens
he Â link Â between Â environmental Â degrada-Â tion, Â poverty Â and Â disaster Â risk Â has Â already Â been Â a Â subject Â of Â debate Â since Â the Â 1970s. Â However, Â the Â political Â discourses Â over Â the Â topic Â frequently Â progressed Â independently Â RIRQHDQRWKHU*UHDWHUSROLWLFDODWWHQWLRQ has Â been Â given Â to Â the Â relationships Â since Â the Â 81&RQIHUHQFHRQ6XVWDLQDEOH'HYHORSPHQW 2012 Â (â€œRio+20â€?). Â Disaster Â risk Â reduction Â has Â become Â one Â of Â the Â emerging Â issues Â on Â the Â â€œRio+20â€? Â agenda. Â However, Â in Â this Â area Â too, Â the Â governments Â failed Â to Â agree Â on Â substantial Â political Â and Â
48 [ WorldRiskReport 2012
ÂżQDQFLDOFRPPLWPHQWVLQ5LRGH-DQHLURLQ June Â 2012. Â They Â merely Â emphasized Â their Â willingness Â to Â step Â up Â their Â cooperation Â in Â the Â context Â of Â a Â new Â international Â agreement Â on Â disaster Â risk Â reduction. Â The Â present Â agreement, Â the Â Hyogo Â Framework Â for Â Action, Â expires Â in Â 2015, Â and Â the Â prepara-Â tions Â for Â a Â renegotiation Â have Â already Â started. Â The Â challenge Â over Â the Â next Â three Â years Â will Â be Â to Â turn Â this Â topic Â into Â an Â integral Â element Â of Â international Â negotiations Â on Â environment Â and Â development.
Disaster risk and the discourse on sustainability â€“ a brief look back 7KH%UXQGWODQG&RPPLVVLRQDOUHDG\ pointed Â out Â the Â links Â between Â environmental Â degradation, Â disasters, Â poverty Â and Â GHYHORSPHQWLQLWVUHSRUWÂł2XU&RPPRQ Futureâ€? Â (United Â Nations Â 1987), Â noting Â that Â as Â early Â as Â the Â 1970s, Â six Â times Â as Â many Â people Â had Â died Â owing Â to Â disasters Â resulting Â from Â extreme Â natural Â events Â as Â in Â the Â previous Â decade. Â To Â a Â growing Â extent, Â droughts Â and Â Ă€RRGVKDGEHHQFDXVHGE\GHIRUHVWDWLRQDQG RYHUFXOWLYDWLRQRIVRLOV7KHYLFWLPVKDGÂżUVW and Â foremost Â been Â impoverished Â groups Â of Â the Â population Â in Â Asia, Â Latin Â America Â and, Â in Â particular, Â Africa. Â The Â governments Â responded Â to Â the Â GHYDVWDWLQJGURXJKWDQGĂ€RRGGLVDVWHUVRI the Â 1970s Â and Â 1980s Â by Â proclaiming Â 1990â€“ 1999 Â the Â International Â Decade Â for Â Natural Â Disaster Â Reduction Â (IDNDR), Â from Â which Â the Â International Â Strategy Â for Â Disaster Â Reduction Â (ISDR) Â subsequently Â emerged Â (www.unisdr. org). Â Marking Â halftime Â in Â the Â decade, Â with Â the Â adoption Â of Â the Â Yokohama Â Strategy Â and Â the Â 1994 Â Plan Â of Â Action Â for Â a Â Safe Â World, Â the Â governments Â put Â a Â stronger Â emphasis Â on Â the Â socio-Âeconomic Â factors Â of Â disasters. Â The Â Strategy Â also Â related Â to Â the Â results Â of Â the Â ÂżUVW81&RQIHUHQFHRQ(QYLURQPHQWDQG Development, Â which Â had Â been Â held Â in Â Rio Â de Â Janeiro Â two Â years Â before. In Â its Â extensive Â results, Â the Â 1992 Â Rio Â &RQIHUHQFHDOVRIRFXVHGRQWKHJURZLQJ danger Â of Â disasters Â owing Â to Â extreme Â natural Â HYHQWV$JHQGDWKH5LR&RQIHUHQFHSODQ of Â action, Â addresses Â the Â issues Â of Â disaster Â preparedness Â and Â risk Â reduction Â in Â various Â contexts. Â Reference Â made Â to Â disasters Â caused Â by Â industry Â is Â particularly Â noteworthy. Â (UN Â &KDSSDUD â€œâ€Ś Â there Â is Â an Â urgent Â need Â to Â address Â the Â prevention Â and Â reduction Â of Â man-Âmade Â
Case study: Peru
Applying traditional knowledge to cope with the consequences of climate change A study by the â€œTyndall Centre for Climate Change Researchâ€? refers to Peru as the third country most severely affected by climate-conditioned change (Andersen et. al 2009). It is regularly exposed to extreme weather events with grave consequences, above all flooding, landslides, drought and cold snaps. The number of disasters increased six-fold between 1990 and 2000. According to the national council on environmental issues, seven out of ten of these disasters were climateconditioned â€“ and it has to be feared that climate change, which is also directly related to anthropogenic environmental degradation, is going to further exacerbate the situation. The coast and the highlands are particularly affected by climateconditioned disasters. The coastal region is regularly stricken by the â€œEl NiĂąoâ€? phenomenon, which involves heavy rainfall as well as considerable dryness. The 1997/1998 â€œNiĂąoâ€? resulted in damage amounting to 3.5 billion US dollars. This corresponds to roughly 4.5 percent of the Gross Domestic Product (Rosenberger 2007). Climate change is posing new challenges: The rainy season, which used to last from November to April, has been shortened to the months from January to March. The streams that are important for irrigation in agriculture carry less water, and there is an unusual extent of hail as well as increased pest infestation in the countryâ€™s more low-lying regions. Warming is evident especially at higher altitudes, and coincides with a marked shrinking of glaciers. â€œThe area of the Peruvian Andes covered with ice diminished by 27 percent between 1970 and 2003,â€? the Peruvian water authority announced (Der Standard 2009). The massive decline in water reserves that this caused as well as cold snaps and droughts are threatening the livelihoods of the local population. And this is occurring at a time when every second Peruvian is already living in poverty. The growing intensity of solar radiation, which is leading to fields drying up, given simultaneously sinking groundwater levels, presents a further problem. Rainfall sets in at a later
WorldRiskReport 2012 ] 49
disasters Â and/or Â disasters Â caused Â by, Â inter Â alia, Â industries, Â unsafe Â nuclear Â power Â generation Â and Â toxic Â wastes Â â€Śâ€? stage, but then it comes as cloudbursts resulting in flooding that washes away the harvest and fertile soil. Crop failure is causing supply bottlenecks, and there is a growing threat of malnutrition. Smallholders who are no longer to able to feed their families adequately work as day laborers in plantations or in the cities. The people of Peru have been familiar with difficult and changing living conditions for thousands of years. They have responded to this by breeding plant varieties adapted to the climate and practicing specialized cultivating methods in the mountain regions. Peru can still boast around 3,000 potato varieties that are adapted to the different climate and soil conditions. But for decades, ministries and international seed corporations have been calling for new, higher yielding varieties that have been optimized in laboratories, which is why many farmers are opting for the novelties. However, their growth depends much more strongly on additional input such as fertilizer and pesticides as well as a steady climate. If neither of these factors is guaranteed, the yields of the smallholders will decline drastically, and they will run into debt. This is why terre des hommes has been supporting local organizations such as the association Bartolome Aripaylla (ABA) in the community of Quispillaqta with cultivating traditional varieties since the mid-1980s. This enables the smallholders to feed their families. In addition, as a rule, cultivating such varieties is environmentally friendly and healthy. In the community of Quispillaqta, near Ayacucho, ABA is helping to run seed fairs with financial support from terre des hommes. The adoption of Indio knowledge in the school curricula is being promoted. More than 6,500 peasant families as well as the city of Ayacucho with its 150.000 inhabitants are benefiting from the reafforestation of 481 hectares of new forest, soil conservation measures, the community maintenance of 1,600 water springs and the digging of 73 ponds.
50 [ WorldRiskReport 2012
In Â contrast, Â the Â relationships Â between Â disas-Â ter Â risk Â reduction Â and Â more Â comprehensive Â strategies Â for Â sustainable Â development Â were Â VWLOOUHFHLYLQJWRROLWWOHDWWHQWLRQDWWKHÂżUVW 5LR&RQIHUHQFH7KLVZDVWRFKDQJHWHQ\HDUV later, Â at Â the Â World Â Summit Â on Â Sustainable Â Development Â (WSSD) Â in Â Johannesburg Â in Â ,QLWVÂżQDOGHFODUDWLRQWKHJRYHUQPHQWV describe Â a Â crisis Â scenario Â of Â growing Â envi-Â ronmental Â degradation Â and Â more Â and Â more Â frequent Â disasters Â owing Â to Â extreme Â natural Â events Â (Johannesburg Â Declaration Â on Â Sustain-Â able Â Development). Â Setting Â out Â from Â this, Â they Â formulated Â a Â package Â of Â measures Â to Â reduce Â disaster Â risk Â and Â agreed Â to Â enhance Â the Â role Â of Â WKH8QLWHG1DWLRQV2IÂżFHIRU'LVDVWHU5LVN5H-Â GXFWLRQ81,6'5 DQGVWHSXSLWVÂżQDQFLQJ 7KUHH\HDUVODWHUDWWKH:RUOG&RQIHUHQFH on Â Disaster Â Reduction Â in Â Kobe, Â Japan, Â the Â general Â mission Â of Â the Â Johannesburg Â Summit Â was Â translated Â into Â a Â comprehensive Â ten-Â year Â action Â program Â that Â still Â represents Â WKHLQWHUQDWLRQDONH\GRFXPHQWLQWKHÂżHOG of Â disaster Â risk Â reduction Â today. Â In Â the Â Hyogo Â Framework Â for Â Action Â 2005â€“2015, Â the Â governments Â formulated Â the Â following Â strategic Â goals Â (UNISDR Â 2005, Â para. Â 12): +
A Â more Â effective Â integration Â of Â disaster Â risk Â considerations Â into Â politics, Â planning Â and Â program Â development Â for Â sustainable Â development Â at Â all Â levels, Â with Â particular Â attention Â being Â given Â to Â the Â prevention Â or Â mitigation Â of Â disasters Â as Â well Â as Â being Â prepared Â for Â the Â occurrence Â of Â disasters Â and Â vulnerability Â reduction.
Developing Â and Â strengthening Â institu-Â tions, Â mechanisms Â and Â capacities Â at Â all Â levels, Â especially Â the Â community Â level, Â to Â systematically Â build Â resilience Â to Â â€œnatural Â disastersâ€?. Â
The Â systematic Â integration Â of Â risk Â reduc-Â WLRQDSSURDFKHVLQWRWKHĂ€HVKLQJRXWDQG implementation Â of Â programs Â for Â emergen-Â cy Â relief, Â coping Â and Â rehabilitation Â in Â the Â areas Â affected.
Thus Â the Â governments Â laid Â down Â the Â founda-Â tions Â for Â an Â integration Â of Â measures Â to Â reduce Â disaster Â risk Â into Â more Â comprehensive Â sus-Â tainable Â development Â strategies. Â However, Â progress Â made Â since Â then Â has Â remained Â limit-Â HG,QWKHUXQXSWRWKHÂł5LRÂ´&RQIHUHQFH the Â United Â Nations Â noted Â in Â a Â Background Â Pa-Â per Â (UN Â DESA Â 2011): Â â€œDespite Â some Â progress, Â WKHLPSOHPHQWDWLRQLVVWLOOQRWVXIÂżFLHQWJLYHQ the Â fact Â that Â the Â worldâ€™s Â exposure Â to Â natural Â hazards Â is Â growing Â faster Â than Â its Â vulnerability Â to Â these Â can Â be Â reduced. Â Effective Â implemen-Â tation Â of Â the Â internationally Â agreed Â goals Â on Â disaster Â preparedness Â and Â resilience Â requires Â a Â cross-Âministerial, Â multi-Âstakeholder Â and Â multi-Âhazard Â approach Â and Â there Â is Â still Â a Â long Â way Â to Â go Â to Â achieve Â this.â€œ Disaster risk reduction as a Rio+20 Conference topic Originally, Â no Â provisions Â had Â been Â made Â for Â disaster Â risk Â reduction Â as Â a Â topic Â on Â the Â agen-Â GDRIWKH5LR&RQIHUHQFH5LRZDVWR IRFXVFKLHĂ€\RQWZRLVVXHVWKH*UHHQ(FRQR-Â my Â in Â the Â context Â of Â sustainable Â development Â and Â poverty Â reduction Â and Â the Â institutional Â framework Â for Â sustainable Â development Â (UN Â 2009). Â But Â in Â the Â course Â of Â the Â preparation Â process Â for Â the Â Rio+20, Â the Â topic Â gained Â VLJQLÂżFDQFH7KH8QLWHG1DWLRQVDGRSWHG â€œdisaster Â readinessâ€? Â in Â the Â list Â of Â seven Â priority Â areas Â of Â activity Â that Â were Â to Â be Â given Â special Â attention Â at Â Rio+20 Â (www.un.org/en/sustain-Â ablefuture). In Â its Â report Â published Â end Â January Â 2012, Â WKH+LJKOHYHO3DQHORQ*OREDO6XVWDLQDELOLW\ DSSRLQWHGE\816HFUHWDU\*HQHUDO%DQ.L moon Â already Â addressed Â the Â target Â of Â enhanc-Â ing Â the Â resilience Â of Â societies, Â also Â to Â natural Â
events, Â in Â its Â title, Â â€œResilient Â People, Â Resilient Â 3ODQHWÂ´816HFUHWDU\*HQHUDOÂśV+LJK/HYHO 3DQHORQ*OREDO6XVWDLQDELOLW\ (VSH-Â cially Â with Â a Â view Â to Â the Â necessary Â adaptations Â to Â climate Â change, Â measures Â to Â reduce Â the Â risk Â of Â disasters Â were Â needed. Â The Â Panel Â noted Â (ibid., Â Item Â 134): Â â€œDisaster Â risk Â reduction Â is Â about Â much Â more Â than Â just Â emergency Â man-Â agement Â â€“ Â on Â the Â contrary, Â to Â be Â fully Â effective Â it Â must Â be Â integrated Â into Â all Â sectors Â of Â de-Â velopment Â and Â cover Â both Â measures Â to Â avoid Â disasters Â and Â measures Â to Â mitigate Â damage Â when Â they Â do Â occur.â€? As Â a Â conclusion Â from Â this, Â the Â Panel Â addressed Â three Â recommendations Â to Â the Â governments Â that Â were Â above Â all Â aimed Â at Â developing Â pro-Â grams Â to Â cope Â with Â the Â social Â and Â economic Â impacts Â of Â disasters, Â compile Â regional Â vulner-Â ability Â assessments Â and Â preventive Â strategies Â DQGLQFUHDVHÂżQDQFHIRUPHDVXUHVWRUHGXFH the Â risk Â of Â disasters. The Â governments Â took Â up Â the Â topic Â in Â the Â pre-Â SDUDWRU\SURFHVVIRUWKH5LR&RQIHUHQFH LQGLIIHUHQWZD\V7KH-DSDQHVH*RYHUQPHQW has Â traditionally Â been Â particularly Â active Â in Â its Â efforts Â to Â reduce Â disaster Â risks Â ensuing Â from Â H[WUHPHQDWXUDOHYHQWV*RYHUQPHQWRI-DSDQ 2011). Â In Â the Â run-Âup Â to Â Rio, Â it Â demanded Â that Â disaster Â risk Â reduction Â become Â one Â of Â the Â central Â pillars Â in Â national Â sustainable Â devel-Â opment Â policies. Â The Â Hyogo Â Framework Â for Â Action, Â which Â ends Â in Â 2015, Â the Â target Â year Â for Â WKH0LOOHQQLXP'HYHORSPHQW*RDOV0'*V see Â Box Â on Â page Â 61), Â ought Â to Â be Â replaced Â with Â a Â new Â agreement Â that Â needed Â to Â form Â an Â integral Â element Â of Â the Â post-Â2015 Â develop-Â ment Â agenda. Â This Â was Â aimed Â at Â ensuring Â a Â â€œmainstreaming Â of Â disaster Â risk Â reduction Â into Â GHYHORSPHQWSROLFLHVÂ´*RYHUQPHQWRI-DSDQ 2011). Â Flanking Â Japanâ€™s Â activities, Â a Â group Â of Â â€œFriends Â of Â Disaster Â Risk Â Reductionâ€? Â formed Â in Â the Â United Â Nations Â as Â a Â political Â lobby Â LQWKHUXQXSWRWKH5LR&RQIHUHQFH,W
WorldRiskReport 2012 ] 51
was Â headed Â jointly Â by Â Australia, Â Indonesia, Â Norway Â and Â Peru. Â Its Â other Â members Â were Â Denmark, Â Ecuador, Â Mexico, Â Morocco, Â Mozambique, Â the Â Philippines, Â New Â Zealand, Â Switzerland Â and Â Timor Â Leste. Â Whereas Â large Â SDUWVRIWKH&RQIHUHQFHZHUHFKDUDFWHUL]HG by Â a Â confrontation Â between Â the Â classical Â negotiating Â blocs Â from Â the Â industrialized Â and Â developing Â countries, Â this Â group Â formed Â one Â of Â the Â few Â cross-Âbloc Â coalitions. Â In Â a Â joint Â statement, Â it Â stressed Â the Â urgent Â need Â for Â a Â reduction Â of Â the Â social, Â economic Â and Â ecological Â impacts Â of Â disasters Â caused Â by Â extreme Â natural Â events. Â With Â a Â view Â to Â the Â Outcome Â Document Â of Â the Â Rio+20 Â &RQIHUHQFHWKHJURXSDQQRXQFHG)ULHQGVRI Disaster Â Risk Â Reduction Â 2012): â€œWe Â call Â for Â strong Â and Â strategic Â language Â (â€Ś) Â that Â recognises Â disaster Â risk Â reduction Â as Â fundamental Â to Â achieving Â sustainable Â devel-Â opment Â and Â places Â it Â at Â the Â heart Â of Â the Â future Â development Â agenda.â€? In Â the Â positions Â held Â by Â the Â key Â negotiating Â DFWRUVRIWKH5LR&RQIHUHQFHWKH*URXS RI* WKH(XURSHDQ8QLRQ(8 DQGWKH USA, Â this Â topic Â played Â a Â less Â prominent Â role: Â + The Â EU Â only Â mentioned Â â€œnatural Â disastersâ€? Â Â in Â the Â context Â of Â preserving Â coral Â reefs Â and Â the Â future Â range Â of Â tasks Â to Â be Â assigned Â to Â an Â upgraded Â UN Â Environmental Â Program Â 81(3 (8&KDS,,SDUDDQG &KDS,,,SDUD
of Â â€œnatural Â disastersâ€? Â and Â their Â long-Âterm Â negative Â social, Â economic Â and Â ecological Â consequences, Â and Â stressed Â the Â obvious Â relationship Â between Â sustainable Â develop-Â ment, Â poverty Â reduction, Â climate Â change Â DQGGLVDVWHUULVNUHGXFWLRQ* para. Â 15). In Â the Â negotiations Â on Â the Â Outcome Â 'RFXPHQWRIWKH5LR&RQIHUHQFHQR grave Â controversies Â arose Â over Â the Â chapter Â on Â disaster Â risk Â reduction, Â unlike, Â for Â example, Â ZLWKWKHWRSLFVÂł*UHHQ(FRQRP\Â´DQG81(3 reform. Â However, Â Rio+20 Â failed Â to Â achieve Â a Â translation Â of Â the Â general Â appeals Â for Â better Â FRRSHUDWLRQFRRUGLQDWLRQDQGÂżQDQFLQJ of Â activities Â to Â reduce Â the Â risk Â of Â disasters Â into Â a Â concrete Â package Â of Â measures. Â This Â is Â obviously Â intended Â to Â be Â reserved Â for Â the Â further Â discussion Â process Â on Â the Â post-Â2015 Â development Â agenda Â and Â the Â follow-Âup Â agreement Â for Â the Â Hyogo Â Framework Â for Â Action. ,QWKH2XWFRPH'RFXPHQWRIWKH5LR&RQ-Â ference, Â the Â governments Â mainly Â focused Â on Â the Â following Â general Â statements Â (cf. Â Box): + Disaster Â risk Â reduction Â is Â to Â be Â integrated Â Â into Â the Â future Â development Â programs Â at Â all Â levels. + Early Â warning Â systems Â and Â risk Â assessment Â Â are Â to Â be Â improved, Â and Â international Â coop-Â eration Â is Â to Â be Â stepped Â up Â in Â this Â sector.
+ The Â USA Â argued Â the Â case Â for Â improved Â Â disaster Â preparedness Â and Â response, Â espe-Â cially Â in Â the Â context Â of Â promoting Â sustain-Â able Â cities Â and Â creating Â new, Â â€œgreenâ€? Â jobs Â (United Â States Â 2011). Â
+ The Â mutual Â relationships Â between Â disaster Â Â risk Â reduction Â and Â long-Âterm Â development Â planning Â are Â to Â be Â considered Â in Â the Â context Â of Â comprehensive Â and Â better Â coordinated Â strategies.
+ , QLWVVWDWHPHQWWKH*RQO\PDGHJHQHU-Â al Â references Â to Â the Â corresponding Â passages Â in Â the Â Implementation Â Plan Â of Â Johan-Â nesburg, Â professed Â its Â â€œdeep Â concernsâ€? Â over Â the Â growing Â number Â and Â intensity Â
+ A Â gender Â perspective Â is Â to Â be Â considered Â in Â Â all Â phases Â of Â disaster Â management.
52 [ WorldRiskReport 2012
Case study: Indonesia
Lowering the disaster risk with training The island state of Indonesia is particularly strongly exposed to extreme weather events and comes 28th in the list of the most strongly exposed countries in the 2012 WorldRiskIndex. These forces of nature are a hazard to human lives, are destroying the environment and, moreover, are threatening local and national development initiatives. In addition to earthquakes and volcano eruptions owing to the country’s location along the geological fault of the Pacific, it is above all climate change that has been leading to a dangerous increase in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events. Environmental degradation is raising the population’s vulnerability towards natural hazards. Especially the poor are affected. Together with Diakonie Katastrophenhilfe, Brot für die Welt is campaigning for these people: in West Java, where the rising sea level and the filling up of soil with salt owing to seawater flowing in are threatening people’s livelihoods, and in South Sulawesi, where clear-cutting for the development of cocoa plantations is raising the threat of landslides. Together with partner organizations and the local population Brot für die Welt conducted risk analyses early in 2010, at the beginning of the project, which is scheduled for ten years. The inhabitants of South Sulawi identified the neglect of reafforestation by the authorities as the reason for the landslides that destroyed their fields and houses. They addressed the local authorities with demands for reafforestation and the establishment of forest conservation zones. The inhabitants of the villages in West Java were initially unable to do anything about seawater penetrating their wells and fields. However, in workshops, they learnt how to use new irrigation methods and no longer obtain their drinking water from the well but from springs lying at a higher level. The aid programs directly assess more than 2,000 people each in the areas. Several times as many local people benefit indirectly, around 40,000 people in West Java and just under 20,000 people in South Sulawesi. The training programs were developed holistically for the population and for multipliers such as non-governmental organizations and local authorities. In this manner, the people affected
learn what to do in a disaster event and familiarize themselves with measures to prevent damage through erosion and crop failure as well as methods to adapt agriculture and households in the threatened areas. This also includes generating and using regenerative energies (solar panels instead of kerosene lamps, biogas instead of wood firing, using hydropower). Three major goals are being pursued with these projects: + Adapting peasant lives and livelihoods to the changed conditions This includes research and training programs on organic farming, the rehabilitation of irrigation and drainage channels, the reafforestation of mangrove forests, the construction of community composting plants, the introduction of new species and varieties, especially regarding coffee and cocoa, and the introduction of organic kitchen gardens for self-supply and marketing. + Empowering the population The setting up of peasant self-help groups, training in constructive conflict resolution (for conflict events in land use) and in disaster prevention, the establishment of community committees and the development of community-focused risk and emergency management prepare the population for extreme natural events and enable them to claim their rights. + People’s climate protection Research and development of alternative energy solutions as well as lobbying activities for the integration of climate protection measures into local and regional/national budget plans enhance the population’s contribution to climate protection. Integrating these local projects into a larger reference frame and communicating at regional and national as well as international level gives due consideration to the global significance that the threat posed by climate change has. But the chief actor is, and will continue to be, the local population making an effort to achieve safe and sustainable living conditions in their villages and regions.
WorldRiskReport 2012 ] 53
Next steps towards the Post-2015 Development Agenda The Â relationship Â between Â environmental Â degradation, Â poverty Â and Â disaster Â risk Â has Â received Â more Â attention Â in Â the Â context Â of Â WKH5LR&RQIHUHQFH$XVWUDOLDQ)RUHLJQ 6HFUHWDU\%RE&DUUDOUHDG\UHIHUUHGWRDQ â€œunprecedented Â international Â momentum Â to Â reduce Â disaster Â riskâ€? Â (Friends Â of Â Disaster Â Risk Â 5HGXFWLRQ LQWKH81*HQHUDO$VVHPEO\ in Â April Â 2012. Â In Â the Â following Â three Â years, Â it Â will Â be Â crucial Â to Â translate Â the Â political Â appeals Â formulated Â in Â the Â Rio+20 Â process Â into Â practi-Â cal Â action Â in Â a Â Hyogo Â follow-Âup Â agreement. Â The Â follow-Âup Â process Â after Â the Â Rio+20 Â &RQIHUHQFHDQGWKHGHEDWHVRYHUWKHIXWXUH RIWKH0'*VDQGWKHSRVWGHYHORSPHQW agenda Â offer Â the Â opportunity Â to Â systemati-Â cally Â consider Â the Â topic Â of Â â€œdisaster Â risksâ€? Â in Â WKHVHFRQWH[WV$WWKHVDPHWLPHWKHVSHFLÂżF debates Â on Â this Â topic Â will Â continue Â to Â be Â held Â in Â the Â responsible Â international Â bodies Â and Â at Â special Â thematic Â conferences. Â Thus, Â over Â the Â next Â three Â years, Â there Â are Â going Â to Â be Â at Â least Â four Â parallel Â discussion Â and Â negation Â strands Â at Â global Â level: Â +
The Â debates Â on Â a Â post-ÂHyogo Â agreement Â are Â going Â to Â reach Â an Â initial Â climax Â with Â WKHIRUWKVHVVLRQRIWKH*OREDO3ODWIRUP IRU'LVDVWHU5LVN5HGXFWLRQLQ*HQHYDLQ 0D\$WWKHWKLUG:RUOG&RQIHUHQFH on Â Disaster Â Reduction Â 2015 Â in Â Japan, Â they Â are Â to Â lead Â to Â the Â adoption Â of Â a Â follow-Âup Â agreement Â for Â the Â Hyogo Â Framework Â for Â Action.
Thanks Â to Â the Â appointment Â of Â a Â High-Âlev-Â el Â Panel Â for Â the Â Post-Â2015 Â Development Â $JHQGDE\816HFUHWDU\*HQHUDO%DQ Ki-Âmoon Â in Â July Â 2012, Â the Â discussions Â RYHUWKHIXWXUHRIWKH0'*VKDYHJDLQHG momentum. Â The Â report Â by Â this Â Panel Â is Â to Â provide Â the Â basis Â for Â the Â next Â (and Â H[SHFWHGWREHWKHODVW Âł0'*6XPPLWÂ´
54 [ WorldRiskReport 2012
RIWKH81*HQHUDO$VVHPEO\LQIDOO The Â resolutions Â are Â to Â be Â put Â into Â concrete Â terms Â in Â the Â subsequent Â two Â years Â in Â or-Â der Â for Â the Â future Â UN Â development Â agenda Â to Â be Â passed Â at Â a Â further Â summit Â meeting Â in Â 2015. Â +
$VDUHVXOWRIWKH5LR&RQIHUHQFH WKH81*HQHUDO$VVHPEO\LVWRDSSRLQW a Â 30-Âmember Â working Â group Â of Â govern-Â ment Â representatives Â in Â fall Â 2012 Â that Â is Â to Â develop Â a Â proposal Â for Â a Â future Â set Â of Â universal Â â€œSustainable Â Development Â *RDOVÂ´ZLWKLQD\HDUÂśVWLPH:LWKVSHFLÂżF targets Â and Â indicators, Â the Â new Â set Â of Â goals Â is Â to Â form Â a Â core Â element Â of Â the Â Post-Â2015 Â Development Â Agenda.
In Â the Â international Â climate Â negotiations, Â the Â governments Â committed Â themselves Â in Â the Â Durban Â Platform Â in Â December Â 2012 Â to Â negotiate Â a Â new Â climate Â agreement Â by Â 2015 Â that Â is Â also Â to Â include Â measures Â aimed Â at Â reducing Â the Â risk Â of Â disasters
Thus Â all Â these Â processes Â are Â to Â culminate Â in Â 2015. Â By Â then, Â the Â central Â challenge Â will Â be Â to Â systematically Â integrate Â these Â processes. Â The Â aim Â has Â to Â be Â to Â really Â turn Â disaster Â risk Â reduction Â into Â an Â integral Â element Â of Â a Â post-Â 2015 Â development Â agenda.
Excerpt from the Final Document of the “Rio+20” Conference: „The future we want“
Disaster risk reduction
We reaffirm our commitment to the Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015: Building the Resilience of Nations and Communities to Disasters and call for States, the United Nations system, the international financial institutions, subregional, regional and international organizations and civil society to accelerate implementation of the Framework and the achievement of its goals. We call for disaster risk reduction and the building of resilience to disasters to be addressed with a renewed sense of urgency in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication, and, as appropriate, to be integrated into policies, plans, programmes and budgets at all levels and considered within relevant future frameworks. We invite governments at all levels as well as relevant subregional, regional and international organizations to commit to adequate, timely and predictable resources for disaster risk reduction in order to enhance the resilience of cities and communities to disasters, according to their own circumstances and capacities.
We stress the importance of stronger interlinkages among disaster risk reduction, recovery and long-term development planning, and call for more coordinated and comprehensive strategies that integrate disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation considerations into public and private investment, decision-making and the planning of humanitarian and development actions, in order to reduce risk, increase resilience and provide a smoother transition between relief, recovery and development. In this regard, we recognize the need to integrate a gender perspective into the design and implementation of all phases of disaster risk management.
187. We recognize the importance of early warning
189. We call for all relevant stakeholders, including
systems as part of effective disaster risk reduction at all levels in order to reduce economic and social damages, including the loss of human life, and in this regard encourage States to integrate such systems into their national disaster risk reduction strategies and plans. We encourage donors and the international community to enhance international cooperation in support of disaster risk reduction in developing countries, as appropriate, through technical assistance, technology transfer as mutually agreed, capacity-building and training programmes.
We further recognize the importance of comprehensive hazard and risk assessments, and knowledge- and information- sharing, including reliable geospatial information. We commit to undertake and strengthen in a timely manner risk assessment and disaster risk reduction instruments.
Governments, international, regional and subregional organizations, the private sector and civil society, to take appropriate and effective measures, taking into account the three dimensions of sustainable development, including through strengthening coordination and cooperation to reduce exposure to risk for the protection of people, and infrastructure and other national assets, from the impact of disasters, in line with the Hyogo Framework for Action and any post-2015 framework for disaster risk reduction. (United Nations General Assembly 2012)
WorldRiskReport 2012 ] 55
56 [ WorldRiskReport 2012
4. Disaster risk reduction – a key element of global sustainability policy Peter Mucke, Jens Martens, Katrin Radtke
Political awareness of the relationships between environmental degradation, poverty and disaster risks has grown in the context of the UN Summit on Sustainable Development (“Rio+20”). It was urgently necessary for this to happen, for to a growing extent, disasters are being aggravated by intrusions of human beings into nature such as the overcultivation of land, deforestation and clear- cutting of coastal vegetation, the destruction of coral reefs or river regulation. With progressive climate change, the disaster risk is set to further increase. The threat of uncontrollable new technologies (such as in the context of “geo-engineering”) and an insistence upon highly risky obsolete technologies (such as nuclear power) are additionally exacerbating the risk of disasters. WorldRiskReport 2012 ] 57
ot Â only Â do Â large-Âscale Â disasters Â cause Â im-Â mense Â human Â suffering, Â they Â also Â create Â massive Â costs Â for Â the Â economy. Â Within Â next Â to Â no Â time, Â they Â can Â wipe Â out Â years Â of Â progress Â in Â development. Â Thus Â the Â reduction Â of Â disasters Â is Â both Â a Â moral Â imperative Â and Â an Â economic Â necessity. Â It Â is Â a Â basic Â precondition Â for Â sus-Â tainable Â development Â and Â requires Â greater Â coordinated Â action Â from Â the Â local Â to Â the Â global Â level. Â In Â the Â past, Â disaster Â prevention Â and Â immedi-Â ate Â disaster Â relief Â was Â often Â treated Â in Â isola-Â tion Â from Â longer-Âterm Â strategies Â for Â sustain-Â DEOHGHYHORSPHQW(YHQWRGD\WKLVLVUHĂ€HFWHG in Â separate Â political Â responsibilities Â and Â institutional Â competences. Â A Â growing Â number Â of Â governments Â and Â civil Â society Â organizations Â KDYHOHDUQHGOHVVRQVIURPWKHGHÂżFLWVLQFR-Â herence Â and Â coordination Â and Â are Â now Â calling Â for Â activities Â to Â reduce Â disaster Â risk Â to Â be Â fully Â integrated Â into Â more Â comprehensive Â strategies Â and Â policies Â of Â sustainable Â development. Â The Â Rio+20 Â process Â has Â provided Â a Â political Â forum Â for Â these Â demands. Â In Â the Â coming Â three Â years, Â it Â will Â be Â crucial Â to Â translate Â the Â political Â demands Â made Â there Â into Â practical Â action, Â agree Â a Â follow-Âup Â agree-Â ment Â for Â the Â anti-Âdisaster Â program Â of Â Hyogo Â and Â adopt Â its Â disaster Â risk Â reduction Â strategies Â as Â an Â integral Â element Â of Â the Â new, Â Post-Â2015 Â Development Â Agenda Â and Â the Â climate Â negoti-Â ations. Alliance Â Development Â Works Â demands Â that Â any Â Post-ÂHyogo Â Agreement Â should Â be Â based Â on Â four Â general Â goals Â that Â are Â oriented Â on Â the Â four Â components Â of Â the Â WorldRiskIndex: 1. Reducing the threat of extreme natural events: In Â order Â to Â eliminate Â the Â root Â causes Â of Â grow-Â ing Â disaster Â risks, Â there Â is Â a Â particular Â need Â for Â effective Â measures Â to Â mitigate Â climate Â change Â and Â counter Â the Â degradation Â of Â soils Â and Â veg-Â etation.
58 [ WorldRiskReport 2012
2. Reducing structural vulnerability: This Â above Â all Â calls Â for Â improvements Â in Â the Â social Â and Â economic Â living Â conditions Â of Â vulnerable Â people. Â Measures Â here Â comprise Â combating Â poverty Â and Â hunger Â and Â reducing Â income Â disparities. 3. Raising the capacities to cope with disasters: This Â includes Â strengthening Â public Â institutions Â and Â developing Â social Â security Â systems, Â but Â also Â the Â stepping Â up Â of Â disaster Â preparedness Â and Â early Â warning. Â 4. Improving measures to adapt to disaster risks: These Â comprise Â investments Â in Â more Â resilient Â infrastructure Â and Â ecosystems Â as Â well Â as Â improvements Â in Â education Â and Â research Â and Â equal Â participation Â of Â people Â threatened Â by Â disasters Â in Â political Â decision-Âmaking Â processes. On Â the Â basis Â of Â this Â general Â set Â of Â goals, Â elements Â for Â the Â Post-ÂHyogo Â Agreement Â and Â the Â new Â Development Â Agenda Â that Â the Â governments Â ought Â to Â resolve Â include: + Realizing a human right to disaster preparedness: The Â basic Â rights Â of Â people Â in Â the Â event Â of Â a Â disaster Â are, Â inter Â alia, Â governed Â by Â the Â Univer-Â sal Â Declaration Â of Â Human Â Rights Â (particularly Â $UWLFOHVDQG DQGWKH,QWHUQDWLRQDO&RYH-Â QDQWRQ(FRQRPLF6RFLDODQG&XOWXUDO5LJKWV (the Â Social Â Pact). Â The Â principles Â of Â the Â 1992 Â Rio Â Declaration Â and Â the Â Millennium Â Declara-Â tion Â of Â 2000 Â â€“ Â in Â particular Â the Â polluter Â prin-Â ciple Â (with Â regard Â to Â responsibility Â for Â climate Â change), Â the Â principle Â of Â common Â but Â differen-Â tiated Â responsibilities Â as Â well Â as Â the Â solidarity Â principle Â â€“ Â are Â quite Â clear: Â People Â affected Â by Â disasters Â have Â a Â right Â to Â support, Â and Â disaster Â risk Â reduction Â is Â not Â merely Â a Â humanitarian Â challenge Â for Â governments Â but Â also Â a Â human Â rights Â obligation. Â
+ Improving the disaster information base: 6XIÂżFLHQWLQIRUPDWLRQLVRIHVVHQWLDOLPSRU-Â tance Â to Â preventing Â and Â coping Â with Â disasters. Â For Â this Â reason, Â governments Â ought Â to Â system-Â atically Â make Â risk Â assessments, Â establish Â threat Â potentials, Â compile Â contingency Â plans Â and Â calculate Â the Â costs Â of Â possible Â disasters Â ex Â ante. Â Also, Â all Â private Â enterprises Â potentially Â affect-Â ed Â by Â disasters Â ought Â to Â be Â obliged Â to Â conduct Â corresponding Â risk Â assessments. Â This Â applies Â in Â particular Â prior Â to Â the Â introduction Â of Â new, Â as Â yet Â untested Â technologies Â that Â could Â have Â a Â massive Â ecological Â impact, Â such Â as Â forms Â of Â â€œgeo-Âengineeringâ€?. Â All Â this Â information Â ought Â to Â be Â provided Â to Â the Â public Â free Â of Â charge. Â In Â the Â event Â of Â a Â disaster, Â it Â is Â also Â important Â for Â the Â public Â and Â the Â media Â to Â be Â supplied Â with Â comprehensive Â and Â immediate Â information. Â An Â independent Â checking Â of Â information Â has Â to Â be Â ensured. + Ensuring equal participation: In Â order Â to Â enhance Â adaptability Â to Â environ-Â mental Â change Â and Â raise Â coping Â capacities Â in Â the Â event Â of Â a Â disaster, Â the Â people Â affected Â have Â to Â be Â comprehensively Â integrated Â into Â the Â political Â decision-Âmaking Â processes Â at Â community Â and Â national Â level, Â with Â equal Â participation Â of Â women Â being Â ensured. Â This Â also Â applies Â to Â the Â coordination Â and Â allo-Â cation Â of Â disaster Â relief. Â Here, Â the Â basis Â for Â decision-Âmaking Â includes Â gender Â studies Â and Â statistics Â that Â can Â be Â broken Â down Â according Â to Â gender, Â too. Â + Setting standards to make infrastructure disaster-proof: In Â order Â to Â reduce Â vulnerability Â to Â disasters Â and Â reduce Â the Â extent Â of Â potential Â harm Â and Â damage, Â physical Â infrastructure Â in Â the Â respective Â regions Â has Â to Â be Â made Â disaster-Â proof. Â One Â precondition Â for Â this Â is Â adequate Â construction Â and Â safety Â standards Â for Â EXLOGLQJVEULGJHVURDGVHWF&RPSO\LQJZLWK them Â has Â to Â be Â systematically Â monitored Â in Â the Â countries Â at Â risk, Â and Â should Â the Â need Â DULVHLWKDVWREHÂżQDQFLDOO\VXSSRUWHGYLDWKH
Terms used in the Post-2015 Development Agenda Millennium Development Goals In 2000, the heads of states and governments from more than 150 countries adopted the United Nations Millennium Declaration. One of the items it contained was a set of internationally agreed development goals that were to subsequently become referred to as the â€œMillennium Development Goalsâ€? (MDGs) and act as a guiding concept in international development politics. With them, the discourse on development focused on addressing the most extreme forms of poverty and hunger and on basic social provisions for the population, especially in the fields of primary education, health and water supply. Most of the MDGs are linked to clear quantitative, and therefore verifiable, objectives that are to be reached by 2015. Together with what are now 21 sub-targets and 60 indicators, the eight MDGs form an important reference frame for poverty reduction and development. However, they also bear severe shortcomings, for the structural framework conditions of development remain just as much in the dark in the MDG catalogue as the ecological dimension of development does. Neither do human rights, democracy or good governance play any substantial role. Finally, the modes of consumption and production of the industrialized countries, with their grave consequences regarding climate change and the increase in the risk of disasters, are not addressed in the MDGs. At the 2010 â€œMDG Summitâ€?, the governments commissioned the UN Secretary General with the task of developing proposals on the future of the MDGs and the United Nations Development Agenda after 2015. Since then, intensive debates have started on the Post2015 Development Agenda. In parallel, at the
WorldRiskReport 2012 ] 59
public Â budget Â and Â international Â development Â cooperation.
Rio+20 Summit, the governments resolved to formulate universal Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). As yet, it remains unclear how this process is to be combined with the discussions over the Post-2015 Development Agenda. The Outcome Document of Rio merely states that the processes are to develop in a â€œcoordinated and coherentâ€? manner.
Hyogo Framework for Action The Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA) was the central outcome of the second World Conference on Disaster Reduction in Kobe, in 2005 (UNISDR 2005). It was signed by 168 member states. The HFA is a ten-year plan aimed basically at substantially reducing losses resulting from extreme natural events. The HFA defines five priorities for action that are to contribute to disaster risk reduction: 1. Ensuring that disaster risk reduction becomes a national priority and a strong institutional basis for implementation is established. 2. Identifying, monitoring and assessing the respective disaster risk. 3. Supporting early warning. 4. Taking advantage of knowledge, innovation and education to develop a culture of security and resilience at all levels. 5. Reducing the risk factors behind disasters and strengthening disaster preparedness in order to enable an effective response at all levels. Thus the HFA is the first plan to describe processes in detail that are necessary in the various sectors to reduce disaster risk. The implementation of the HFA is being coordinated by the Secretariat of the United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR), which regularly reports on progress made in putting the plan into practice.
Rio Conference 1992 The UN Conference on Environment and Developmentâ€œ, (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro is regarded as a milestone in the international discussion on sustainable development. At the time, this meeting, which is also referred to as the â€œEarth Summitâ€?, was the largest international conference in human history. The official results of the Earth Summit were the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, the Agenda 21, the conventions on climate change and biological diversity negotiated in the run-up to the Conference and a forest declaration containing principles of forest management and forest conservation.
60 [ WorldRiskReport 2012
+ Integrating disaster risk reduction in development planning: All Â sustainable Â development Â strategies Â ought Â to Â serve Â the Â goal Â of Â reducing Â the Â risk Â of Â disas-Â ters, Â too. Â This Â applies Â both Â to Â the Â countries Â im-Â mediately Â exposed Â to Â extreme Â natural Â events Â DQGWKRVHLQGLUHFWO\LQĂ€XHQFLQJKD]DUGV via Â their Â policies Â (for Â example Â their Â climate Â policies). Â There Â are Â items Â to Â set Â out Â from Â in Â all Â policy Â areas. Â For Â example, Â consistent Â measures Â to Â protect Â the Â climate Â and Â the Â prevention Â of Â an Â overexploitation Â of Â forests Â and Â soil Â erosion Â can Â reduce Â the Â hazard Â potential. Â Public Â invest-Â ment Â in Â rural Â development, Â the Â preservation Â of Â ecosystems Â and Â sustainable Â urban Â devel-Â opment Â can Â reduce Â structural Â susceptibility Â to Â disasters. Â Improving Â government Â disaster Â preparedness, Â the Â setting Â up Â of Â public Â early Â warning Â systems, Â an Â across-Âthe-Âboard Â devel-Â opment Â of Â the Â public Â health Â system Â and Â the Â establishment Â of Â social Â security Â systems Â raise Â capacities Â to Â cope Â with Â disasters. + Sufficient finance for disaster risk reduction: Disaster Â risk Â reduction Â is Â not Â free Â of Â charge. Â But Â increasing Â investment Â in Â disaster Â pre-Â paredness Â saves Â a Â multiple Â of Â costs Â arising Â for Â coping Â and Â rehabilitation Â once Â a Â disaster Â has Â VHWLQ*UHDWHUSXEOLFLQYHVWPHQWLQGLVDVWHU preparedness Â therefore Â also Â makes Â sense Â for Â the Â economy Â as Â a Â whole. Â This Â applies Â to Â the Â public Â budgets Â of Â the Â countries Â affected, Â which Â RXJKWWRSURYLGHPRUHÂżQDQFHIRUGLVDVWHUULVN reduction. Â But Â it Â also Â applies Â to Â international Â development Â cooperation. Â For Â here Â too, Â given Â the Â need Â for Â emergency Â relief Â and Â rehabilita-Â tion Â support Â after Â a Â disaster Â has Â set Â in, Â each Â euro Â spent Â in Â projects Â on Â disaster Â preparedness Â ZLOOVDYHKLJKHUFRVWV0RUHRYHUÂżQDQFLDOVXS-Â port Â is Â not Â merely Â a Â charity Â issue Â but Â is Â also Â one Â of Â economic Â reason Â â€“ Â as Â well Â as Â being Â a Â human Â rights Â and Â international Â law Â obligation. Â For Â not Â only Â is Â it Â the Â extraterritorial Â duty Â of Â states Â to Â provide Â support. Â It Â generally Â applies Â that, Â
in Â accordance Â with Â the Â â€œpolluter Â pays Â princi-Â pleâ€?, Â those Â countries Â are Â held Â liable Â for Â harm Â and Â damage Â that Â have Â caused Â it. Â First Â and Â foremost, Â in Â the Â case Â of Â aggravated Â disasters Â Ă€RRGLQJGURXJKWVHWF FDXVHGE\FOLPDWH change, Â these Â tend Â to Â be Â the Â traditional Â indus-Â trialized Â countries. + Strategically and institutionally enhancing policy coherence: Reducing Â disaster Â risk Â is Â a Â cross-Âsectoral Â task Â for Â politics Â to Â address. Â At Â international Â level, Â this Â has Â to Â imply Â that Â this Â task Â is Â considered Â in Â all Â debates Â on Â global Â sustainability Â and Â the Â new, Â Post-Â2015 Â Development Â Agenda. Â That Â at Â least Â a Â few Â modest Â steps Â into Â this Â direction Â have Â been Â made Â at Â the Â Rio+20 Â Summit Â is Â a Â positive Â signal. Â However, Â the Â European Â Union Â in Â particular Â ought Â to Â give Â this Â topic Â higher Â political Â priority Â in Â the Â ongoing Â and Â future Â international Â negotiations Â than Â it Â has Â done Â so Â far. Â Above Â all, Â the Â governments Â ought Â to Â see Â to Â it Â that Â disaster Â risk Â reduction Â is Â estab-Â lished Â in Â the Â agenda Â of Â the Â new Â High Â Level Â Political Â Forum Â for Â Sustainable Â Development. Â But Â at Â national Â level Â too, Â this Â topic Â ought Â to Â be Â integrated Â into Â the Â respective Â sustainabil-Â ity Â strategies. Â To Â enhance Â policy Â coherence, Â attention Â also Â ought Â to Â be Â given Â to Â overcome Â the Â institutional Â separating Â of Â development Â cooperation Â and Â disaster Â relief/humanitarian Â aid Â into Â different Â ministries Â â€“ Â as Â is Â the Â case Â in Â *HUPDQ\IRUH[DPSOH Â + Including disaster risk reduction in the future set of global sustainability goals: In Â order Â to Â make Â disaster Â preparedness Â and Â coping Â with Â disasters Â an Â integral Â element Â of Â a Â Post-Â2015 Â Development Â Agenda, Â it Â would Â make Â sense Â to Â consider Â the Â issue Â in Â a Â future Â set Â of Â global Â sustainability Â goals, Â too. Â Al-Â though Â a Â large Â number Â of Â potential Â goals, Â for Â H[DPSOHLQWKHÂżHOGRISRYHUW\HUDGLFDWLRQ reducing Â income Â disparities Â and Â limiting Â per Â FDSLWD&2HPLVVLRQVDOVRLPSOLFLWO\VHUYH the Â reduction Â of Â vulnerability Â and Â hazards, Â WKH\RXJKWWREHVXSSOHPHQWHGE\VSHFLÂżF
In its core, the Rio Declaration stresses the holistic character of development by combining environmental, social and economic goals, as well as social participation and democracy. One of the chief causes of global problems has been seen in the unsustainable production and consumption patterns in the rich countries. It is from this that the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, established in the Rio Declaration, follows for the preservation of the Earthâ€™s ecosystems. In this principle, the industrialized countries acknowledged for the first time â€œthe responsibility that they bear in the international pursuit to sustainable development in view of the pressures their societies place on the global environment and of the technologies and financial resources they commandâ€? (Rio Declaration, Principle 7). This principle is also of considerable importance in the debate on disaster risk reduction.
Climate negotiations and the Kyoto Protocol The climate negotiations at international level are also of considerable importance to disaster risk reduction. The chief basis is the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, which the United Nations adopted in 1992. Concrete measures are negotiated in particular in the context of the annual Conference of Parties (COP) by the current 194 states party to the convention. The valid contractual basis is the so-called Kyoto Protocol of 1997. One of the items that the states party to this Protocol agreed in the Japanese city of Kyoto was to reduce the emissions of six of the most important greenhouse gases by 2012. Intensive discussions have been held on a follow-up agreement and further commitment periods in
WorldRiskReport 2012 ] 61
the context of the ongoing climate negotiations, recently at COP 17 in Durban end 2011. The agreement reached there that the community of states negotiate a new agreement by 2015 that would then enter force by 2020 at the latest is expected to lead the way forward. The next stage on this route is the Climate Summit in Qatar from 26th November to 7th December 2012 (COP 18), which will be a yardstick for the seriousness of the further negotiation process. However, the schedule, extent and distribution of greenhouse gas reductions, especially between the emerging economies and the industrialized countries, continue to be controversial. These items are to be settled in Qatar. The goal of the negotiation has to be to lower global warming to below two degrees Celsius (compared to the level before the beginning of industrialization). For this is the only way in which negative impacts of climate change can be checked according to the present level of knowledge. However, the current developments in global emissions, forest degradation and consumption and production patterns in industry and agriculture suggest that there will be cause to fear a rise in temperature of four to six degrees Celsius by the end of the century. It was also decided to compile a â€œReviewâ€? in Durban with the aid of which the currently agreed climate protection goals and the implementation strategies of the respective countries are to be assessed by 2015, particularly from the angle of whether they are appropriate to state-of-the-art insights in climatology. Essential scientific foundations for these consultations will be provided by the Fifth Assessment Report of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), scheduled to be published as three Report sections in 2013 and 2014. The crucial question here is whether the Assessment Report will give new impetus to scientific impulses for the negotiations.
62 [ WorldRiskReport 2012
targets Â for Â disaster Â preparedness Â and Â coping Â with Â disasters. Â For Â example, Â such Â targets Â could Â relate Â to Â the Â setting Â up Â of Â national Â early Â warn-Â ing Â systems Â and Â the Â conducting Â of Â risk Â assess-Â PHQWVÂżQDQFLQJGLVDVWHUSUHSDUHGQHVVDQG disaster Â relief Â and Â the Â systematic Â introduction Â of Â disaster-Âproof Â building Â regulations. Â Whereas Â the Â framework Â for Â global Â sustainability Â goals Â RXJKWDSSO\XQLYHUVDOO\WKHVSHFLÂżFVXEWDUJHWV should Â be Â adapted Â to Â the Â local Â conditions Â and Â GHÂżQHGE\WKHSRSXODWLRQOLYLQJWKHUH The Â follow-Âup Â process Â after Â the Â Rio+20 Â Sum-Â mit, Â the Â international Â climate Â negotiations Â and Â the Â increasingly Â intensive Â debates Â on Â the Â future Â RIWKH0LOOHQQLXP'HYHORSPHQW*RDOV0'*V and Â the Â Post-Â2015 Â Development Â Agenda Â offer Â an Â opportunity Â to Â also Â systematically Â consider Â the Â topic Â of Â â€œdisaster Â risksâ€? Â in Â these Â contexts. Â Â In Â the Â following Â three Â years, Â it Â will Â be Â crucial Â to Â demonstrate Â the Â will Â professed Â again Â and Â again Â to Â overcome Â a Â sector-Ârelated Â â€œsilo Â men-Â talityâ€? Â and Â systematically Â interlink Â the Â various Â negotiation Â and Â discussion Â processes. Â The Â aim Â has Â to Â be Â to Â really Â turn Â disaster Â risk Â reduction Â into Â an Â integral Â element Â of Â the Â new Â Develop-Â ment Â Agenda. Â
WorldRiskIndex, countries in alphabetical order
Afghanistan Albania Algeria Angola Argentina Armenia Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzeg. Botswana Brazil Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burma Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Central African Rep. Chad Chile China Colombia Comoros Congo Costa Rica Côte d’Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea
9.79 % 9.96 % 8.15 % 6.56 % 3.80 % 7.04 % 4.57 % 3.75 % 6.10 % 4.17 % 1.81 % 20.22 % 1.15 % 3.32 % 3.48 % 6.63 % 11.42 % 8.17 % 5.13 % 6.63 % 5.21 % 4.30 % 15.92 % 4.56 % 9.74 % 9.15 % 10.49 % 17.17 % 11.50 % 3.18 % 10.88 % 6.64 % 11.13 % 12.26 % 7.05 % 6.89 % 7.45 % 7.38 % 17.38 % 9.00 % 4.35 % 6.55 % 2.81 % 3.67 % 3.09 % 9.96 %
40. 38. 56. 88. 133. 79. 117. 135. 98. 125. 166. 5. 171. 145. 142. 86. 27. 55. 110. 86. 109. 124. 11. 118. 41. 42. 36. 8. 26. 150. 32. 85. 28. 19. 78. 81. 68. 71. 7. 44. 123. 89. 152. 138. 151. 37.
7.94 % 2.33 % 16.89 % 4.47 %
58. 161. 10. 121.
Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Fiji Finland France Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Greece Grenada Guatemala Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Honduras Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea, Republic of Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao P. D. Rep. Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libyan Arab Jam. Lithuania Luxembourg Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Mali Malta Mauritania Mauritius
6.44 % 2.50 % 7.81 % 13.69 % 2.24 % 2.78 % 6.20 % 11.84 % 6.75 % 3.27 % 8.85 % 7.35 % 1.46 % 20.75 % 8.55 % 13.34 % 11.77 % 11.96 % 11.02 % 5.87 % 1.53 % 7.28 % 10.74 % 4.98 % 4.95 % 4.50 % 2.43 % 4.82 % 12.15 % 13.53 % 4.90 % 3.87 % 6.96 % 1.78 % 4.89 % 3.71 % 8.50 % 5.73 % 3.51 % 5.10 % 7.22 % 7.86 % 3.80 % 3.23 % 2.65 % 10.96 % 8.18 % 6.53 % 8.76 % 0.61 % 8.43 % 15.39 %
92. 159. 62. 15. 163. 153. 96. 23. 84. 146. 45. 72. 169. 4. 49. 17. 24. 21. 30. 102. 168. 73. 33. 112. 113. 120. 160. 116. 20. 16. 114. 128. 80. 167. 115. 136. 50. 103. 141. 111. 75. 60. 133. 148. 155. 31. 54. 91. 46. 172. 52. 13.
Mexico 6.39 % Mongolia 3.24 % Morocco 7.21 % Mozambique 9.09 % Namibia 5.72 % Nepal 5.69 % Netherlands 8.49 % New Zealand 4.44 % Nicaragua 15.36 % Niger 11.93 % Nigeria 8.28 % Norway 2.31 % Oman 2.72 % Pakistan 7.25 % Panama 7.69 % Papua New Guinea 15.81 % Paraguay 3.84 % Peru 7.18 % Philippines 27.98 % Poland 3.53 % Portugal 3.82 % Qatar 0.10 % Rep. of Moldova 5.23 % Romania 6.78 % Russia 3.83 % Rwanda 7.60 % Samoa 4.51 % S. Tome a. Principe 3.40 % Saudi Arabia 1.31 % Senegal 11.08 % Serbia 7.67 % Seychelles 2.60 % Sierra Leone 10.58 % Singapore 2.54 % Slovakia 3.69 % Slovenia 3.81 % Solomon Islands 18.15 % South Africa 5.90 % Spain 3.40 % Sri Lanka 7.79 % Sudan 7.88 % Suriname 8.62 % Swaziland 7.84 % Sweden 2.15 % Switzerland 2.59 % Syrian Arab 5.68 % Republic Tajikistan 7.40 % Thailand 6.44 % Rep. of Macedonia 6.25 % Timor-Leste 17.13 % Togo 10.64 %
94. 147. 76. 43. 104. 105. 51. 122. 14. 22. 53. 162. 154. 74. 64. 12. 129. 77. 3. 140. 131. 173. 108. 82. 130. 67. 119. 143. 170. 29. 66. 156. 35. 158. 137. 132. 6. 100. 143. 63. 59. 48. 61. 164. 157.
Tonga Trinidad a. Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Uganda Ukraine Uni. Arab Emirates United Kingdom U. Rep. o. Tanzania United States o. A. Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Viet Nam Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe
28.62 % 7.68 % 5.90 % 5.68 % 6.55 % 6.75 % 3.19 % 2.07 % 3.65 % 8.11 % 3.99 % 4.12 % 8.71 % 36.31 % 6.13 % 12.88 % 5.98 % 7.44 % 9.87 %
2. 65. 100. 106. 89. 83. 149. 165. 139. 57. 127. 126. 47. 1. 97. 18. 99. 69. 39.
106. 70. 92. 95. 9. 34.
Countries not listed in the WorldRiskIndex Andorra Antigua and Barbuda Dem. People’s Republic of Korea Democratic Republic of the Congo Dominica Federated States of Micronesia Liechtenstein Maldives Marshall Islands Monaco Montenegro Nauru Palau San Marino Somalia St. Kitts and Nevis St. Lucia St. Vincent and the Grenadines Tuvalu
WorldRiskReport 2012 ] 63
Rank 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58.
Country Vanuatu Tonga Philippines Guatemala Bangladesh Solomon Islands Costa Rica Cambodia Timor-Leste El Salvador Brunei Darussalam Papua New Guinea Mauritius Nicaragua Fiji Japan Guinea-Bissau Viet Nam Chile Jamaica Haiti Niger Gambia Guyana Dominican Republic Cameroon Benin Chad Senegal Honduras Madagascar Cape Verde Indonesia Togo Sierra Leone Burundi Djibouti Albania Zimbabwe Afghanistan Burkina Faso Burma Mozambique Côte d’Ivoire Ghana Mali Uzbekistan Suriname Guinea Kyrgyzstan Netherlands Mauritania Nigeria Malawi Bhutan Algeria United Republic of Tanzania Ecuador
64 [ WorldRiskReport 2012
Lack of coping capacities
Lack of adaptive capacities
36.31 % 28.62 % 27.98 % 20.75 % 20.22 % 18.15 % 17.38 % 17.17 % 17.13 % 16.89 % 15.92 % 15.81 % 15.39 % 15.36 % 13.69 % 13.53 % 13.34 % 12.88 % 12.26 % 12.15 % 11.96 % 11.93 % 11.84 % 11.77 % 11.63 % 11.50 % 11.42 % 11.13 % 11.08 % 11.02 % 10.96 % 10.88 % 10.74 % 10.64 % 10.58 % 10.49 % 9.96 % 9.96 % 9.87 % 9.79 % 9.74 % 9.15 % 9.09 % 9.00 % 8.85 % 8.76 % 8.71 % 8.62 % 8.55 % 8.50 % 8.49 % 8.43 % 8.28 % 8.18 % 8.17 % 8.15 % 8.11 % 7.94 %
63.66 % 55.27 % 52.46 % 36.30 % 31.70 % 29.98 % 42.61 % 27.65 % 25.73 % 32.60 % 41.10 % 24.94 % 37.35 % 27.23 % 27.71 % 45.91 % 19.65 % 25.35 % 30.95 % 25.82 % 16.26 % 15.87 % 19.29 % 22.90 % 23.14 % 18.19 % 17.06 % 14.89 % 17.57 % 20.01 % 16.03 % 20.26 % 19.36 % 15.56 % 14.65 % 15.13 % 16.34 % 21.25 % 14.96 % 13.17 % 14.32 % 14.87 % 12.73 % 13.67 % 14.48 % 12.55 % 16.18 % 18.12 % 12.03 % 16.63 % 30.57 % 12.47 % 12.06 % 12.34 % 14.81 % 15.82 % 12.01 % 16.15 %
57.04 % 51.78 % 53.35 % 57.16 % 63.78 % 60.55 % 40.80 % 62.07 % 66.59 % 51.82 % 38.72 % 63.38 % 41.21 % 56.43 % 49.40 % 29.46 % 67.88 % 50.83 % 39.60 % 47.06 % 73.54 % 75.17 % 61.41 % 51.40 % 50.23 % 63.23 % 66.93 % 74.74 % 63.07 % 55.09 % 68.37 % 53.72 % 55.48 % 68.39 % 72.20 % 69.32 % 60.98 % 46.89 % 65.97 % 74.32 % 68.00 % 61.57 % 71.37 % 65.84 % 61.12 % 69.76 % 53.84 % 47.60 % 71.05 % 51.10 % 27.76 % 67.55 % 68.70 % 66.25 % 55.14 % 51.48 % 67.52 % 49.19 %
34.17 % 27.91 % 33.92 % 37.28 % 43.47 % 43.96 % 21.59 % 45.93 % 52.88 % 28.92 % 14.57 % 49.03 % 18.99 % 38.41 % 26.19 % 16.52 % 55.49 % 29.20 % 20.95 % 26.49 % 62.70 % 64.87 % 44.40 % 29.25 % 30.00 % 45.57 % 53.91 % 64.69 % 46.97 % 36.19 % 64.39 % 36.13 % 35.45 % 56.15 % 62.48 % 61.99 % 40.34 % 20.73 % 58.45 % 56.63 % 54.81 % 36.70 % 67.63 % 47.34 % 47.12 % 56.57 % 32.33 % 30.01 % 58.08 % 27.54 % 13.89 % 49.04 % 55.46 % 56.28 % 35.06 % 22.50 % 67.34 % 26.80 %
81.19 % 81.31 % 83.09 % 81.18 % 86.84 % 84.26 % 65.63 % 86.68 % 87.58 % 76.71 % 65.66 % 84.85 % 62.04 % 82.68 % 75.32 % 36.31 % 88.48 % 76.73 % 57.84 % 72.49 % 90.43 % 88.73 % 82.19 % 79.79 % 75.74 % 85.10 % 83.88 % 91.80 % 82.47 % 81.68 % 83.07 % 70.64 % 82.16 % 86.52 % 87.48 % 89.53 % 82.94 % 74.67 % 87.74 % 92.07 % 84.86 % 89.82 % 84.91 % 88.55 % 79.06 % 82.87 % 77.85 % 73.27 % 90.16 % 77.79 % 39.14 % 86.54 % 88.00 % 85.31 % 77.31 % 78.46 % 83.49 % 76.93 %
55.78 % 46.11 % 43.03 % 53.04 % 61.03 % 53.42 % 35.19 % 53.61 % 59.32 % 49.82 % 35.94 % 56.27 % 42.60 % 48.21 % 46.67 % 35.56 % 59.68 % 46.56 % 40.01 % 42.21 % 67.48 % 71.93 % 57.63 % 45.16 % 44.96 % 59.01 % 63.00 % 67.74 % 59.76 % 47.40 % 57.66 % 54.39 % 48.83 % 62.51 % 66.64 % 56.44 % 59.66 % 45.26 % 51.73 % 74.26 % 64.32 % 58.18 % 61.58 % 61.64 % 57.16 % 69.85 % 51.35 % 39.53 % 64.91 % 47.98 % 30.26 % 67.07 % 62.63 % 57.15 % 53.05 % 53.48 % 51.73 % 43.85 %
Rank 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 92. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100. 100. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 106. 108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113. 114. 115.
Country Sudan Liberia Swaziland Ethiopia Sri Lanka Panama Trinidad and Tobago Serbia Rwanda Comoros Zambia Tajikistan Congo Greece India Pakistan Lesotho Morocco Peru China Armenia Kenya Colombia Romania Uganda Georgia Central African Republic Bosnia and Herzegovina Belize Angola Cuba Turkmenistan Malaysia Thailand Eritrea Mexico The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Gabon Venezuela Azerbaijan Yemen Tunisia South Africa Hungary Lao People's Dem. Republic Namibia Nepal Syrian Arab Republic Turkey Republic of Moldova Botswana Bolivia Lebanon Iran (Islamic Republic of) Iraq Jordan Korea, Republic of
Lack of coping capacities
Lack of adaptive capacities
7.88 % 7.86 % 7.84 % 7.81 % 7.79 % 7.69 % 7.68 % 7.67 % 7.60 % 7.45 % 7.44 % 7.40 % 7.38 % 7.35 % 7.28 % 7.25 % 7.22 % 7.21 % 7.18 % 7.05 % 7.04 % 6.96 % 6.89 % 6.78 % 6.75 % 6.75 % 6.64 % 6.63 % 6.63 % 6.56 % 6.55 % 6.55 % 6.53 % 6.44 % 6.44 % 6.39 %
11.86 % 10.96 % 12.76 % 11.12 % 14.79 % 16.45 % 17.54 % 18.05 % 11.98 % 10.97 % 11.37 % 12.98 % 11.65 % 21.11 % 11.94 % 11.36 % 11.40 % 13.25 % 14.40 % 14.43 % 14.51 % 10.69 % 13.84 % 15.77 % 10.16 % 14.69 % 9.39 % 14.02 % 13.31 % 10.18 % 17.45 % 13.19 % 14.60 % 13.70 % 8.55 % 13.84 %
66.45 % 71.74 % 61.41 % 70.21 % 52.67 % 46.74 % 43.77 % 42.52 % 63.43 % 67.91 % 65.46 % 56.99 % 63.37 % 34.83 % 60.95 % 63.86 % 63.33 % 54.45 % 49.84 % 48.83 % 48.49 % 65.09 % 49.80 % 42.99 % 66.43 % 45.94 % 70.69 % 47.31 % 49.81 % 64.45 % 37.54 % 49.65 % 44.74 % 47.03 % 75.35 % 46.15 %
52.44 % 65.11 % 47.48 % 58.93 % 28.28 % 29.46 % 18.87 % 18.77 % 58.47 % 56.70 % 61.81 % 37.25 % 52.14 % 16.55 % 40.88 % 38.84 % 50.87 % 29.07 % 30.81 % 28.58 % 24.02 % 52.90 % 29.73 % 22.06 % 56.61 % 24.17 % 61.52 % 19.47 % 28.16 % 56.15 % 19.20 % 24.02 % 20.87 % 21.96 % 66.62 % 23.75 %
91.70 % 85.88 % 82.07 % 88.34 % 80.45 % 68.89 % 70.58 % 68.33 % 80.26 % 83.73 % 81.26 % 76.31 % 86.41 % 52.27 % 81.78 % 87.39 % 81.83 % 76.42 % 74.93 % 71.53 % 70.95 % 86.56 % 76.89 % 63.95 % 88.11 % 65.46 % 89.44 % 73.88 % 74.31 % 85.28 % 58.95 % 76.23 % 70.30 % 76.42 % 86.76 % 71.59 %
55.22 % 64.22 % 54.69 % 63.37 % 49.29 % 41.86 % 41.88 % 40.46 % 51.54 % 63.30 % 53.31 % 57.42 % 51.54 % 35.67 % 60.18 % 65.35 % 57.30 % 57.86 % 43.77 % 46.39 % 50.51 % 55.80 % 42.76 % 42.95 % 54.59 % 48.18 % 61.12 % 48.58 % 46.94 % 51.91 % 34.48 % 48.71 % 43.04 % 42.72 % 72.68 % 43.12 %
6.20 % 6.13 % 6.10 % 5.98 % 5.90 % 5.90 % 5.87 % 5.73 % 5.72 % 5.69 % 5.68 % 5.68 % 5.23 % 5.21 % 5.13 % 5.10 % 4.98 % 4.95 % 4.90 % 4.89 %
11.95 % 13.15 % 13.16 % 9.04 % 12.45 % 12.08 % 15.61 % 9.55 % 10.41 % 9.16 % 10.56 % 12.25 % 11.11 % 10.55 % 8.98 % 11.14 % 10.19 % 8.08 % 10.53 % 14.89 %
51.90 % 46.62 % 46.34 % 66.13 % 47.38 % 48.83 % 37.61 % 60.03 % 54.96 % 62.19 % 53.81 % 46.35 % 47.06 % 49.40 % 57.13 % 45.75 % 48.85 % 61.20 % 46.50 % 32.84 %
33.01 % 23.44 % 22.86 % 47.89 % 22.52 % 31.36 % 16.18 % 43.34 % 46.26 % 48.06 % 27.35 % 19.80 % 23.53 % 31.97 % 43.63 % 20.40 % 18.36 % 37.49 % 24.38 % 14.37 %
81.54 % 74.59 % 67.61 % 88.92 % 72.15 % 69.85 % 55.28 % 85.60 % 72.11 % 82.74 % 80.19 % 69.87 % 70.83 % 68.77 % 80.34 % 70.20 % 79.75 % 88.83 % 68.85 % 45.61 %
41.14 % 41.84 % 48.54 % 61.58 % 47.46 % 45.26 % 41.38 % 51.14 % 46.51 % 55.76 % 53.88 % 49.40 % 46.83 % 47.46 % 47.43 % 46.64 % 48.43 % 57.27 % 46.28 % 38.54 %
WorldRiskReport 2012 ] 65
116. 117. 118. 119. 120. 121. 122. 123. 124. 125. 126. 127. 128. 129. 130. 131. 132. 133. 133. 135. 136. 137. 138. 139. 140. 141. 142. 143. 143. 145. 146. 147. 148. 149. 150. 151. 152. 153. 154. 155. 156. 157. 158. 159. 160. 161. 162. 163. 164. 165. 166. 167. 168. 169. 170. 171. 172. 173.
Italy Australia Bulgaria Samoa Ireland Equatorial Guinea New Zealand Croatia Brazil Bahamas Uruguay United States Kazakhstan Paraguay Russia Portugal Slovenia Argentina Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Austria Kuwait Slovakia Czech Republic United Kingdom Poland Latvia Belgium Spain Sao Tome and Principe Belarus Germany Mongolia Lithuania Ukraine Canada Denmark Cyprus France Oman Luxembourg Seychelles Switzerland Singapore Estonia Israel Egypt Norway Finland Sweden United Arab Emirates Bahrain Kiribati Iceland Grenada Saudi Arabia Barbados Malta Qatar
66 [ WorldRiskReport 2012
Lack of coping capacities
Lack of adaptive capacities
4.82 % 4.57 % 4.56 % 4.51 % 4.50 % 4.47 % 4.44 % 4.35 % 4.30 % 4.17 % 4.12 % 3.99 % 3.87 % 3.84 % 3.83 % 3.82 % 3.81 % 3.80 % 3.80 % 3.75 % 3.71 % 3.69 % 3.67 % 3.65 % 3.53 % 3.51 % 3.48 % 3.40 % 3.40 % 3.32 % 3.27 % 3.24 % 3.23 % 3.19 % 3.18 % 3.09 % 2.81 % 2.78 % 2.72 % 2.65 % 2.60 % 2.59 % 2.54 % 2.50 % 2.43 % 2.33 % 2.31 % 2.24 % 2.15 % 2.07 % 1.81 % 1.78 % 1.53 % 1.46 % 1.31 % 1.15 % 0.61 % 0.10 %
13.85 % 15.05 % 11.66 % 9.10 % 14.74 % 8.22 % 15.44 % 11.53 % 9.53 % 10.71 % 11.10 % 12.25 % 9.11 % 7.03 % 9.38 % 10.93 % 11.59 % 9.55 % 7.80 % 13.60 % 9.04 % 10.21 % 10.82 % 11.60 % 9.79 % 9.26 % 11.66 % 10.23 % 5.81 % 8.46 % 11.41 % 6.52 % 8.88 % 7.50 % 10.25 % 10.87 % 7.44 % 9.25 % 6.41 % 9.12 % 5.99 % 9.56 % 7.82 % 7.23 % 6.41 % 4.72 % 8.58 % 8.19 % 7.97 % 5.93 % 4.27 % 3.05 % 5.67 % 3.13 % 2.93 % 3.46 % 1.65 % 0.28 %
34.78 % 30.38 % 39.11 % 49.58 % 30.54 % 54.37 % 28.77 % 37.73 % 45.18 % 38.99 % 37.06 % 32.57 % 42.47 % 54.56 % 40.84 % 34.99 % 32.86 % 39.82 % 48.70 % 27.54 % 41.03 % 36.13 % 33.96 % 31.49 % 36.05 % 37.94 % 29.88 % 33.28 % 58.55 % 39.31 % 28.68 % 49.66 % 36.40 % 42.56 % 31.04 % 28.42 % 37.72 % 30.05 % 42.48 % 29.11 % 43.46 % 27.14 % 32.47 % 34.62 % 37.88 % 49.38 % 26.87 % 27.41 % 27.01 % 34.84 % 42.44 % 58.32 % 26.98 % 46.64 % 44.53 % 33.08 % 36.81 % 36.18 %
16.05 % 14.39 % 16.90 % 27.91 % 14.98 % 26.40 % 16.13 % 17.16 % 25.31 % 17.27 % 20.69 % 16.67 % 18.53 % 32.92 % 21.25 % 17.15 % 14.23 % 22.06 % 24.27 % 13.63 % 13.27 % 13.82 % 14.33 % 15.53 % 17.23 % 20.98 % 14.91 % 15.07 % 46.17 % 16.85 % 14.63 % 34.42 % 20.39 % 19.30 % 14.29 % 14.30 % 14.00 % 15.39 % 17.60 % 11.59 % 20.88 % 13.99 % 14.11 % 17.83 % 18.49 % 22.00 % 13.75 % 14.62 % 14.32 % 10.54 % 13.55 % 42.22 % 14.34 % 25.32 % 17.93 % 15.36 % 14.29 % 9.61 %
54.84 % 41.87 % 59.31 % 73.83 % 42.26 % 85.65 % 39.79 % 59.65 % 68.39 % 57.10 % 51.31 % 48.48 % 62.22 % 79.63 % 59.70 % 48.80 % 51.36 % 61.56 % 72.45 % 35.75 % 65.98 % 56.98 % 51.85 % 46.40 % 55.45 % 58.05 % 42.89 % 50.87 % 77.52 % 60.56 % 38.59 % 68.56 % 53.17 % 63.44 % 45.06 % 39.09 % 57.99 % 42.25 % 63.19 % 40.51 % 63.92 % 36.93 % 47.10 % 52.12 % 56.82 % 76.55 % 37.98 % 37.81 % 36.85 % 56.36 % 64.19 % 82.43 % 39.16 % 69.89 % 70.89 % 48.53 % 53.52 % 55.40 %
33.44 % 34.88 % 41.11 % 47.00 % 34.38 % 51.06 % 30.39 % 36.39 % 41.83 % 42.59 % 39.19 % 32.55 % 46.66 % 51.14 % 41.58 % 39.01 % 33.00 % 35.84 % 49.38 % 33.25 % 43.84 % 37.58 % 35.71 % 32.53 % 35.48 % 34.81 % 31.84 % 33.91 % 51.96 % 40.50 % 32.82 % 46.02 % 35.64 % 44.95 % 33.77 % 31.89 % 41.17 % 32.50 % 46.65 % 35.22 % 45.57 % 30.51 % 36.19 % 33.90 % 38.33 % 49.57 % 28.87 % 29.79 % 29.86 % 37.61 % 49.57 % 50.31 % 27.45 % 44.70 % 44.78 % 35.36 % 42.62 % 43.54 %
ADPC (2004): Environmental Degradation and Disaster Risk. Prepared for the Embassy of Sweden/Sida Bangkok. http://www.adpc.net/ Ali, A. M. S (2007): September 2004 flood event in South-western Bangladesh: a study of its nature, causes, human perception and adjustments to a new hazard. Nat Hazards 40:89–111. Atta-ur-Rahman & Khan, A. (2011): Analysis of flood causes and associated socio-economic damages in the Hindukush region. IN: Nat Hazards 59:1239–1260 BAFU (Bundesamt für Gefährdung) (2009): Rutschungen Ursachen: Eidgenössisches Departement für Umwelt, Verkehr, Energie und Kommunikation UVEK. Baker, A.C., P.W. Glynn, B. Riegl. 2008. Climate change and coral reef bleaching: An ecological assessment of long-term impacts, recovery trends and future outlook. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 80(4): 435-471. Beck MW, et al. (2011) Oyster reefs at risk and recommendations for conservation, restoration, and management. Bioscience 61:107-116. Birkmann, J., P. Buckle, J. Jaeger, M. Pelling, N. Setiadi, M. Garschagen, N. Fernando, and J. Kropp (2010): Extreme events and disasters: A window of opportunity for change? Analysis of changes, formal and informal responses after mega disasters. Natural Hazards, 55(3), 637-669. Birkmann, J., Welle, T., Krause, D., Wolfertz, J., Catalina Suarez, D. and Neysa Setiadi (2011): WorldRiskIndex: Concept and Results. In: WorldRiskReport 2011. Alliance Development Works, 13-42, ISBN 978-3-9814495-1-8 Bradshaw, C. J. A., Sodhi, N. S., Peh, K. S.-H. & Brook, B. W. (2007): Global Evidence that deforestation amplifies flood risk and severity in the developing world. In: Global Change Biology 13, 1-17. Brody SD, Highfield WE, Ryu HC, Spanel-Weber L (2007) Examining the relationship between wetland alteration and watershed flooding in Texas and Florida. Natural Hazards 40: 413–428. Burke, L., Reytar, K., Spalding, M., and Perry, A. L., 2012, Reefs at Risk Revisited. World Resources Institute, Washington D.C. Cabrera, Martha (2002): Nicaragua – Vivimos y sobrevivimos en un país multiduelos. Envío, Ausgabe 249, Dezember 2002. Center for Remote Sensing of Ice Sheets (CRESIS), University of Kansas: Sea Level Rise Maps. Abrufbar unter: https:// www.cresis.ku.edu/data/sea-level-rise-maps Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN), Columbia University; International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI); The World Bank; and Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT). (2012): Global Rural-Urban Mapping Project (GRUMP): Population Count Grid for 2010 (alpha). Palisades, NY: NASA Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center (SEDAC), Columbia University. Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN) & Ciat (Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical)(2005): Gridded Population of the World Version 3 (GPWv3). Population Density Grids. Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center (SEDAC). Columbia University, Palisades, NY.
Emerson, J.W., A. Hsu, M.A. Levy, A. de Sherbinin, V. Mara, D.C. Esty, and M. Jaiteh. 2012. (2012): Environmental Performance Index and Pilot Trend Environmental Performance Index. New Haven: Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy. ETC Group (2010): Geopiracy. The Case against Geoengineering. Ottawa. www.etcgroup.org/upload/publication/ pdf_file/ETC_geopiracy_4web.pdf EU (2011): Contribution by the European Union and its Member States to the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Brüssel. www.uncsd2012.org/rio20/index. php?page=view&type=510&nr=240&menu=20 Freudenberg, M. (2003), “Composite Indicators of Country Performance: A Critical Assessment”, OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers, 2003/16, OECD Publishing. Friends of Disaster Risk Reduction (2012): Joint Statement on the Occasion of the President of the Unite Nations General Assembly Interactive Thematic Debate on Disaster Risk Reduction. Delivered by Bob Carr, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Australia. www.unny.mission.gov.au/unny/120412_drr.html G77 (2011): Submission by the Group of 77 and China for the compilation document of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (RIO+20). New York. www. uncsd2012.org/rio20/content/documents/399UNCSD%20 RIO-%20complete%20submission-final.pdf Gedan KB, Kirwan ML, Wolanski E, Barbier EB, & Silliman BR (2011) The present and future role of coastal wetland vegetation in protecting shorelines: answering recent challenges to the paradigm. Climatic Change 106:7-29. Government of Japan (2011): Input to the Rio+20 Outcome Document. Tokio. www.uncsd2012.org/rio20/content/documents/113Japan.pdf Hurtado, Laura (2008): La plantaciones para agrocombustibles y la pérdida de tierras para la producción de alimentos en Guatemala. Guatemala-Stadt. IGES (2012): Issues Brief 2: Building Resilience and Reducing Risk from Natural Disasters: Essentials of 21st Century Sustainable Development. Hayama. http://enviroscope.iges. or.jp/modules/envirolib/view.php?docid=3538 IPCC (2012a): Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation. Summary for Policymakers. Cambridge/New York. http://ipcc-wg2. gov/SREX/images/uploads/SREX-SPMbrocure_FINAL.pdf IPCC (2012b): Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation. A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, C.B., V. Barros, T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, D.J. Dokken, K.L. Ebi, M.D. Johnson, M.E., C. Lustic, E. Bartels, I.B. Baums, D.S. Gilliam, L. Larson, D. Lirman, M.W. Miller, K. Nedimyer., and S. Schopmeyer. 2011. Caribbean Acropora Restoration Guide: Best Practices for Propagation and Population Enhancement. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA. 54p. Kench PS, Brander RW, Parnell KE, & O‘Callaghan JM (2009) Seasonal variations in wave characteristics around a coral reef island, South Maalhosmadulu atoll, Maldives. Marine Geology 262(1-4):116-129.
Disse, M. and Engel, H. (2001): Flood Events in the Rhine Basin: Genesis, Influences and Mitigation. In: Natural Hazards 23: 271–290.
WorldRiskReport 2012 ] 67
Martens, Jens (2012): Rio + 20. Die UN-Konferenz für nachhaltige Entwicklung 2012. Hintergründe – Konflikte – Perspektiven. Bonn/Osnabrück: Global Policy Forum Europe/terre des hommes. www.globalpolicy.org/images/ pdfs/GPFEurope/Rio20_Report.pdf Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, G.-K. Plattner, S.K. Allen, M. Tignor, and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA, 582 pp. Mitchell, Tom/Wilkinson, Emily (2012): Disaster risk management in post-2015 policy frameworks: Forging a more resilient future. London: ODI (ODI Briefing Paper 75, June 2012). Lavell, A., M. Oppenheimer, C. Diop, J. Hess, R. Lempert, J. Li, R. Muir-Wood, and S. Myeong (2012): Climate change: new dimensions in disaster risk, exposure, vulnerability, and resilience. In: Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation [Field, C.B., V. Barros, T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, D.J. Dokken, K.L. Ebi, M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, G.-K. Plattner, S.K. Allen, M. Tignor, and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA, pp. 25-64. Liu, Y., Liu, R. & Ge, Q. (2010): Evaluating the vegetation destruction and recovery of Wenchuan earthquake using MODIS data. In: Nat Hazards 54:851–862 Meyer, W. (2004): Indikatorenentwicklung. Eine praxisorientierte Einführung (2.Auflage). CEval-Arbeitspapiere 10, Centrum für Evaluation. Saarbrücken. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005): Ecosystems and human well-being: current state and trends: findings of the Condition and Trends Working Group. PEDRR (2010): Demonstrating the Role of Ecosystem-based Management for Disaster Risk Reduction. Partnership for Environment and Disaster Risk Reduction.
Sudmeier-Rieux, K., H. Masundire, A. Rizvi and S. Rietbergen (eds). (2006): Ecosystems, Livelihoods and Disasters: An integrated approach to disaster risk management. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. x + 58 pp. Thielen, Helmut (1988): Nicaragua – Entwicklung der Agrarreform und Umweltpolitik seit 1979. Fort Lauderdale. UN (2009): Implementation of Agenda 21, the Programme for the Further Implementation of Agenda 21 and the outcomes of the World Summit on Sustainable Development. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly. New York (UN Dok. A/RES/64/236, vom 24. Dezember 2009). UN (1992): Agenda 21. New York. (UN Dok. A/CONF.151/26, Band I.) www.un.org/Depts/german/conf/agenda21/agenda_21.pdf UN DESA (2011): Issues Brief 8: Disaster Risk Reduction and Resilience Building. New York. www.uncsd2012.org/rio20/ index.php?page=view&type=400&nr=225&menu=45 UN Secretary-General’s High Level Panel on Global Sustainability (2012): Resilient People, Resilient Planet. A Future Worth Choosing. New York. www.un.org/gsp UNISDR (2005): Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015: Building the Resilience of Nations and Communities to Disasters. Geneva. http://bit.ly/iyPyfR. UNISDR (2012): Towards a Post-2015 Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction. Geneva. www.unisdr.org/files/25129_towardsapost2015frameworkfordisaste.pdf United Nations (1987): Our common future. Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development. http://www.un-documents.net/our-common-future.pdf United Nations General Assembly (2012): The future we want. New York. http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/N12/436/88/PDF/N1243688.pdf?OpenElement
Peduzzi (2010): Landslides and vegetation cover in the 2005 North Pakistan earthquake: a GIS and statistical quantitative approach. IN: Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 10, 623–640.
United States (2011): Sustainable Development for the Next Twenty Years. United States Views on Rio+20. Submission to the United Nations on November 1, 2011. Washington, D.C. www.uncsd2012.org/rio20/content/ documents/37011-11-01%20US%20Submission%20Rio%20 20%20Nov%201(1).pdf
Peduzzi, P., Dao, H., Herold, C. & F. Mouton (2009): Assessing global exposure and vulnerability towards natural hazards: the Disaster Risk Index. In: Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 9, S. 1149-1159.
UN-Habitat (United Nations Human Settlements Programme) (2011): Cities and Climate Change: Policy Directions. Global Report on Human Settlements 2011. Abridged Edition. (Earthscan) London, Washington.
Perez-Maqueo O, Intralawan A, Martínez ML (2007): Coastal disasters from the perspective of ecological economics. Ecological Economics 63: 273–284.
Zhang, K., H. Liu, Y. Li, H. Xu, J. Shen, J. Rhome, T. J. Smith III. 2012. The role of mangroves in attenuating storm surges. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 102-103: 11e23.
PREVIEW: Global Risk Data Platform. Database. http://preview.grid.unep.ch Roemer, H., Kaiser, G.,Sterr, H. & Ludwig,R. (2010): Using remote sensing to assess tsunami-induced impacts on coastal forest ecosystems at the Andaman Sea coast of Thailand. In: Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 10, 729–745. Shepard C, Crain C, & Beck MW (2011) The protective role of coastal marshes: a systematic review and metaanalysis. PLoS One 6(11): e27374. http://bit.ly/vfAHvT Sheppard C, Dixon DJ, Gourlay M, Sheppard A, & Payet R (2005) Coral mortality increases wave energy reaching shores protected by reef flats in the Seychelles. Estuar Coast Shelf S 64:223-234 Spalding, M, Kainuma, M. and Collins, L. 2010. World Atlas of Mangroves. Earthscan, LondonUNISDR (2011) Global assessment report on disaster risk reduction revealing risk, redefining development (UN, NY).
68 [ WorldRiskReport 2012
Publisher: Bündnis Entwicklung Hilft (Alliance Development Works), In charge of publishing: Peter Mucke Concept and implementation: Peter Mucke, Bündnis Entwicklung Hilft, Project leader Dr. Katrin Radtke, Welthungerhilfe Lars Jeschonnek, MediaCompany Scientific advisor for the WorldRiskIndex: PD Dr. Jörn Birkmann, United Nations University, Institute for Environment and Human Security (UNU-EHS) Authors: Dr. Michael W. Beck and Dr. Christine C. Shepard, The Nature Conservancy PD Dr. Jörn Birkmann, Prof. Dr. Jakob Rhyner, Dr. Torsten Welle, Maximilian Witting and Jan Wolfertz, all UNU-EHS Jens Martens, Global Policy Forum Europe Katja Maurer, medico international Peter Mucke, Bündnis Entwicklung Hilft Dr. Katrin Radtke, Welthungerhilfe In collaboration with: Annika Sophie Duhn, Misereor Ulrike Felsenstein, Brot für die Welt Petra Löw, Munich Re, NatCatSERVICE Wolf-Christian Ramm, terre des hommes Dr. Mark Spalding, The Nature Conservancy Editors: Dr. Nina Brodbeck, Bündnis Entwicklung Hilft Editor-in-charge: Lars Jeschonnek, MediaCompany Graphic design and information graphics: Naldo Gruden, MediaCompany Translation: Mike Gardner Cooperation partners: United Nations University, Institute for Environment and Human Security (UNU-EHS), Bonn The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, supported by the Pew Marine Fellowship Program ISBN 978-3-9814495-0-3 With the kind assistance of Stiftung Umwelt und Entwicklung Nordrhein-Westfalen
Photo credits: Map on pages 38/39: Data on coral reefs: World Resources Institute (2011): Reefs at Risk Revisited; on the mangroves: Spalding, M., Kainuma, M. and Collins, L. (2010): World Atlas of Mangroves. ISME. And: Global Digital Elevation Model (ETOPO2): National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC); on population density: Global Rural-Urban Mapping Project (GRUMP): Urban Extents Data Collection. Alpha Version. Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN), Columbia University, detailed information at: www.network.coastalresilience.org Map on pages 40/41: World Resources Institute (2011); Data on coral reefs: Reefs at Risk Revisited; on population density: Global Rural-Urban Mapping Project (GRUMP): Urban Extents Data Collection. Alpha Version. Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN), Columbia University, detailed information at www.network.coastalresilience.org; on the WorldRiskIndex: source: UNU-EHS, based on PREVIEW Global Risk Data Platform, CreSIS, CIESIN and global data banks, detailed information at: www.WorldRiskReport.org Cover page: View of Sundarbans landscape (Bangladesh): the Ganges River Delta threatened by flooding. Photo: ©Boethling/Welthungerhilfe Page 4: Construction of a rock catchments in Kajiado (Kenya). Photo: ©Iris Krebber/Welthungerhilfe Page 10: Flooding in Nicaragua. Photo: ©Zanetti/Welthungerhilfe Page 26: Fishing boats rusting away in the area of the dried up Aral Sea. (Kazakhstan). Photo: ©Asia Khamzina Page 33: Divers setting up coral bank. Foto: ©Tim Calver/TNC Page 36: Coral reef. Photo: ©Jeff Yonover/TNC Page 56: Fukushima nuclear power station one year after it was destroyed by the earthquake and the Tsunami. Photo: © AIR PHOTO SERVICE/picture alliance Printing: könitzers druck + medien, Berlin Online: The detailed scientific description as well as further information and tables can be consulted and downloaded from www.WorldRiskReport.org
Printed on FSC certified paper.
Bündnis Entwicklung Hilft Alliance Development Works Chausseestraße 128/129 10115 Berlin Phone +49 30 – 278 77 390 Fax +49 30 – 278 77 399 firstname.lastname@example.org www.entwicklung-hilft.de ISBN 978-3-9814495-0-3