Download South Asia Disaster Report 2010 UNISDR

This publication is printed on recycled paper
SADR 2010
South Asia Disaster Report
Changing Climates,
Impeding Risks,
Emerging Perspectives
1
South Asia Disaster Report 2010
Changing Climate, Impeding Risks, Emerging Perspectives
Copyright 2010
Duryog Nivaran Secretariat (www.duryognivaran.org)
and
Practical Action (Regional Programme – India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka)
Published by
Duryog Nivaran Secretariat
C/O Practical Action, No 05, Lionel Edirisinghe Mawatha, Colombo 05, Sri Lanka
T | + 94 – 11 – 2829412
F | + 94 – 11 – 2856188
W | www.practicalaction.org www.duryognivaran.org
Illustrations by - Krishan Jayatunge (www.kroworks.com)
Cover, lay-out by - Minidu Abeysekera
Printed by - Deelaka Associates, Nugegoda, Sri Lanka
2
South Asia Disaster Report 2010
Contents
Abbreviations
Contributors
Acknowledgements
Preface
Introduction
5
6
7
9
11
PART I
Chapter 1: Locating Climate change: Some arguments and counter- arguments 1.1 Climate of Controversy
1.2 Scientific Consensus
1.3 Politics of Science
1.4 Reckoning Causes of Global Warming
1.5 Climate Justice 18
18
19
20
24
Chapter 2: Climate change: Impacts and Implications for South Asia
2.1 Hazards
2.2 Impacting livelihoods
28
33
Chapter 3: Local Linkages
3.1 The Web of Relationships: Development-Disaster Risk-Climate Change Nexus
3.2 Governance – Vulnerability – Climate Change Nexus 3.3 Grand Statements; Many Policies: Little Results
3.4 Visualising the Problem 44
49
52
54
PART II
Chapter 4: Constructing a Solution
4.1 The architecture of a solution
60
4.2 Current DRR and Climate Change Adaptation Policy and Practice: From the global to the Local 60
4.3 Livelihood approaches
67
4.4 A Framework for Practitioners – Adaptive Livelihood Framework 69
Chapter 5: Operationalising the Adaptive Livelihood Framework (ALF): tools for Practitioners
5.1 Coming together through the ALF: DDR and Climate Change Adaptation
5.2 Operationalizing the ALF in Four Steps
5.3 Tools for Step 1: Assessing the Community’s overall risk context
5.4 Tools for Step 2: Assessing Livelihood assets
5.5 Tools for Step 3: Assessing the enabling environment
5.6 Step 4: Developing Adaptive Livelihood Strategies
80
80
83
87
90
92
3
Chapter 6: Recommendation for Policy makers and Planners
6.1 Greening Growth
94
6.2 Framework for a Adaptation 95
6.3 Governance
95
6.4 Technology 95
6.5 Financing adaptation 96
6.6 Learning and building on experience 97
6.7 Awareness and Attitudes
97
6.8 Externalities 97
6.9 Collective Action
98
References 101
Annexes
110
4
South Asia Disaster Report 2010
Abbreviations
ADB
Asian Development Bank
IISD
AIACC
Assessments of Impacts and Adaptations to
Climate Change
International Institute for Sustainable
Development
IMF
International Monetary Fund
ALF
Adaptive Livelihoods Framework
IPCC
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
AMCDRR
Asian Ministerial Conference on Disaster Risk
Reduction
ISDR
International Strategy for Disaster Reduction
BWDB
Bangladesh Water Development Board
IUCN
International Union for Conservation of Nature
CBA
Community-Based Adaptation
LDCF
Least Developed Country Fund
CBO
Community-Based Organisations
LECZ
Low Elevation Coastal Zone
CC
Climate Change
MCED
Ministerial Conference on Environment &
Development
CCA
Climate Change Adaptation
MDG
Millennium Development Goals
CDM
Clean Development Mechanism
MSL
Mean Sea Level
CEDRA
Climate Change and Environmental
Degradation Risk and Adaptation assessment
NAPA
National Adaptation Programme of Action
CFC
Chlorofluorocarbon
NGO
Non-Governmental Organisations
CIFOR
Centre for International Forestry Research
ODA
Official Development Assistance
CoP
Conference of Parties
OECD
Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development
CRiSTAL
Community-Based Risk Screenig Tool Adaptation & Livelihoods
P3DM
Participatory 3D Models
CVCA
Climate Vulnerability and Capacity Analysis
PCR-VCA
Participatory Climate Risk Vulnerability and
Capacity Assessment
DDRMT
Decentralized Disaster Risk Management
Training
PES
Payment for Eco-System Services
DFID
Department for International Development
PfA
Priorities for Action
DIRA
Disaster Impact and Risk Assessment
PHVCA
Participatory Hazard, Vulnerability and
Capacity Assessment
DRR
Disaster Risk Reduction
PLA
Participatory Learning and Action
DRSL
Disaster-Resistant Sustainable Livelihood
PRSP
Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers
EIA
Environment Impact Assessment
RED
Reducing Emissions from Deforestation
EM-DAT
The International Disasters Database (CRED)
SAARC
ESCAP
Economic and Social Commission for Asia and
the Pacific
South Asian Association for Regional
Cooperation
SADR
South Asia Disaster Report
FAO
Food and Agriculture Organization
SDMC
SAARC Disaster Management Centre
GAR
Global Assessment Report
SEI-US
GBM
Ganges-Brahmaputra-Meghna
Stockholm Environment Institute – United
States
GDP
Gross Domestic Product
SLF
Sustainable Livelihoods Framework
GHG Green House Gas
TERI
The Energy Resource Institute
GIS
Geographic Information Systems
UNDP
United Nations Development Programme
GLOF
Glacial Lake Outburst Flooding
UNEP
United Nations Environment Programme
GNP
Gross National Product
UNFCCC
GPS
Global Positioning Systems
United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change
HDI
Human Development Index
UNISDR
United Nations International Strategy for
Disaster Reduction
HFA
Hyogo Framework for Action
USEPA
IAPAD
Integrated Approaches to Participatory
Development
United States Environmental Protection
Agency
WDR
World Disaster Report
WGI
Worldwide Governance Indicator
WTO
World Trade Organization
ICIMOD
International Centre for Integrated Mountain
Development
5
Contributors
Duryog Nivaran
Duryog Nivaran is a network of individuals
and organizations working in South Asia who
are committed to promoting an alternative
perspective on disasters and vulnerability as a basis
for disaster mitigation in the region. The network’s
aim is to reduce the vulnerability of communities
to disasters and conflicts by integrating the
alternative perspective at conceptual, policy and
implementation levels of disaster mitigation and
development programmes in the South Asian
region.
Practical Action
Practical Action is an international development
agency that promotes appropriate technology
options around the world to challenge situations
of poverty. It was begun by E.F. Schumacher, the
economist and the author of the widely read book
Small is Beautiful.
Our core principals will continue to be;
•
Being people focused
•
Providing practical answers
•
Looking at sustainable solutions
Practical Action has been in operation in South Asia
since the late seventies. The regional programme of
Practical Action (India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka) works in
the technology areas of agro processing, transport,
building materials and shelter, energy, livelihood
development and disaster mitigation.
Core Contributors for the South Asia
Disaster Report 2010
Editors
•
Dr. Vishaka Hidellage
•
Buddika Hapuarachchi
•
Ramona Miranda
•
Bhathiya Kekulandala
•
Daniel Vorbach
•
Tharuka Dissanayake
•
Madhavi M. Ariyabandu
Peer Reviewers
•
Dr. Jon Ensor
•
Louise Platt
•
Robina Ang
•
Ranasinghe Perera
•
Ben Murphy
•
Amjad Bhatti
Contributors
•
Dilhani Thiruchelvarajah
•
Mega Ganeshan
•
Nilantha Kumara
•
Climate Action Network - South Asia
•
Duryog Nivaran members
e-discussion Facilitators
•
Bindu Urugodawatte
•
Abdul Shakoor Sindhu
Photographs – Farhana Sharmin and Practical Action
Regional Office staff
Illustrations – Krishan Jayatunge
Cover and Layout – Minidu Abeysekera
Production Management
Duryog Nivaran Secretariat,
c/o Practical Action, Colombo
6
South Asia Disaster Report 2010
Acknowledgements
South Asia Disaster Report 2010 - Changing
Climates, Impeding Risks, Emerging Perspectives is
a result of on going discussions by Duryog Nivaran
and its members on changing climate exacerbating
disaster risk in the region. The focus has been to
understand the problems that result in increased
vulnerability of the region’s poor, and develop a
livelihoods centred adaptive capacity building
framework (the Adaptive Livelihoods Framework),
and pool the tools for practitioners to adopt this
framework.
In conceptualizing the publication, a series of
e-discussions were held at different time periods
to get the regional perspective on these issues and
the synthesis of these provided the core for the
analysis of the problem. Lessons from the ground
level were used at the base for formulating the
solution framework.
We thank the Duryog Nivaran members for lively
participation in the e-discussions held this year
towards this end.
We extend our thanks to Krishan Jayathunga,
for his communicative illustrations and graphics,
Minidu Abeysekera for the layout and the several
sleepless nights to meet the deadline.
We extend our gratitude to Jerry Velasquez
(UNISDR) for the encouraging preface to introduce
this Report.
We also thank Practical Action –South Asia
Programme staff: Sandya Wickremarachchi,
Ishan Amaraweera, Thisara Perera, Sumudu Silva,
Aziza Usoof and Tushani Kalugalagedera for their
invaluable support.
And importantly, the families of the core team,
who put up with lost weekends and odd working
hours while the Report was being finalised.
Vishaka Hidellage, Ph.D.
Duryog Nivaran Secretariat
Colombo – SRI LANKA
We would like to thank the core contributors
of the report: Tharuka Dissanaike, Daniel
Vorbach, Amjad Bhatti, Buddika Hapuarachchi,
Bhathiya Kekulandala, Madhavi Ariyabandu,
Ramona Miranda. Thanks are also due to Dilhani
Thiruchelvarajah, Mega Ganeshan and Nilantha
Kumara for providing and collating information to
finalize the content of the report.
Our gratitude goes out to the members of Duryog
Nivaran for their participation in the e-discussions,
and members of Climate Action Network – South
Asia (CANSA) for providing us with case studies
from the region. We also thank Farhana Shamin
and Practical Action Regional Office staff for the
photographs.
We express our deep gratitude to Amjad Bhatti
and Dr. Jon Ensor for their contribution to the
conceptualising of the publication; Ben Murphy
and Ranasinghe Perera for their contribution
to technical editing of the publication. We also
express our thanks to Robina Ang and Louise Platt
for coming in to edit the publication at various
stages.
7
8
South Asia Disaster Report 2010
Preface
It is said that the South Asian sub continent is a
hotspot of disasters, with a ‘deadly combination’
of a multitude of hazards, and high levels of
vulnerability and exposure - from avalanches and
glacial lake outburst floods from the Himalayas in
the north, droughts and floods in the plains, and
to cyclones in the southern coast coming from
the Bay of Bengal. Socio economically, the region
is characterized by high levels of poverty, with
nearly half of the world poor, half of the world’s
malnourished, sharing less than 1.5% of the
world wealth. The subcontinent is also the most
populous, and the most densely populated region
in the world. In addition, close to 70 percent of the
region’s population lives in rural areas, and their
key livelihoods depend on the natural resource
base, and are highly sensitive to changes in the
climate.
calls for inclusive and de-centralized development
strategies and offers specific recommendations to
policy makers and planners to operationalise such
strategies.
The conditions that turn hazards into disasters
are on the rise, and climate change will likely
make things worse. While it can be said that the
changing frequency and intensity of hazards can
be attributed to climate change, the increasing
levels of risks and the subsequent disaster impacts
is an outcome of the development models, which
are usually not only insensitive to prevailing risks,
but often involuntarily creates new risks.
It is therefore an honor to present this Report to
the Ministers of Disaster Management in the Asia
Pacific region meeting in October 2010 in Incheon,
Korea at the 4th Asian Ministerial Conference on
Disaster Risk Reduction. We hope that SADR 2010
will be useful as Ministers re-commit their disaster
risk reduction efforts in line with the Hyogo
Framework of Action.
According to the 2008 South Asia Disaster Report,
development choices clearly have implications on
risk accumulation, increase of vulnerability, and
degradation of the natural environment. Prevailing
development models leading to conditions of ‘maldevelopment’ creates new risks, increases poverty
and marginalization, and traps the poor tightly in a
vicious human development spiral.
South Asia is rich in its faith and has a long
tradition of respect for nature and human well
being. Such traditions and values should not be
marginalized in the ever increasing growth and
consumption focused world. These practices and
way of living put appropriately in the present
modern day context provides the necessary
potential to people and communities in making
them resilient and able to face the current global
economic and environment crisis.
The 2010 SADR thus calls for the need for looking
back in order to move forward.
Jerry Velasquez, Ph.D.
Senior Regional Coordinator, United Nations
International Strategy for Disaster Reduction
(UNISDR)
Asia Pacific Secretariat
The SADR 2010 analyses the issues that lead to
increased vulnerability of the region’s poor, and
argues for alternative models that will achieve
sustainable development in the long run.
The Report proposes the Adaptive Livelihoods
Framework, which can provide a livelihoods
centred approach for adaptive capacity building
of the poor and recommends tools to apply this
for practitioners. This can complement approaches
such as ‘Green Growth,’ which aims for economic
development with ecological efficiency as a viable
alternative in the bid to achieving growth, while
safeguarding the environment. The Report then
9
10
South Asia Disaster Report 2010
Introduction
South Asia has a history of living and coping with
extreme weather conditions and cyclical but
occasional high impact disasters caused by natural
events (hazards) of serious nature. In recent years,
the region almost continuously suffered from a
single and multiple disaster events of serious nature
such as floods, cyclone and droughts. Increasing
disaster risk and vulnerability in South Asia are
considered to be linked to its development patterns
which create additional exposure and ignore
prevailing risks.
The SADR 2008 claimed that no development
choice or investment is disaster neutral. Just as
there are always winners and losers created by
each shift in development policy, disaster risk is
distributed socially and spatially with development.
Development choices have implications on the
society and natural environment of a country and
the region which determine risk accumulation and
vulnerability to disasters.
South Asia represents a unique mixture of
paradoxes and sharp contradictions. Its cities
have grown to offer luxuries in the standards
of sophisticated economies, at a cost of serious
degradation of environment in general and in areas
where poor and marginalized live. The region has
gained impressive growth rates, but remained
unsuccessful in distributing its benefits equitably.
The direct link between increased poverty and
vulnerability to increased disaster risk was also
presented in SADR 2008, which argued for a
paradigm shift in development to become people
and environment sensitive and inclusive.
Climate change is the recent concern which is
expected to affect the frequency and magnitude
of hazards, as well as generate new hazards. This
publication will look at the added dimension that
this brings into addressing the disaster scenario.
Given the almost impossible nature of assessing
climate variations and accurate forecasting,
particularly at the local level, this unpredictability
poses more challenges for managing disaster risk.
The poor in South Asia have not received dividends
of growth, but been made more vulnerable to
disaster risk. They suffer from reduced access to and
reduced productivity of agricultural land or fisheries;
are no longer able to access adequate services
from degraded environment; migration to marginal
urban areas, living and engaged in risky situations/
jobs; are affected by spread of infectious diseases
including HIV/AIDS and are exposed to conflicts, etc.
In this context, the additional pressure of climate
induced disasters which are unpredictable, more
intense and frequent in nature, would shift their
suffering to unimaginable levels. Chapter 2 of this
report shows that this is not just a prediction any
more. Intensified and unexpected weather related
disasters have already set in and are testing the
limits and further devastating the lives of poor and
marginalized. The plight of around 20 million people
in Pakistan as this report is being written alone
is ample testimony to it. Chapter 3 of the report
explains how climate change contributes to turning
the wheels of vicious poverty cycles which the
poor are trapped in, to spin faster entrapping them
further, preventing escape.
Climate change therefore, presents a set of new
challenges on how disasters are managed and
vulnerability is reduced. If a path to successful
management of these challenges is not found
soon, any remaining hopes for achieving expected
progress on poverty reduction targets e.g. MDGs
for South Asia region will be unrealistic by 2015.
As it is, progress on the MDGs in the countries
of the region is behind target. Further, tackling
poverty would be an increasing difficult challenge
in the long run, with new challenges added on.
Chapter 1 shows that there is adequate awareness
created by regular UNFCCC reports and related
global, regional and national discussions etc.,
and there is no lack of international and regional
level policy recommendations highlighting the
path towards better and inclusive development.
This enthusiasm however, cannot be seen being
extended adequately in implementing of policies internationally, regionally and nationally. This may
be partly attributed to lack of political and financial
leverage by relatively poor counties in the region to
make such decisions.
Decision makers in the region need to be much
more committed and determined to bring about
required development changes that allows
management of ever intensifying disaster risk
through reducing poverty in a sustainable manner.
South Asia is still quite dependent on external
assistance and therefore often subjected to
international conditionalities imposed along with
the assistance. Sound development strategies that
11
will reduce disaster risk including those imposed
by climate change as Chapter 4 argues must be
integrated into international development and
humanitarian policies. Moving towards a more
inclusive and integrated policy framework will
help not only to reduce disaster risk, but also in
redistributing benefits of growth equitably for
reduction of poverty and vulnerability. Introducing
sound poverty reduction policies, strategies and
development processes to practice will be an
effective way to ensure community preparation,
response and recovery from weather-related
disasters. SADR 2008 recommended urgent shifts
in existing development pathways; from maldevelopment to sustainable development. The GAR
09 too says that exposure/vulnerability increases
with growth, and called for DRR to be embedded
within development.
GAR 09 also reports under performance of the
priority for action (PfA) 4 of the Hyogo (HFA)
framework. The PfA 4 aims at reducing underlying
vulnerabilities such as poverty and environmental
degradation while improving sustainable livelihood
patterns, capacity and empowerment. The
underperformance of the PfA 4 in South Asia may
be an indicator of inadequate commitment and
slow progress towards sustainable development
even as threats to wellbeing of many vulnerable
communities are becoming clearer and more
likely leading to numerous social problems such
as migration, conflict over resources, etc. This may
be also seen as reluctance of governments to deal
with political consequences of deviating from
paths of growth, without having a practical as
well as popular alternative to achieve shorter term
development targets.
In March 2005, 52 governments and stakeholders
met in Seoul, Korea at the 5th Ministerial Conference
on Environment & Development and agreed that
Asia & Pacific should pursue a path of green growth.
Green Growth emphasizes the need to improve
the ecological efficiency of economic growth in
the region. Key aspects of green growth are eco
tax reforms that can absorb the cost of growth to
environment at every level of decision making;
sustainable infrastructure that facilitates effective
resource utilization patterns in the future; greening
production & service delivery by managing rate of
and type of production and service, and sustainable
consumption by shifting to and creating demand
for resource efficient as well as sustainable rates
of consumption. While these policy thrusts are
encouraging, even the powerful economies in Asia
such as China, Japan, Korea, etc. are still struggling
to move firmly along on this path.
12
South Asia Disaster Report 2010
Green technologies are at the heart of the green
growth and private sector led research and
development is already engaged in it extensively.
More than 50 new technologies are expected to
be introduced ahead of the Cancun climate talks
in November/December 2010, seeking support in
terms of special treatment by governments to make
them viable. Green policy thrusts are encouraging
and aims at ensuring environment sensitive private
investment, but are quite vague about poverty
reduction. Aspects such as how to include poor
people in green growth and how to ensure that
poor will not loose their rights and access to
ecosystems services by not making it unaffordable
to them is not clearly defined or even thought off.
Therefore, green technologies targeted at the poor
should be an emphasis, particularly by R&D led by
governments, rather than expecting them to adopt
(and even adapt) technologies that they can not
afford or manage. Growth that does not include the
majority poor, even if it is green will not be in the
interest of society as a whole in South Asia.
In October 2010 in Incheon, Korea, the Ministers of
Disaster Management in the Asia Pacific region are
expected to re-commit to DRR and to emphasise
promotion of integration of DRR and CCA into
development strategies and plans in their respective
countries. The 4th AMCDRR in Korea under the
theme of DRR through CCA will seek to address
the slower progress of PfA 4 of the HFA without
which meaningful DRR or CCA can not be achieved.
Towards this, promoting integration of DRR and CCA
into development for green growth is one of the
three key themes of the conference. Encouraging
policy initiatives in this front have not always ended
in practice with supportive resource allocation,
and this hopefully will be an area of attention at
this conference. The Ministerial discussions will
also emphasise on green growth as the path for
disaster risk and climate sensitive development,
building on prior commitments made by Ministers
of Environment in 2005.
The Copenhagen climate talks in December 2009,
which were about setting limits and committing
support for adaptation did not yield expected
results. This was despite very high awareness on the
horrifying future scenario that had to be clear to
the decision makers of the world, with the disputes
about potential impacts of climate change more
or less taking a back seat. In this light, there are no
high hopes for Cancun 2010 which aims at getting
practical aspects sorted and agreed on. Given this,
the likely scenario is continuous risk increase in the
short and long run.
South Asia, which expects to show impressive
growth rates in the next few decades, needs to
understand how to green their growth strategies
and national targets. South Asia as mentioned
earlier cannot just be satisfied with green
development that minimizes further environmental
damage but should simultaneously insist on
vulnerability and poverty reduction through
the same strategies. The SADR 2010 argues that
managing climate change induced risks in an
inclusive manner will without a doubt require
decentralised approaches.
and the world back on course. The development
practitioners and civil society also have a crucial
role to play in this process. It is important that civil
society continues to lobby for shifting the region
from top down administration regimes to more
inclusive and decentralized ones. It is important that
civil society supports and encourages those who
are willing to try inclusive systems of development.
With the vast experience that civil society and NGOs
have on implementing participatory and inclusive
development, they should be ready to guide and
work with such institutions.
The Decentralised Disaster Risk Management
(DDRM) approach which builds on extensive
Community Based Disaster Risk Reduction
Management (CBDRM) experience while addressing
its gaps, has been extensively promoted by
Duryog Nivaran as a good practice for inclusive
DRR over the last 5 years or so. It looks like climate
change will encourage putting to practice the
policy commitments that many countries in
South Asia made some years ago to decentralized
development. The DDRM approach advocates
introduction of policy, institutional and capacity
building processes to make decentralized
development that is disaster risk sensitive. Climate
induced risks at local level cannot be identified
satisfactorily by using only macro data, but should
be supplemented with local data, thus participatory
approaches to data gathering and research etc., will
become highly valuable and necessary to practice.
Strengthening of confidence, decision making
abilities and various competencies at decentralized
levels will be a precondition for effective generation
and compilation of information for decision making
towards a sustainable development. Therefore,
social networking across levels of hierarchy for
adaptive capacity building will be crucial and is
considered to be essential to face climate induced
risks.
South Asia still emits significantly low carbon (C)
amounts compared to other regions and currently
suffers disproportionately. Extensive lobbying to
press highly polluting nations to set emission limits
and adopt satisfactory levels of mitigation measures
is important. This however, should not blind us to
the fact that our region is a concern to the world,
with its growing amount of emissions. India which
is the larger economy in South Asia has fast grown
to become a significant contributor of carbon
emission amounts, although the country remains
low in per capita emissions. The threat of further
marginalization and poverty looms around them!
SADR 2008 emphasized such disparities.
Chapters 4 and 5 of this publication present
methodologies and tools to make these concepts
practical. Participatory assessment tools such
as; Participatory Climate Risk Vulnerability and
Capacity Assessment (PCR-VCA), and a range
of implementation tools organized under the
Adaptive Livelihood Framework (ALF) are expected
to be useful to ensure sustainable development
through planning and implementation and move
communities towards sustainable livelihoods in the
context of increasing disasters trends and changing
climate context.
Green growth may give us a temporary solution as
shifting to green technologies may permit give us
to keep our low emissions at that level for a while.
However, recognizing that nature cannot support
continuous growth, sustainable development rather
than growth should be our strategy for wellbeing.
South Asia had strong systems of faith that
respected nature and living beings. Traditional
practices based on these systems continue, but tend
to have only celebratory or ceremonial significance,
minus their values and norms. The region could
look back and learn from its past and find practical
ways to adapt certain fundamental and unavoidable
truths to explain and face the current context.
Decision makers and development planners need
now to make difficult decisions to put the region
13
14
South Asia Disaster Report 2010
Part I
Part I examines the problem that climate change poses for the poor and
looks at the evidence for Climate Change, the politics, the anthropogenic
drivers and systems that have led to this chaotic situation in the climate
system, and its implications for South Asia. What climatic hazards facing
South Asia could mean for the nature based livelihoods on which so many
South Asians rely, with first hand evidence of how vulnerable communities
are already being affected by disastrous climatic disturbances is touched on.
The section concludes with an analysis of the inter relationship between the
causal factors that lead to heightening people’s vulnerabilities.
15
16
South Asia Disaster Report 2010
Chapter 1
Locating Climate
Change:
Some Arguments
and CounterArguments
17
W
arming of the climate system is unequivocal
and it is evident from observations of
increases in global average air and ocean
temperatures, widespread melting of snow and
ice, and rising global average sea levels (IPCC,
2007a). The understanding of human mediated
warming and cooling influences on climate has
improved significantly over the last couple of
years, leading to a better understanding on the
warming trend of the climate system globally. It is
increasingly evident that this is due to net effect
of human activities (IPCC, 2007a). Furthermore
it is evidently clear that most of the observed
increase in globally averaged temperatures since
the mid-20th century is very likely due to the
observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse
gas concentrations (GHGs) (IPCC, 2007a).
Although the global legal framework and
institutional set up (UNFCCC) provides a platform
to discuss and agree on common issues related to
climate change, and specific binding actions, so far
this has failed to achieve the expected outcomes.
This Chapter examines the evidence for Climate
Change, the politics, and then looks at the
anthropogenic drivers and systems that have led
to this chaotic situation in the climate system, and
concludes with its implications for South Asia.
1.1 Climate of Controversy
Debates on global warming have triggered heated
controversies around issues of climate change in
recent years. The nature, causes and consequences
of climate change remain under rigorous research,
review and scrutiny. Scientific knowledge on
climate change as one can expect, is evolving and
many aspects remain inconclusive.
In the body of modern knowledge, natural science
remained the predominant lens to look at the
issues of climate change until recently. Such
scientific assessments on climate change mainly
involve atmospheric scientists and experts in the
area of environment and energy.
Contemporary science agrees that natural
science alone is insufficient to understand and
deal with the climate change challenge (IPCC,
2007a). Key questions in the scientific discourse
are; if observed climate change is accidental
or systematic, what role can be attributed to
the human-caused emissions of greenhouse
gases? Which models can tell us about future
developments? How much reduction in emissions
is needed to mitigate the risks of climate change?
Climate change scenarios are typically expressed
18
South Asia Disaster Report 2010
in terms of time scales of 30–100 years for areas as
large as northwest Europe. Such projections about
globally very significant changes in the decades to
come are difficult to comprehend or translate into
real life today in a certain city or rural area (Helmer
and Hilhorst, 2006).
While natural scientists have established the
nature of the problem, social scientists have
mapped both the likely implications and possible
responses. The implications of warming are
conclusively observed in various dimensions;
poverty, hunger, disease, loss of livelihood,
migration, conflict, and disaster risk to name
but some crucial outcomes. But the crisis that
has gripped the climate change community
in terms of their inability to agree on scale of
impact has recently revealed that gaps still remain
between the two communities of natural and
social scientists, especially in presenting a united
communications front for countering the few, but
increasingly vocal sceptics (Dickson, 2010). Though
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC, 2007a) appeared to offer a model for how
the natural sciences and social sciences can work
together effectively (Boyer, 2002 cited in IPCC,
2007a); the issue of juxtaposition in practice still
remains to be settled.
1.2 Scientific Consensus
That the climate has warmed in recent decades
and that human activities are already contributing
adversely to global climate change has been
endorsed by the IPCC and every national science
academy that has issued a statement on climate
change, including the science academies of all
of the major industralised countries. With the
release of the revised statement by the American
Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no
remaining scientific society is known to reject
the basic findings of human influence on recent
climate change. Environmental groups, many
governmental reports, and the media in all
countries but the United States often state that
there is virtually unanimous agreement in the
scientific community in support of human-caused
global warming.
A January 19, 2009 survey of over 3,000 scientists
as listed by the American Geological Institute
showed 90% agreed that global temperatures
have risen in the last 200 years, and 82% agreed
that human activity played a significant role. (AGI,
2009)
Opponents either maintain that most scientists
consider global warming “unproved”, dismiss it
altogether, or highlight the dangers of focusing
on only one viewpoint in the context of what they
say is unsettled science, or point out that science is
based on facts and not on opinion polls.
In 1997, the “World Scientists Call For Action”
petition was presented to a world leaders
meeting to negotiate the Kyoto Protocol. The
declaration asserted, “A broad consensus among
the world’s climatologists is that there is now a
discernible human influence on global climate.”
It urged governments to make “legally binding
commitments to reduce industrial nations’
emissions of heat-trapping gases”, and called
global warming “one of the most serious threats
to the planet and to future generations.” The
petition was conceived by the Union of Concerned
as a follow up to their 1992 World Scientists, and
was signed by “more than 1,500 of the world’s
most distinguished senior scientists, including the
majority of Nobel laureates in science.”
Nobel laureate Paul Crutzen, one of the three
atmospheric scientists who discovered the ozonedepletion effect of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), has
coined the phrase “anthropocene” for the current
period of the Earth’s history, which means that
humanity has seriously disturbed many critical Earth
systems. Ironically, the ozone-depletion effect was
not even suspected at the beginning of the 1970s,
at a time that it was already quite far advanced. It is
likely that there are many more such aspects about
which we are unaware, and will be uncovered when
damages have been inflicted (Sachs, 2010).
1.3 Politics of Science
Many climate scientists state that they are put
under enormous pressure to distort or hide any
scientific results which suggest that human activity
is to blame for global warming. A survey of climate
scientists which was reported to the US House
Oversight and Government Reform Committee
noted that “Nearly half of all respondents perceived
or personally experienced pressure to eliminate the
words ‘climate change’, ‘global warming’ or other
similar terms from a variety of communications.”
These scientists were pressured to tailor their
reports on global warming to fit the George W.
Bush administration’s climate change skepticism. In
some cases, this occurred at the request of a former
oil-industry lobbyist (Blue Marble, 2010).
In June 2008, a report by NASA’s Office of the
Inspector General concluded that NASA staff
appointed by the White House had censored and
suppressed scientific data on global warming in
order to protect the Bush administration from
controversy close to the 2004 presidential election.
Opponents had argued that the “Climategate”
scandal, involving errors discovered in a 2007
international climate report and emails leaked last
year from a British university, had placed in doubt
the science behind climate change (DPA 2010).
The level of coverage that US mass media devoted
to global warming “was minimal prior to 1988”, but
interest increased significantly after the drought
of 1988, and related Senate testimony of James E.
Hansen “attributing the abnormally hot weather
plaguing our nation to global warming” (Absolute
Astronomy, 2010).
Both “global warming” and the more politically
neutral “climate change” were listed by the Global
Language Monitor as the No. 01 catch phrase for
the first decade of 21st century (GLM, 2010).
It has been argued that the appearance of
overlapping groups of sceptical scientists,
commentators and think tanks in seemingly
unrelated controversies results from an organised
attempt to replace scientific analysis with political
ideology.
In May 2010 the Hartwell Paper written by fourteen
academics from various disciplines in the sciences
and humanities as well as policy thinkers was
published by the London School of Economics
in collaboration with the University of Oxford in
the U.K. The paper argues that the Kyoto Protocol
crashed in late 2009 and “has failed to produce
any discernable real world reductions in emissions
of greenhouse gases in fifteen years.” The paper
emphasises that this failure opened an opportunity
to set climate policy free from Kyoto and the paper
advocates a controversial and piecemeal approach
to decarbonisation of the global economy. The
Hartwell paper proposes that “the organising
principle of our effort should be the raising up of
human dignity via three overarching objectives:
ensuring energy access for all; ensuring that we
develop in a manner that does not undermine the
essential functioning of the Earth system; ensuring
that our societies are adequately equipped to
withstand the risks and dangers that come from all
the vagaries of climate, whatever their cause may
be.” (LSE & University of Oxford, 2010)
The only major developed nation which has signed
but not ratified the Kyoto protocol is the USA. The
countries with no official position on Kyoto are
mainly African countries with underdeveloped
scientific infrastructure or are oil producers.
19
The US acknowledgement that climate change
is real and an outcome of human activity, came
in 2009. “After too many years of inaction and
denial, there is finally widespread recognition
of the urgency of the challenge before us”. The
United States is “determined to act” as the “threat
from climate change is serious, it is urgent, and
it is growing” (The Huffington Post, 2009). In its
July 2010 communication, US environmental
regulators reaffirmed its 2009 “endangerment
finding”, which for the first time declared climate
change a threat to public health and could serve
as a basis for the US government taking action to
reduce pollution. It rejected a series of challenges
to the science behind climate change, reaffirming
that global warming is real and the result of manmade pollution (DPA, 2010).
1.4 Reckoning Causes of Global Warming
The following sections attempt to analyze the
historical contributors to climate change and spell
out how economic and food production systems
have contributed to the issue, as well as critique
the economic development models that led to
aggravation of the problem.
1.4.1 Environmental ‘Dividends’ of Industrial
Development
The industrial revolution and the post second
world war economic expansion model are widely
recognized as key drivers that led to high green
house gas concentration in the atmosphere (IPCC,
2007a; Practical Action, 2010a). It is also interesting
to note that the historical timeline of global
increase in CO2 proportionately corresponds to
the timeline of industrial growth. Hence, changes
20
South Asia Disaster Report 2010
observed in many physical and biological systems
are consistent with warming scenarios (IPCC,
2007a). Fossil fuel burning and land use change
are proved as major causes that affect the global
climate system (IPCC, 2007a).
Western historians identify three major
‘improvements’ which constituted the 19th
century Industrial Revolution of Western Europe.
These include:
(a) Substitution of machines - rapid, regular,
precise, tireless - for human skill and effort;
(b) Substitution of inanimate for animate sources
of power, in particular, the introduction of engines for converting heat into work, thereby
opening to man a new and almost unlimited
supply of energy; and
(c) Use of new and far more abundant raw
materials, in particular, the substitution of
mineral for vegetable or animal substances
(Landes, 1969 cited in Parkin, 2008).
The introduction of machines to replace man
and animals transformed thinking and action;
pace of production became faster and quantities
produced were greater. More raw materials
were required to feed the machines. Thus the
years following the industrial revolution were
characterized by high levels of fossil fuel use as
source of energy, the consumption of natural
resources (water, soil, timber, minerals) at a
faster pace, over and above the time required to
replenish them. The finite nature of such resources
or the future consumption requirements was not
given much thought. The production systems
of the post industrialization period were guided
by the principles of increasing efficiency and
maximizing gains. ‘Produce more and consume
more’ was the norm and ‘natural’ systems of
production were gradually replaced. The rate of
natural resource exploitation, carbon emissions
and its implications were not regarded as
important considerations in growth and economic
policy in this era.
Chains of Free-market
This pattern was characterized by high
government investments and huge financial
incentives to the private sector. Following a loss
of confidence in state driven development at
the end of the 1970s, the economic growth and
development paradigm was one based on the
‘Washington Consensus’ – a policy prescription
recommended by the World Bank and the IMF
and built on the Chicago School economic
theories championed by Margaret Thatcher and
Ronald Reagan. The essential elements were rapid
liberalization, deregulation, and privatization of
developing country economies. Such policies were
often labeled ‘structural adjustments’ deemed
necessary in order for the developing countries to
stabilize their economies and achieve substantial
growth in terms of national income and wealth.
It is also believed that the poorest sections of
the communities in the developing world would
benefit from these policies due to the trickle
down effects (Practical Action, 2010a). The world
economic policies from 1980’s were shaped on this
thinking.
The analysis of the impact of these policies
indicates that “although some improvements
have been made to lives of the poor people in
certain locations, largely these policies have
failed to deliver sustainable improvement to the
lives and livelihoods of majority of the people
in most parts of the world” (OXFAM GB, 2009).
A major study (The Structural Adjustment
Participatory Review Initiative) has clearly showed
that liberalization of trade, financial and labour
markets had profound negative impacts for the
livelihoods of local communities and their cost of
living. It led to increased incidence of poverty in
the developing countries. However, developed
and developing countries continued to follow the
high input (in terms of natural resources and fossil
fuel) economic pathways. This was a significant
contributor for enhanced GHG concentrations in
the atmosphere and consequently to the current
chaotic status of the climate system.
As given in the 4th Assessment Report (IPCC,
2007b), the global atmospheric concentrations of
carbon dioxide has increased markedly as a result
of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed
pre-industrial values determined from ice cores
spanning many thousands of years.
1.4.2 Dialectics of uneven economies
The scientific consensus is that agriculture is now
responsible for around one third of all humanmade GHG emissions. It is argued however that
aggregating all forms of farming into a single pile
hides the truth. When disaggregated, it becomes
evident that in most agriculture-based countries,
agriculture itself makes little contribution to
climate change. Those countries with the highest
percentages of rural populations and whose
economies are most dependent on agriculture
tend to make the lowest GHG emissions per capita
(GRAIN, 2009).
Time (before 2005)
Figure 1.1 – Changes in CO2 concentrations from Ice-Core and
modern data
Source: Climate Change 2007: Physical Science Basis,
summary for policy makers
Food production, processing and distribution
systems have undergone massive changes since
the time of the 17th century industrialization. With
the expansion of the global systems of commerce
and trade, food chains have become increasingly
market oriented.
Despite record food productions around a billion
people are under nourished (Practical Action,
2010b). Globally, food provision is dominated
by small scale providers. An estimated 70% of
the global population is served by small scale
producers such as farmers, fisher folk and herders.
The average farm size of these small scale
producers is less than 2 hectares. A universal
characteristic of these small scale producers is
that they receive little or no government support.
The majority of the world’s hungry people are
distributed in areas cultivated by small scale
producers.
Large scale producers who cultivate about 14%
of the arable land area of the world have thrived
over the last decades. With the high agrochemical
inputs, access to financial services, government
subsidies and political support, these large scale
producers have dominated the food production
market. International trade of agricultural
commodities is dominated by a few multi national
companies. This model of food production has
led to increased productivity in major cereal
crops globally, but has not reduced the number
of hungry people or food prices. International
trade policies and reforms have catered towards
protecting large scales farmers in the developed
world with subsidies and protectionist distribution
systems leading to spiraling food prices in the
developing world. Furthermore, prices of seed
21
rose by 8 per cent, yet there were 19 per cent
more hungry people (De Schutter, 2009). As a
percentage, the starving population has gone
down everywhere in the world, meaning that the
head count index of poverty is declining. However,
the absolute number of poor has gone up due to
population increase.
Environmentally, the continuous application of
chemical fertilizers and broad band pesticides and
herbicides has led to considerable destruction
of natural soil flora and fauna, and altered the
capacity of soils to absorb and retain moisture.
Owing to the high water intensive nature of the
high yielding varieties the tapping of ground
water for irrigating the crops continuously over
long periods has led to drops in water table, and
salinization of some areas (Practical Action, 2010b).
and basic agricultural utilities have risen over the
years driving small scale farmers out of production
systems. This has led to severe socio economic
issues and migration from rural areas to urban
centres (Practical Action, 2010b).
The shifting patterns have contributed to change
in land use, which in turn has contributed
to the enhanced carbon dioxide level in the
atmosphere. Shifting patterns of agriculture have
also threatened food security. For a long time the
world has been quite comfortable with trade of
food commodities, at least until the food crisis that
suddenly cropped up in the middle of this decade.
1.4.3 Grey areas of the Green revolution
High yielding, water and chemical input intensive
food grain production system is commonly known
as ‘Green Revolution’ and was the response to
the need to feed the growing number of the
global poor in mid 20th century. While the green
revolution technology is credited for significantly
increasing yields and producing higher quantities
of food, it has also led to a host of environmental
challenges, and left the food security challenge it
aimed to address unresolved.
In South Asia, while the production of food per
capita increased by 9 per cent, the number of
hungry people increased by the same percentage
between 1970 and 1990. In South America, over
the same period, food availability per capita
22
South Asia Disaster Report 2010
Scientists and environmentalists also warn that
irrecoverable damage to the ecology, soils and
water resources has led to considerable loss of bio
diversity. The intense use of pesticide and chemical
fertilizer is contributory to the destruction of
biodiversity and organic matter that is needed to
promote water conservation and climate resilience.
The limited number of seed varieties promoted
throughout the Green Revolution has displaced a
wide range of traditional seeds and diverse crop
varieties leading to the erosion of crop biodiversity.
It is said that the remaining varieties of some
crops have declined by more than 90%, drastically
reducing the gene pool available to farmers for
breeding and improving their stock of seeds
(Livelihoods, 2005).
In Asia, where the Green Revolution has been most
successful in terms of increasing the productivity
of major cereal crops, groundwater supplies dried
up or became heavily polluted. The heavy reliance
on irrigation in these countries led to alarming
levels of salinization and water logging. And across
the world, farmers suffered health problems as a
result from overexposure to agricultural chemicals,
particularly pesticides.
According to Shiva ‘in the 1970’s the World Bank
gave massive loans to India to promote ground
water mining. It forced states like Maharashtra
to stop growing water prudent millets like jowar
which needs 300mm of water per season and shift
to water guzzling crops like sugarcane which needs
2500mm of water’ (Shiva, 2009a). In a region with
600mm annual rainfall and 10% ground water
recharge, this is a recipe for water famine (Shiva,
2009b).
It is pointed out that during the Green Revolution,
for too many years the focus was on increasing
food availability, neglecting both the distributional
impacts of ways of producing food, and their longterm environmental impacts. ‘Overall levels of food
production were boosted during the second half
of the twentieth century, while we also created the
conditions for a major ecological disaster in the
twenty-first century’ (De Schuter, 2009).
Jeffrey Sachs (2010), Director of the Earth Institute
and Adviser on the Millennium Development
Goals to UN Secretary General, highlights the
imbalances of the current food production
systems which are self – destructive. ‘Humanity
is now demanding so much food, including feed
grain for livestock, that as a whole now directly or
indirectly appropriating around 40 per cent of all
the photosynthesis occurring on the planet. With
so much photosynthesis being commandeered by
humanity, much less food and habitat is available
for other species. Our huge appetites are therefore
inducing dramatic population declines and even
the extinction of the flora and fauna on which we
depend. The pollinators are disappearing, whole
classes of amphibians are disappearing, and
fisheries around the world are disappearing’.
In effect, we have arrived at a food system which
produces large quantities of food, but is ineffective
in feeding the hungry. The system of production
has turned self-destructive by destroying the soil
structure, flora and fauna which enhances it, drying
up water resources and poisoning the air.
1.4.4 Globalization of warming
Trade liberalization and free trade are identified
as major channels through which globalization
impacts the natural environment and affects
environmental quality. With both the production
and distribution becoming globally linked
and controlled, the global movements of raw
material, finished products and people have
increased substantially. Such movements of
goods and people alone contribute to producing
significant greenhouse gas emissions. In most
cases the emissions from shipping and flying
goods all over the globe can be goods that could
easily be produced much closer to the point
of consumption. Further the contemporary
expectation of consumers in industrialized
countries to be able to have access to a wide
variety of fresh produce (e.g. vegetables, fruit
and flowers) all year round increased more
transportation of goods (Hallman, 2002). ‘The
externalities of emissions have not been thought
through as part of trade liberalization, rather left
to the indefinite future. As a result, we are trapped
in a race against the accelerating forces of rapid,
carbon-fueled development unleashed by our very
own trade policies’ (Leopold, 2007).
The pace of trade liberalization and free trade saw
rapid increases in the 20th century. World trade
has grown faster than world output, indicating a
growing trade-intensity of the global economy.
While global output grew at an average annual
rate of 4% during 1950-94, the world merchandise
trade grew at an average annual rate of over 6%
during the same period. As a result, over the 45
year period, world merchandise trade grew by 14
times compared to only 5.5 times for the world
merchandise output. The trade intensity of the
global economy increased further during 19901995 (WTO 1995 cited in Panayotou, 2000). The size
of the human population – 6.8 billion people – and
the scale of economic activity – US$ 10,000 output
per person – are now so vast that anthropogenic
(human-made) interference in the Earth’s natural
systems is vast and still poorly understood (Sachs,
2010).
1.4.5 Environmental Debt of globalization
The environmental dimensions of globalisation
of trade clearly indicate the pressure exerted on
natural resources around the world, driving to
rapid depletion of tropical forests, the collapse of
many ocean fisheries, and global impoverishment
of biological diversity. It is found that some of
the toxic chemicals used in the tropics evaporate
in the heat and are transported in the air to
the poles, where they condense out in the cold
and accumulate in the food chain, in a global
distillation process (Sachs, 2010).
Un-pricing and under pricing of environmental
resources and costs in global trade lead to
resource misallocation and exploitation. This
can be further exacerbated by removal of trade
barriers. The adequacy of conventional economic
analyses to place monetary value on natural
resources and the services rendered by the eco
systems is highly questionable. For example,
one important provisioning service of the Hindu
Kush-Himalayan region is providing water for 1.3
billion people – 20% of humanity. To date there has
been no initiative to either quantify these benefits
in economic terms or to share them with the
custodians of the resources (ICIMOD, 2009).
Reviews of the early 19th century suggest that
international production and financial activities
23
were evolving rapidly, however their development
was very uneven both geographically and by
sector (Bairoch and Kozul-Wright, 1996). The
unevenness of the globalization process between
the North and South was apparent from the early
days where differences in resource endowments
ensured Latin America, much of Asia and parts
of Africa specialized in raw material exports, and
imported manufactured goods (Bairoch and KozulWright, 1996).
A recent study analyzing the complex causal
connections between world trade and
environmental degradation conclude that GNP
increases in the rich, developed countries are
linked to deforestation in the poorer, developing
countries. The study points out that the linkages
of current inequalities in trade policy prescriptions
contribute to this outcome (Lofdahl, 2002).
Further, a review of the North-South trade and
the distribution of environmental goods suggests
that increased global trade tends to cause a
redistribution between North and South with
respect to the consumption of natural resources
on the one hand and negative environmental
impacts of resource extraction and production
processes on the other hand (Giljum and
Eisenmenger, 2003). The study reveals that the
North is a substantial and (at least for some
material groups) increasing net-importer of natural
resources from the South. Especially for the South,
specialisation patterns with economic activities
concentrating on resource-intensive primary
sectors, cause severe environmental problems
leading to substantial loss of natural capital.
We are at this juncture, with a depleted and
poorer natural resource base and a warmer planet
on the road to further irrecoverable depletion
of natural resources (ice melt and salination of
fresh water); worsened hazard profiles (drought,
floods, cyclones); new hazards (sea level rise,
glacial lake outburst floods); higher levels of
communicable disease, and greater numbers of
poor and vulnerable to the global environment
and economic scenarios. The processes of
industrialization and globalization have not been
able to deliver its promise of human development.
1.5 Climate Justice
The industrialised nations, representing less
than 20% of the world’s population, account for
nearly 90% of annual GHG emissions over the
last century, largely through the burning of fossil
fuels (coal, oil, gas). There is wide consensus that
the distribution of effects of global warming is
24
South Asia Disaster Report 2010
very unfair and unequal (World Bank, 2009a).
The effects experienced by the populations in
industrialised countries, who are the largest
polluters and who are responsible for the bulk
of past and current emissions are much less
in comparison to populations in developing
countries.
It is the poor with limited assets, who depend
on the natural resource base for subsistence
livelihoods, who take the brunt of climate change
impacts. While the benefits of growth remain
largely confined to the elite, the costs of growth
are transferred to the marginalized exacerbating
their vulnerabilities. Failure of ecosystems and
biodiversity loss represent a small diminution of
the global gross domestic product, but for 1.4
billion the world’s poorest people it represents a
catastrophic loss often rising to 50% of the GDP
of the poor (Gardiner, 2009). About 70% of South
Asians live in rural area and account for about
75% of the poor in South Asia, and are the most
impacted by climate change (World Bank, 2009a).
Sociological insights into vulnerability to climate
change argues that existing societal injustice was
compounded by how the industrialization and
trade globalization was managed in the global
system of governance.
‘Global forces can have drastically different
impacts in different places and on different groups
in those places: this elementary insight of the
literature on globalization must now be applied to
climate change.
The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, 2007
concluded that the poorest countries would be
hardest hit by the effects of Climate Change,
with reductions in crop yields in most tropical
and sub-tropical regions due to decreased water
availability, and new or changed insect pest
incidence. In Africa and Latin America many rainfed crops are near their maximum temperature
tolerance, so that yields are likely to fall sharply for
even small climate changes. IPCC project falls in
agricultural productivity of up to 30% over the 21st
century (Priyadarshi, 2010).
As the Earth’s climate begins to shift into a hotter
and more unpredictable period, there is a basic
injustice in who will suffer worst and first. Nations
facing rising oceans and drought are those least
responsible for the problem, and they have the
least resources to cope with them. The cases of
rising sea levels swamping entire Pacific Island
atoll nations, devastating drought in Africa, and
murderous flooding in Bangladesh demonstrate
the above.
Often high population, poverty and poor
governance are put forward as causes behind
environmental degradation in South Asia. However,
‘these nations are suffering not only because of
bad geography or management. Rather, because
of their colonial past and current positions in the
world-economy, they are brutally vulnerable to
forces outside their control’ (Roberts and Bradley,
2003).
South Asia is largely a victim to climate change.
The region as a victim - shoulders an unfair share
of effects of the industrialized nations polluting.
However, the energy demand is rising in the region
due to urbanisation, industrialisation and relatively
higher economic growth, leading to higher levels
of emissions. Yet the per capita emissions of the
region are still extremely low by international
standards—less than one-fifth of the developed
countries (World Bank, 2009a). It is estimated that
the average Indian produces around a 10th of the
greenhouse gases of the average European and a
20th of the average American (Harrabin, 2010).
gases. In South Asia rice and livestock are the
primary sources of agricultural emissions and
account for more than 20 percent of total
emissions from the region. However, the potential
to substantially lower agricultural emissions in
South Asia is limited for the reasons that the perhectare emissions from rice in South Asia are lower
than the global average, reflecting the special
features of the agricultural landscape: poor soils,
low levels of chemical application, and planting
regimes in the region. Similarly, in livestock
management practices herds subsist on common
pastures with little scope for altering diets in ways
that can lower methane emissions (World Bank,
2009a).
On average, emissions in South Asia have risen
at about 3.3 percent annually in the region
since 1990. Going by the principle “common but
differentiated responsibilities” of United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC), it is argued that South Asian countries
would need to be compensated for the additional
costs of mitigation actions that go beyond their
development objectives. UNFCCC recognizes
that current climate risks are the consequence
of past actions by developed countries and that
low carbon investments must not detract from
current development imperatives. This suggestion
however needs to be examined in the context of
what are the fundamental changes required to
production and economic systems to meet the
challenges of climate change in the region and
elsewhere. The failure of the Copenhagen COP
15 clearly indicates the divisions between the
developed and developing nations and the power
structures within various regional bodies which
form stumbling blocks for any progress in the
negotiation process.
According to the World Bank, globally, agriculture
is identified as a major contributor to greenhouse
Beyond causes
Faster economic growth has improved living standards and levels of comforts for millions. It has also widened
the gaps between the rich and the poor, failed to meet the basic needs of food, health and education of
millions of poor. The production system itself has caused irrecoverable damages to the natural environment,
to the eco systems which are the base for the existence and sustenance of life. It has also contributed to the
increase of the intensity and uncertainty of natural hazards.
Eroded eco systems and the changing climate is already heavily impacting the basis of life support systems
of the majority in South Asia. Hence this warrants an understanding of these impacts in order to mitigate the
ill effects of climate change. Chapter 2 takes a closer look at the increased disaster risk and how it affects the
geographies and livelihoods in South Asia.
25
26
South Asia Disaster Report 2010
Chapter 2
Climate Change:
Impacts and
Implications for
South Asia
27
Introduction
The South Asian sub-continent comprises of eight countries, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, the
Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. Global disaster data confirms that the region is probably the most
critical hotspot of disasters in the world today, due to its geo-physical and hydro-climatic characteristics.
These bring many diverse hazards each year to a region suffering from an already stressed and largely
degraded natural resource base (World Bank, 2010). What is more, data trends show that hazard intensity
has increased over the past few decades, and when worsening hazards strike densely populated areas with
impoverished and vulnerable communities, disaster results. Even a small variation in climate could cause
irreversible losses for the millions of poor, pushing them into destitution (World Bank, 2009a).
This chapter reviews existing data on climatic hazards facing South Asia and what these mean for the
agricultural livelihoods on which so many South Asians rely. It then paints a picture of a vulnerable
population characterized by poverty, and concludes with first hand evidence of how vulnerable
communities are already being affected by disastrous climatic disturbances.
2.1 Hazards
South Asia is disproportionately heavily affected by disasters: it covers 4.8% of the world’s land surface (UNEP,
2009a) and is home to around one fifth of the world’s population; 38% of the disaster related deaths and
39% of the affected communities recorded between 1900 and 2009 were in South Asia (EM-DAT, 2010). Two
South Asian countries, Bangladesh and India, were among the top ten most natural disaster affected countries
worldwide between 1990 and 2009 (Harmeling, 2010). According to Germanwatch (2010), Bangladesh tops the
Global Climate Risk Index. The World Bank (2009b) gives an idea of the scale of disaster damage in South Asia,
saying “between 1990 and 2008, more than 750 million people, 50% of the region’s population, were affected
by a natural disaster, leaving almost 60,000 dead and resulting in about $45 billion in damages.”
The hazards most commonly affecting South Asia are floods, drought, heavy precipitation, landslides, and
cyclones.
As seen in Figure 2.1, almost every part of South
Asia is at risk from one hazard or another. What is
frightening is that EM-DAT (2010) data for the last
century clearly shows an increased intensity and
frequency of extreme events with transnational
effects throughout the region, which is in line with
globally observed trends. Continued climate change
will bring even more disasters, since 98% of all
disaster related deaths reported in South Asia over
the past century were caused by hazards that were
weather related, whether or not triggered by the
changing climate (EM-DAT, 2010).
In addition to the direct damages and humanitarian
crises, climate variability has another hidden
economic cost. Expectations that unmitigated
disasters will recur is a disincentive for investors and
leads to risk-averse behavior, seriously affecting the
economy and hence growth, even in years there is
no hazard (World Bank, 2006).
Figure 2.1: Distribution of hazard risk hotspots in South Asia
Source: Reproduced from 4th Assesment Report, 2007,
reproduced/modified from Dilley et al. (2005).
28
South Asia Disaster Report 2010
The sections below describe the hazards which
South Asia is facing in more detail. Some, like floods,
are familiar and have been part of life in the region
for millennia. Others, like the threat of sea level rise,
are unfamiliar hazards, which are projected to be
catalyzed by changes in the climate.
2.1.1 Sea Level Rise
As global temperature increases, fresh water
stored as ice in glaciers, ice caps and at the poles
is expected to melt (Brand and Dorfman, 1998
cited in GWF, n.d.), causing sea levels to rise. The
retreat of the Hindu Kush Himalayan glacier, in
addition to being projected to increase flooding,
rock avalanches from de-stabilized slopes, and to
affect water resources within the next two to three
decades, has already been identified as a major
contributory factor to the increased sea level in the
Bay of Bengal. Climate change scientists predict
that sea-level rise will be of major concern not
only for densely populated urban coastal areas,
but also for fertile low-lying areas including delta
environments (World Bank, 2009c). The impacts
of sea level rise may also include erosion, flooding,
coastal inundation, degradation of wetlands and
lowlands, and salinization of ground and surface
water.
This means that millions of people will be affected
by sea level rise. The IPCC estimates that even
under its most conservative scenario, sea level
in 2100 will be about 40 cm higher than today,
which will cause an additional 80 million coastal
residents in Asia alone to be flooded. The majority
of those flooded will be in South Asia, particularly
in Bangladesh and India. A one meter sea level
rise would result in nearly 6,000 square kilometers
in India alone being flooded, including parts of
major cities such as Mumbai, Calcutta and Chennai.
Sea level rise will affect the coastal populations
in multiple ways, including the inundation and
displacement of wetlands and lowlands, coastal
erosion, increased coastal storm flooding and
salinization (Byravan and Rajan, 2008).
Number of Events
Coastlines are among the most populated regions.
“In the three South Asian countries sharing a coast
line - Bangladesh, Pakistan and India - nearly 130
million people currently live in the area of about
160 thousand square kilometers known as the Low
Elevation Coastal Zone (LECZ), which is comprised
of the coastal region that is within 10 meters above
average sea level. The bulk of the region’s LECZ
population (about 97%) resides in Bangladesh
and India, with roughly equal numbers in each”
(Byravan and Rajan, 2008).
Figure 2.2: Occurrence of disasters in South Asia (based on EM-DAT, 2010 data).
29
Area of LECZ
(square km)
Population in
LECZ
Urban Population
in LECZ
Fraction of Urban Population in
LECZ in Cities Exceeding 5 Million
Bangladesh
54,461
65,524,048
15,428,668
33%
India
81,805
63,188,208
31,515,286
58%
Pakistan
22,197
4,157,045
2,227,118
92%
Sri Lanka
5,536
2,231,097
961,977
0%
Table 2.1: Summary of Low Elevation Coastal Zone (LECZ) Statistics for 4 countries in South Asia
(Source: sedac.ciesin.org)
Low lying areas such as the Maldives, coastal
areas of Sri Lanka, and the chars and islands of
Bangladesh, stand to lose the most from sea level
rise and the threat of coastal storms (Angus, et al.,
2009).
2.1.2 Floods
Floods are the most common natural disaster
in South Asia. Of the total 1,347 disaster events
reported in the region during the last century,
nearly 40% were floods. Floods can include
seasonal floods, flash floods, urban floods due
to inadequate drainage facilities and floods
associated with tidal events induced by typhoons
in coastal areas. However, major floods are mostly
associated with major rivers. In South Asia, while
the Indus, Ganges, Brahmaputra and the Meghna
rivers provide life-giving sustenance for millions of
people in India, Bangladesh and Pakistan, severe
floods can take a devastating turn, adversely
impacting lives and even the economy. To give
an idea of the scale of such disasters, a severe
monsoon rain event may inundate up to 70% of
Bangladesh (Kelkar and Bhadwal, 2007). In India,
the government has estimated nearly 33 million
hectares to be flood prone, especially in the
states of Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Assam and Haryana
(Ministry of Water Resources, India, n.d.)
30
South Asia Disaster Report 2010
Northern Pakistan has observed a 10 to 15%
precipitation decrease in coastal belt and hyper
arid plains, and an increase in summer and winter
precipitation over the last 40 years (IPCC, 2007a).
Most recently in August 2010, massive floods in
Pakistan killed nearly 2,000 and displaced more
than 20 million people. These are considered as
the worst floods in more than 80 years and have
affected nearly one-fifth of the country’s territory.
It is worse than the 2004 tsunami and the 2005
Indo-Kashmir earthquake. By some estimates, the
cost of the flooding could reach up to $15 billion.
According to International Monetary Fund (IMF)
projections, the external debt of the country will
swell to $74 billion by 2015, by expanding the
current debt level of $55.5 billion (Waraich, 2010).
In a country where nearly half of the national
budget is devoted to debt servicing and military
spending, the challenges imposed by the floods
are beyond imagination.
Other countries have also been hard hit by floods
recently. Decadal rain anomalies in Bangladesh
have been above long term averages since the
1960’s (Khan et al., 2000; Mirza, 2002, Mirza and
Dixit et al., 1997 cited in IPCC, 2007a), and serious
flooding occurred in Bangladesh, Nepal and
northeast India in 2002, 2003 and 2004 (IPCC,
2007a). In 2005, a record 944 mm of rainfall in
Mumbai claimed more than 1,000 lives and caused
damage worth more than US$250 million (ibid.).
In 2008, more than two million people were
marooned by late monsoon floods in 15 of the
country’s 64 districts, according to the Bangladesh
Water Development Board (BWDB), (SDMC, 2008).
Sri Lanka has been repeatedly hit by flash floods in
recent years, e.g. in the southern province in 2003
after 730mm of rain (IPCC, 2007a). In the northernmost hilly region of Leh in State of Jammu &
Kashmir (Indian side) 59 people died instantly and
many more went missing, as a cloudburst triggered
one of the worst flash floods in the region,
sweeping away five villages (The Nation, 2010).
Later figures put the death toll at over 150, with
more than 300 missing (Mitra, 2010).
Floods also impact the urban setting drastically,
e.g. in Sri Lanka in both 2009 and 2010 intense
precipitation led to floods that cut off the island’s
only airport for days resulting in heavy economic
loss.
2.1.3 Cyclones
Cyclones of varying intensities and duration form
an important element of South Asian weather. Low
to moderate intensity tropical cyclones bring much
needed rain for agriculture around the northern
Indian Ocean. India’s annual rainfall is mostly
produced by low pressure systems and depressions
(about 890mm) (O’Hare, 2008). However, when
tropical cyclones are excessively strong, they can
cause great loss of life and property (O’Hare, 2008).
Out of 347 cyclones recorded in the South Asia
region in the last century, 157 have affected
Bangladesh, killing over 600,000 people. This is
nearly 80% of the total deaths reported in South
Asia due to cyclones. Close behind Bangladesh,
Indian territories have been hit by 148 cyclones
during this period (EM-DAT, 2010). In 2007,
Cyclone Sidr hit southern Bangladesh, causing
over 2,000 deaths and severe damage (BBC, 2007).
Cyclone Aila that hit Bangladesh and the east coast
of India in 2009 left over a million homeless. Over
20 million people were at risk of post-disaster
diseases.
SOUTH ASIA REGION
According to the Initial National Communication
report of India, about 16 cyclonic disturbances
occur each year in the northern Indian Ocean, of
which about 6 develop into cyclonic storms (MoEF,
2004). Tropical cyclones usually form over the
southern end of the Bay of Bengal between April
and December, then move to the east coast of
India and Bangladesh, causing severe flooding and
often devastating tidal surges (UNEP, 1997). The
Indus deltaic creeks are also located on the path
of cyclones of the Arabian Sea (MoE of Pakistan,
2003).
However, contradictory information exists
regarding the frequency of tropical cyclones. The
Initial National Communication of India (MoEF,
2004) suggests that while the total frequency of
cyclonic storms that form over the Bay of Bengal
has remained almost constant over the period
1887-1997, an increase in the frequency of severe
cyclonic storms appears to have taken place in
recent decades. While the IPCC (2007a) writes
that the “frequency of monsoon depressions and
cyclone formation in Bay of Bengal and Arabian Sea
has been on the decline since 1970 but intensity
is increasing, causing severe floods in terms of
damages to life and property”. In contrast, EM-DAT
data shows that 47% of all reported cyclones in
South Asia during the last century occurred within
the last two decades .
2.1.4 Temperature rise/Heat waves
Temperature increases have been observed in
many South Asian countries, which have many
effects, the most obvious of which are increased
frequencies of hot days and heat waves. The table
below reproduced from a 4th Assessment Report
(IPCC 2007a) describes some of the changes
observed.
2.1.5 Droughts
Droughts occur as a consequence of rainfall
deficiency and low air humidity, thus the arid and
semi-arid regions of South Asia are highly prone
to drought. Although only 40 significant droughts
were recorded in the last century, they were
responsible for nearly 45% of the total number of
people affected by natural disasters in South Asia.
Country
Change in temperature
References
India
0.68°C increase per century, increasing
trends in annual mean temperature,
warming more pronounced during
post monsoon and winter
Kripalani et al., 1996; Lal et al., 1996;
Lal et al., 2001b; Singh and
Sontakke, 2002; Lal, 2003
Nepal
0.09°C per year in Himalayas and 0.04°C
in Terai region, more in winter
Shrestha et al., 2000; Bhadra, 2002;
Shrestha, 2004
Pakistan
0.6 to 1.0°C rise in mean temperature in
coastal areas since early 1900s
Farooq and Khan, 2004
Bangladesh
An increasing trend of about 1°C in May and
0.5°C in November during the 14 year
period from 1985 to 1998
Mirza and Dixit, 1997; Khan et al.,
2000; Mirza, 2002
Sri Lanka
0.016°C increase per year between 1961 to
90 over entire country
Chandrapala and Fernando, 1995;
Chandrapala, 1996
Table 2.2: Temperature increases in South Asian countries. Reproduced from 4th Assessment Report (IPCC, 2007a)
31
This is equal to 1,142,332,000 people. There have
been only 1,036 deaths due to droughts after 1967
in the whole of South Asia. However, the number
of affected people is increasing alarmingly. UNEP
describes the large areas affected by drought in its
Asia Pacific Environment Outlook report (1997):
“The drought-prone countries in this region are
Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nepal, India, Sri Lanka
and parts of Bangladesh. In India, about 33%
of the arable land (14% of the total land area of
the country) is classified as drought-prone, and
a further 35% can also be affected if rainfall is
exceptionally low for extended periods” (ESCAP,
1995 cited in UNEP, 1997).
According to the 4th Assessment Report (IPCC
2007a), water shortages in India, Pakistan, Nepal
and Bangladesh have been attributed to rapid
urbanization and industrialization, population
growth and inefficient water use, which are
aggravated by the changing climate and its
adverse impacts on demand, supply and water
quality. In South Asia, 50% of droughts have been
associated with El Niño. Consecutive droughts in
1999 and 2000 in Pakistan and northwest India
caused water tables to fall dramatically, while
further droughts between 2000 and 2002 caused
crop failures, mass starvation and affected ~11
million people in Orissa (IPCC, 2007a).
Last year(2009) was also a drought year for many
parts of South Asia, and El Nino effects were
noted to be visible last year (FAO, 2010a). India,
Sri Lanka, Pakistan all reported large areas within
Figure 2.3: Distribution of potentially dangerous
glacial lakes of Nepal.
Source: ICIMOD 2009
32
South Asia Disaster Report 2010
the countries’ districts affected by drought (BBC,
2009a).
2.1.6 Glacial Lake Outburst Flooding (GLOF)
During the dry season, the nearly 8,800 glacial
lakes in the Hindu Kush-Himalayan region provide
a natural and renewable storehouse of fresh
water for the many hundred millions of people
downstream along the mighty perennial rivers:
the Indus, the Brahmaputra and the Ganga (Ives
et al., 2010). Melt water draining from these ice
and snowfields is important in regulating the
hydrology of the Indian sub-continent. Though
it contributes only 5% of the total water flow, the
water is released in the dry season, and is vital for
the survival of millions of people (Upadhyay, 1995
cited in WWF Nepal, 2005).
Global warming causes more rapid melting of
glaciers, and thus increases the risk of GLOF.
According to ICIMOD (Bajracharya, 2010), experts
have identified 203 glaciers in Bhutan, China,
India, Nepal and Pakistan as potentially dangerous.
Most major rivers in South Asia originate from
glaciers and glacial lakes of the higher Himalayas.
Scientists have observed that the frequency of
the occurrence of GLOF events has increased in
the second half of the 20th century, putting lives,
property and infrastructure at risk. However,
accelerated retreating of glacier lakes will result
in future fresh water shortages. A joint report
released by UN Environment Program and the
Asian Institute of Technology has raised concerns
that the water resources in three of South Asia’s
largest river basins - the Ganges-Brahmaputra-
the HDI. All other countries lag behind the 100th
position of the HDI rank list. Afghanistan has the
second lowest HDI of any country. These poor
scores are evidence of the failure of South Asian
countries to achieve for their populations long and
healthy lives, access to knowledge and a decent
standard of living. Even with the current rate of
growth about 273 million South Asians will live on
less than a $1 per day in 2015 (Pakistan Defence,
2010).
Meghna (GBM), Indus and Helmand river basins
- all of which span multiple countries within the
region, are highly vulnerable, with millions of
people at risk of increasing water scarcity (Babel
and Wahid, 2008).
2.2 Impacting livelihoods
Region of poor
South Asia suffers from an already stressed and
largely degraded natural resource base resulting
from geography coupled with high levels of
poverty and population density (World Bank,
2010). The region includes three of the world’s
seven most populous nations: India, the second
most populous country in the world with over one
billion people, and Pakistan and Bangladesh, both
with populations of around 150 million. With a
population of nearly one and a half billion, South
Asia is home to around a quarter of the world’s
inhabitants. South Asia comprises of about 10% of
the Asian continent, but its population accounts for
about 40% of the Asian people (SAAM, 2009).
Even though the urban population is growing
due to rural urban migration in all South Asian
countries, about 70% of the region’s population
and 75% of the poor are still living in rural areas.
The key livelihoods of this rural population in
South Asia (agriculture, livestock, fisheries and
forestry) all depend on the natural resource base,
and are hence highly sensitive to changes in the
climate. Many who engage in these are poor
and vulnerable people. The unpredictability and
intensity of impacts of climate change will make
survival strategies, and the knowledge that people
relied on for so long, less useful than before.
South Asia has the highest density of poverty in
the world. Table 2.3 shows development indicators
for South Asian countries.
Urban share of the
population
Population below
national poverty line
(2000-2006)
Population below $2
a day (2000-2007)
GDI rank (2007)
Maldives
95
77
0.767
Sri Lanka
102
83
0.756
41.1
14
39.7
Bhutan
132
113
0.605
46.8
26.2
49.5
India
134
114
0.594
36.8
41.6
75.6
28.6
30.1
Pakistan
141
124
0.532
31.2
22.6
60.3
32.6
37
Nepal
144
119
0.545
47.3
55.1
77.6
30.6
18.2
Bangladesh
146
123
0.536
31
49.6
81.3
40
28.1
Afghanistan
181
154
0.31
Gini index
(1992-2007)
Country
HDI Rank
GDI value (2007)
All South Asian countries except Afghanistan show
medium Human Development Index (HDI) values.
The Maldives scores highest amongst South Asian
countries in 95th place in the world, according to
Population below $1.25
a day (2000-2007)
These changes will have differing impacts on
different communities based on their specific
livelihoods in their various geographies. Thus,
the impacts of climate change on these key rural
livelihoods will be reviewed in the context of
different geographies.
40.5
22.7
15.1
36.8
24.8
Table 2.3: Development indicators for South Asian countries. The GDI is a gender adjusted HDI which accounts for inequalities
between females and males. Data from HDR 2009.
33
The worst hit livelihoods will be agricultural, the mainstay of the bulk of South Asians. Livestock,
fisheries and forest based livelihoods are also threatened. According to the IPCC, in Asia:
•
Crop yield decreases in many areas will put many millions of Asians at risk from hunger;
•
Freshwater availability and biodiversity, already under pressure due to population growth and
land use change, will be further impacted by climate change;
•
Water stress will affect more than 100 million people due to decrease of freshwater availability in
central, south, east and southeast Asia, particularly in large river basins;
•
Degradation and desertification may increase due to reduced soil moisture and increased evapotranspiration;
•
Grassland productivity is expected to decline by as much as 40 to 90 percent with a temperature
increase of 2-3oC, combined with reduced precipitation in the semi-arid and arid regions;
•
On the other hand agriculture productivity may expand in northern areas; and Boreal forest in
north Asia may increase northward, although the likely increase in frequency and extent of forest
fires could limit forest expansion;
•
Fish breeding habitats, fish food supply and, ultimately, the abundance of fish populations in
Asian waters will be substantially altered;
•
Aquaculture industry and infrastructure, particularly in heavily populated mega deltas, are likely to be
seriously affected by coastal inundation;
•
A combination of thermal and water stresses, sea level rise, increased flooding, and strong winds
associated with intense tropical cyclones will affect agriculture and aquaculture;
•
Pasture lands and fodder availability will be affected, threatening livestock farming.
Source: FAO, 2008
2.2.1 Impacts on Agriculture
Agriculture, as the mainstay of several economies
in South Asia, is the largest source of employment.
The sector continues to be the single largest
contributor to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
in the region. Mostly rain fed (three-fifths of the
cropped area is rain fed), annual success of the
monsoons is critical for the countries in the region
and is indicative of the well-being of millions. If the
monsoons fail, the worst affected are the landless
and the poor whose sole source of income is from
agriculture and its allied activities (Kelkar and
Bhadwal, 2007).
The majority of farmers in South Asia have small
holdings on marginal land. About 125 million
holdings operate in roughly 200 million hectares,
averaging just 1.6 hectares each. 80% of these
plots are extremely small – with less than 0.6
hectares of land (Gulati, 2001). With the large
family sizes typical of these communities, the
holdings are becoming even smaller. Fragmented
holdings prevent farmers from reaping economies
of scale, meaning they become poorer and more
vulnerable. These small holder farmers support the
food needs of 1.3 billion people, but they are likely
to suffer significantly from climate change, because
they possess low financial and technical capacity to
adapt to climate variability and change.
34
South Asia Disaster Report 2010
Information available on already experienced
or predicted impacts are at the macro level, and
currently not localized. However, the farmers are
already experiencing these changes and impacts
on their livelihoods.
Mutubanda, a farmer in eastern Sri Lanka, has
grown rice half his life. He lamented the irregularity
of rains in recent seasons.
“Back then there was water everywhere, there
was no road there, we had to wade through
water holes the whole time, we always carried a
separate set of clothes when traveling. In the past
there was plenty of rain, now there aren’t many
trees around and people don’t follow old customs.
For instance all the trees in this hill have been
chopped off and sold by the villages because they
have no other means of living. It did rain this year,
the clouds gathered for hours but the rain was not
enough to even seep through 1 inch of soil. It’s
as good as no rain. Normally we start sowing in
October, and we prepare the ground, but this time
the rains did not come on time. It did rain, one
and a half months late and in spots and far apart.”
The poverty of his community and other
communities like his forces them to further exploit
and deplete the resources around them.
not superb for farmers but it is tolerable. It will very
likely fall in the next season” (New Age, 2008).
Small holding farmers cultivate in conditions that
are harsh and with little external support. With the
facilities such as extension services, credit, storage,
irrigation or market linkages being very basic or
non-existent, the production systems are under
pressure to meet their own requirements with little
excess produce. Even where there is excess, this
is sold shortly after harvest, at whatever price is
available from local buyers. What little money that
is made is later used to buy produce in the market
to supplement household food supply and other
basic requirements.
Food Security at stake
Wadul Miah, a 45 year old farmer from Phulbagan,
Trishal, Mymensingh, Bangladesh described how
the effect of storms depends on wind velocity. “If it
occurs at the crucial time, it brings good luck but
often untimely ones have started occurring with
hotter winds and greater wind velocity, destroying
the crop” (New Age, 2008).
Reazuddin Thandar, a 65 year old farmer from
Narupara, Baghmara, Rajshahi, Bangladesh talks of
floods that will not subside. He is also concerned
about the price of his product. “If I could be sure
of getting a decent harvest during the monsoon,
I would be able to sell more rice now. The price is
Recent studies are quoted by the IPCC (Cruz, et
al., 2007) as saying that there will be considerable
decreases in cereal production potential by the
end of this century as a consequence of climate
change. For example, India which is the world’s
second biggest producer of rice, wheat and sugar,
suffered its worst monsoon in about 40 years in
2009 with 23% below average rainfall. The drought
experienced was the worst since 1972. Millions of
farmers in rural India who rely on the monsoon
to grow their crops suffered, with the north-west
being the worst hit with rainfall deficit at 36% while
the southern part of the country was just 7% below
average (BBC, 2009b).
Even under the most conservative climate change scenario, the net cereal production in South Asian
countries is projected to decline at least between 4 to 10% by the end of this century (Lal, 2007). Some of the
projected losses based on crop simulation modeling studies on climate change scenarios that the IPCC 2007
report quotes are:
•
Rice production in Asia could decline by 3.8% by the end of the 21st century (Murdiyarso, 2000).
•
In Bangladesh, production of rice and wheat might drop by 8% and 32%, respectively by the year 2050
(Faisal and Parveen, 2004).
•
A 0.5°C rise in winter temperature would reduce wheat yield by 0.45 tons per hectare in India (Lal et
al., 1998; Karla et al., 2003), while another more recent study is quoted as saying there will be a 2 to 5%
decrease in yield potential of wheat and maize for a temperature rise of 0.5 to 1.5°C in India (Aggarwal,
2003).
Studies say that if CO2 levels double, there will be floret sterility induced by the heat, which will reduce rice
yields up to 40% (Nakagawa et al., 2003; Matsui and Omasa, 2002).
If the warming is compounded by 30% increase in tropospheric ozone and 20% decline in humidity, the grain
and fodder productions will decrease (Izrael, 2002).
In South Asia as a whole, the drop in yields of non-irrigated wheat and rice will be significant for a
temperature increase of beyond 2.5°C incurring a loss in farm-level net revenue of between 9% and 25% (Lal,
2007).
Source: IPCC, 2007
35
The above scenarios already show that there will
be significant changes in crop yields. However
the net effect of climate change impacts on
production is not certain, because of numerous
other factors such as local differences in growing
season, crop management, etc. and the noninclusion of possible diseases, pests, and microorganisms in crop model simulations, which
may not yet allow us precise predictions. The
vulnerability of agricultural areas to hazards such
as floods, droughts, and cyclones will also affect
production and may also have been ignored in
some simulations (IFAD, 2009). Modeling exercises
on the possible affects of climate change induced
disasters or the quick onset of extreme events on
livelihoods is missing in many of the predictions of
impact on agriculture and other livelihoods.
In addition to the impacts on agricultural
livelihoods, the food supply or ability to purchase
food directly which depends on income and price
of the products will be severely impacted (Cruz, et
al., 2007). Global cereal prices have been projected
to increase more than three-fold by the 2080s as a
consequence of decline in net productivity due to
projected climate change (Parry, et al., 2004 cited
in IPCC, 2007a). Localized increases in food prices
were frequently observed. Small holding producers
growing crops, such as sorghum, millet, etc., could
be at the greatest risk, both from a potential drop
in productivity as well as from the danger of losing
crop genetic diversity that has been preserved over
generations.
In a situation of stress, these farmers tend to draw
from their limited savings and other physical assets
to tide over a failed crop. Climate change impacts
are prolonged and affects them over a continuous
period of time, trapping them in the vicious cycle
of poverty.
This scenario and the ever increasing population
pressure will increase the risk of hunger and
malnutrition, rendering these communities further
vulnerable to climate induced impacts.
Impacts on Wage labour
The poorest of the poor, with no assets such as
land or access to common resources, form the bulk
of the casual labour in larger holdings, commercial
plantations and industries. The climate impacts on
commercial crops will thus impact this segment of
poor considerably.
For example, in Sri Lanka, commercial crops such
as tea, rubber, and coconut will be affected by
increased dryness. This would impact more than
36
South Asia Disaster Report 2010
a third of the labour force in Sri Lanka1 (Kelegama,
2001). An increase in the frequency of droughts
and extreme rainfall events could result in a decline
in tea yield, which would be greatest in regions
below 600 meters (Wijeratne 1996 cited in UNDP,
2007). With the tea industry in Sri Lanka being a
major source of foreign exchange and a significant
source of income for labourers the impacts are
likely to be grave. More recent studies suggest that
changes in monsoon rainfall pattern and increase
in maximum air temperature will play on the
variability of coconut production in the principal
coconut growing regions (Peiris, et al., 2004
cited in UNDP, 2007). The Human Development
Report goes on to say that the projected coconut
production after 2040 in all climate scenarios, when
other external factors are non-limiting, will not be
sufficient to cater to the local consumption of the
increased population. Industries related to crops
will also be affected, e.g. the coconut oil industry,
and the percentage engaged in agriculture related
industries.
2.2.3 Impact on Livestock
“South Asia houses approximately one fifth of the
world’s human and livestock populations. …The
linkage between poor peoples’ livelihoods and
livestock is perhaps stronger in South Asia than
in any other region of the world. For example, in
India, more than 55 percent of cows and buffaloes
and more than 60 percent of sheep are kept
on farms of less than two hectares. Similarly in
Bangladesh, 58 percent of cows and 68 percent
of sheep and goats are held on farms below one
hectare, making a significant contribution to poor
people’s livelihoods” (FAO, 2010b).
Pastures are common property, and are an
important source of income in semi-arid areas
in South Asia, providing a source of income in
an otherwise harsh environment. In Pakistan,
80% of its land is arid and semi-arid while twoMohammad Iyar Ali, 55, of Rampur, Moulvibazar,
Pakistan, says:
“Life is becoming tougher day by day. Damage to
crops makes life vulnerable. There is a huge crisis
of food for cattle in our region. Due to increase
of temperature and less rainfall in summer most
of the land becomes barren which affects crop
production as well as cattle rearing. You will not
get grass for rearing cattle in the haor area this
time because the land is dried up. I sold eight of my
cows since I could not arrange food for them.”
Source: Oxfam GB, 2009
the area and it resulted in severe shortage of food,
fodder and water. “The economy of Tharparkar is
largely dependent on livestock. Due to drought
situation livestock has suffered a lot. Pastures
had dried up after November 08, then livestock
has to depend on trees and toxic bushes. Huge
number of livestock die due to “pest despetites”,
“enterotoxaemia”, “diarrhea” and “bloody diarrhea”
diseases. Due to weight loss sheep and goat prices
has also dropped 50 percent” (Rai, 2009).
thirds of its human population depends on arid
lands for their livelihoods (Maverick, 2010). In
theory, common pastures should be accessible
to all groups and classes of rural communities.
But often, due to changed land ownership and
management practices over time, this is not the
case. In Rajasthan, India, traditionally pastures were
entrusted to ‘thikandedars’ or caretakers, but since
independence these lands are in the hands of the
Gram panchayats, very few of which have properly
managed the common pasture lands. Overgrazing,
excessive cutting of trees and bushes for fodder
and fuel, have caused soil erosion, leaving the
lands in poor condition. Recurrent droughts and
other impacts of climate change aggravate the
situation, resulting in severe financial losses (V & A
Programme, 2009).
Emerging climate change is projected to affect the
natural savannas and grassland coverage and yield
in South Asia as a result of increased temperatures
and higher levels of evaporation (Cruz et al., 2007).
Pasture lands are at risk of further degradation
with precipitation expected to occur in the future
with intense rainfall events interrupted by longer
dry spells. Loss of pasture lands could result in
decreased livestock and in increased competition
in land use for food grain cultivation and for
livestock activities which in turn will affect the
livestock livelihoods (V & A Programme, 2009).
Already, in most areas, pasture availability limits
the expansion of livestock numbers. Studies say
that cool temperate grassland is projected to
shift northward with climate change and the net
primary productivity will decline (Sukumar, et al.,
2003; Christensen, et al., 2004; Tserendash, et al.,
2005, cited in Cruz, et al., 2007).
Changes are already being felt acutely.
Communities in Thar desert that depend on
livestock suffered heavy losses in the 2008-2009
drought. Thar desert of Sindh Arid Zone saw only
20% of the normal rainfall, which is 300 mm. This
too was too little and too late for many crops in
The location and areas of natural vegetation zone
on the Tibetan Plateau will substantially change
under the projected climate scenarios. The areas
of temperate grassland and cold temperate
coniferous forest could expand, while temperate
desert and ice-edge deserts may shrink. The
vertical distribution of the vegetation zone could
move to higher altitudes. Climate change may
result in the shifting of pasture lands, in some
cases increasing the area suitable for pastoral land.
However, as the transition area of farming-pastoral
region is also the area of potential desertification,
if protection measures are not taken in the new
transition area, desertification may occur (Li and
Zhou, 2001; Qiu et al., 2001 cited in IPCC, 2007).
There is a high chance of desertification of pastoral
lands with more frequent and prolonged droughts.
The demand for livestock produce has increased
globally, with consumption of animal products
such as meat and poultry having increased
steadily in comparison to milk and milk products
linked protein diets in the past few decades (FAO,
2003 cited in IPCC, 2007a). Yet in relation to milk
The case of Bakarwal nomads in Northern Pakistan
was described by Climate Frontlines.
“Bakarwal nomads with their goat herds, mules
and dogs travel throughout the year in search of
pastures in northern parts of Pakistan. They travel
approximately 1,800 km on foot during their
annual migrations and graze their herds in four
distinct ecological zones. Traditional knowledge
of the terrain and climate has been the key to
survival of the entire groups and early or delayed
snow season, delay in snow melting and floods
along the migratory route could bring disaster to
these migratory groups. The Bakarwal nomads
struggle with changes in seasons and climate
while trying to retain access to their traditional
grazing grounds. Due to poorly defined land
tenure, they have no recognized legal rights and
they continue to struggle to retain their traditional
nomadic way of life.”
Source: Climate Frontline, 2008
37
Climate Frontlines describes the intimate and
finely balanced relationship between the Gurung
of Gorkha District in Nepal and their environment,
explaining why they are so at risk from climate
change:
“Gurung are one of Nepal’s indigenous peoples
whose main source of livelihood is transhumance
grazing. Inhabiting rugged mountain terrains,
they move yak, chauri, sheep and goat from
village grasslands to high altitude meadows via
the forest before the onset of the monsoon. There
is an intricate interaction between monsoon,
agriculture, mountain communities and the
migration of herds from village to pasture and
back to the villages. Transhumance pastoralism is
closely associated with economy and culture, local
ecological conditions, resource availability and
measures of climate. Their pastoral activity is highly
impacted by time of rainfall, season of agriculture in
village, persistence and melting period of snow in
rangelands, availability of water bodies near grazing
spots. The same factors that influence their pastoral
activities are the same ones that are projected to be
influenced by changes in climate.”
Source: Climate Frontline, 2008
production, limited fodder production, heat stress
from higher temperature, and limited water intake
due to a decrease in rainfall could cause reduced
milk yields in animals and an increased incidence
of some diseases (Rai, 2009).
Small animals such as goats and sheep are
valuable assets for small and marginal farmers
and landless agricultural workers, as they provide
wool, milk and meat for family consumption and
for sale. Further, these are low cost animals, which
means that scheduled and backward castes, and
tribal communities (prevalent predominantly in
India – and are already poor groups) are heavily
dependent on them as a source of income. Any
climate change related degradation of these lands
will hit these already vulnerable communities
particularly hard (Rai, 2009).
populations in Asian waters (IPCC, 2007a). The loss
of nursery areas for fisheries by inundation and
coastal erosion in low-lying areas of tropical Asia is
also predicted (Curran et al., 2002).
Recent studies suggest a reduction of primary
production in the tropical oceans because of
changes in oceanic circulation in a warmer
atmosphere. Modelling studies have shown that
the projected warming would result in large scale
changes in fish habitats. Over fishing, pollution,
and other climatic and environmental pressures
also have severely affected the fishing industry.
The IPCC warned that increased frequency of
El Niño events could likely lead to measurable
declines in fish larvae abundance in coastal waters
of South and South-East Asia. These phenomena
are expected to contribute to a general decline in
fishery production in these coastal waters (IPCC,
2007a).
South Asia’s annual export earning from fisheries
and aquaculture is US$ 2,596 mln. and engages 7.5
million people both full time and part time.
In areas of Pakistan for example, fish yields have
decreased from up to 120 kg/person/day from 30
years ago to only 5 or 6 kg/person/day at present.
The income from fishing has fallen significantly
and communities have been forced to migrate
temporarily to agricultural areas in the northern
parts to work as agricultural labour (Oxfam GB,
2009).
Temperature, salinity, wind speed and direction,
strength of upwelling, and other factors due to
climate change have the potential to substantially
alter fish breeding habitats and food supply
for fish, and ultimately the abundance of fish
Bangladesh is perhaps uniquely vulnerable to
expected changes in river flows, as the summer
flow of the Ganges could drop by as much as
two-thirds, diminishing vital river and floodplain
fisheries. Reduced river flows and rising sea levels
2.2.4 Impact on Fisheries and Aquaculture
38
South Asia Disaster Report 2010
already conspire to worsen saltwater intrusion into
freshwater habitats. A low-lying coastal country
such as Bangladesh is especially vulnerable to
tropical storms and storm surges, which will likely
become more frequent and severe with global
warming.
Stability of wetlands, mangroves and coral reefs
around Asia is likely to be increasingly threatened.
Recent risk analysis of coral reefs suggests that
between 24% and 30% of the reefs in Asia are
likely to be lost during the next 10 years and 30
years, respectively (IPCC, 2007a). Coasts are of
great ecological and socio-economic importance.
They sustain economies and provide livelihoods
through fisheries, ports, tourism, and other
industries. They also provide ecosystem services
such as regulating atmospheric composition,
cycling of nutrients and water, and waste removal
(Curran et al., 2002). These areas have been centers
of human settlement since perhaps the dawn of
civilization, and have cultural and aesthetic value
as well. Coastal ecosystems are among the most
productive because they are enriched by landbased nutrients and nutrients that well up into
the coastal waters from deeper levels of the ocean
(Michel and Pandya, 2010).
Predictions for the future are grim. But coastal
people are already telling stories of what
environmental degradation means to them. Poor
communities have been forced to fish off-season
due to income lost from crashing fish populations
Mehar Mallah, 40 years old, is a resident of
Khamoon Mallah village in Union Council, Bhugra
Memon, District Badin, Pakistan. He is a fisherman
by profession. People call him “Kulhirya”, a term for
those fishermen who take nets on shoulders and
catch fish in shallow waters; such fishermen are
the most marginalized.
“15 years ago we had more fish-catch. In those
days fresh water was abundant; everywhere
there was greenery of crops and rest of the
family members were engaged in other
activities than fishing such as agriculture for
household consumption, rearing livestock,
catching migratory birds, making mats and other
household utility items from wild grasses. After
1996 the fresh water bodies became saline due to
shortage of water. Rains were not received in good
quantity except in 1999 and 2003. Sana (prawns)
went back to deep creeks and sea. Now I am not
sure how to survive and to feed my children.”
Source: Oxfam GB, 2009
in order to provide food for their families (Oxfam,
2009).
2.2.5 Impact on Forest Dependant Livelihoods
South Asia supports about 22% of the global
population but has only about 2% of the world’s
forests spread over about 3% of global land area.
The forest cover in South Asia is considered to be
18.6%. The countries with the highest proportion
of forest cover are Bhutan, Sri Lanka and Nepal
respectively (Duryog Nivaran, 2008b).
The Center for International Forestry Research
(CIFOR) report titled Climate Impacts on
Forests Risk Impoverishing Millions, Destroying
Biodiversity, and Exacerbating Greenhouse Gas
Emissions (2008), reviewed the scientific literature
on the effects of climate change on forests and
came to several alarming conclusions. This is what
it lists:
“In many forests, relatively minor changes in
climate can have devastating consequences,
increasing their vulnerability to drought, insect
attack and fire. Burning or dying forests emit
large quantities of greenhouse gases, so there is
a chance that an initially small change in climate
could lead to much bigger changes.
•
Mountain forests might be the first to
disappear. Cloud forests are extremely
sensitive to climatic changes, as are other
types of mountain forest, because when
temperatures increase and rainfall decreases,
they have nowhere to go.
•
Mangrove forests in coastal parts of West
Africa, which help mitigate storms and
underpin many commercial fisheries, are
highly vulnerable to rising sea levels, according
to the report. Some mangroves are expected
to dry out almost completely.
•
Scientists have already found examples of
biodiversity loss due to climate change“
(CIFOR, 2008)
As noted above, changes in the distribution and
health of rainforests and drier monsoon forests are
foreseen. In Sri Lanka, for example, a significant
increase in dry forest and a decrease in wet forest
could occur. Increased dryness during pre-rainy
seasons may speed up forest fire incidences.
Potential increases in evapo-transpiration and
rainfall variability are expected to have a negative
impact on the viability of freshwater wetlands,
resulting in shrinkage and desiccation. In particular,
regional studies project a 54,900km2 of wetland
39
Anil-Krishna-Mistry from the Sundarbans Islands
in India describes changes in seasons the
hardships this brings to his forest dependent
community.
“The summer season is getting longer and winters
are getting shorter. We are braving intense
cyclones. Rainfall has considerably increased
over the years. Also the number of cloudy and
humid summer days has increased. We face the
constant threat of flooding due to heavy rains
and sea level rise. With the increase in water levels
during high tide (Bhara Kotal), salt water floods
our fields rendering it unfit for irrigation. We are
losing our main food source due to sea level rise
and the intrusion of salt water into the ground
water. Huge tracts of land get washed away into
the river. Soil erosion is taking place at a rapid
pace. Many of the villagers have lost their land
due to permanent flooding and erosion. Some are
surviving by doing menial jobs of which there are
very few in the remote islands. We are surrounded
by water but not a single drop to drink. We have
to walk 5km to get drinking water. “
Source: WWF, 2008
loss in the region of South Asia (Tangtham, 2009).
Some of the most significant sites threatened are
the Terrai grasslands and forests of the Southern
Himalayas, the Western Ghats biosphere of western
India; and the Sundarbans wetlands of West Bengal
and Bangladesh (Tangtham, 2009).
Tribal and indigenous communities are also at
severe risk, as they are largely dependent on the
biodiversity of forests, which as noted earlier is
being depleted. Tribal communities tend to live
in marginal lands and thus their livelihoods are
highly dependent on natural resources and they
are among the most vulnerable to climate change.
As they tend to live of common land, land tenure
and access rights of indigenous communities
are not legally recognised. As a consequence,
their land and resources are often exploited and
encroached on by outsiders. The communities
use forest resources in many different ways - as
food, wood for timber or fuel, fibre for clothing,
medicinal plants for health care, materials for
income generating activities – and depend on it
for spiritual purposes. Due to the effects of climate
change the availability and distribution of these
resources are expected to be directly affected”
(Macchi, 2008).
2.3 Particularly vulnerable groups
Climate change is affecting and will affect
everybody, regardless of who they are – whatever
caste, ethnicity, sex, race or wealth status. But it
is the marginalized groups that suffer the most,
because of the fact that they are poorer, and tend
to live in areas that are most vulnerable. Women,
elderly, tribal communities, communities affected
by conflict and urban poor are amongst these
vulnerable groups.
As we have often heard, disasters impact men and
women differently. Women are more vulnerable
to the effects of climate change as they are
disproportionately dependent on threatened
Impact on Health
Climate change poses substantial risks to human health in Asia, and this further undermines the ability of
populations to work and prosper. The main health risks predicted and in some places, observed to be on
the rise, are vector borne and water borne diseases, and heat stress.
•
Severe increase in the incidence of dengue has been seen recently. The outbreak of dengue fever
across Pakistan, a disease not previously reported, is cause for concern; even though no direct link
has been proven between the outbreak of dengue in Pakistan and climate change-related factors.
The IPCC reports that an empirical model projected that the population at risk of dengue fever (the
estimated risk of dengue transmission is greater than 50%) will be larger in India and China (Hales, et
al., 2002 cited in IPCC, 2007a). “A warmer and more humid climate would be favorable for propagation
and invasiveness of infectious insect vector.”
•
“Diarrhoea is widespread in South Asia and is linked to poverty and lack of hygiene compounded by
the effects of high temperatures on bacterial spread. … Lately, the incidence of cholera and diarrhoea
has seen to increase”.
•
Mortality due to heat stress is projected to be very high in India and China (Takahashi, et al., 2007 cited
in IPCC, 2007a), although this projection did not take into account possible adaptation and population
change.
40
South Asia Disaster Report 2010
natural resources. Household food production
is largely a woman’s job - and in Asia, 65% of
household food production is by women. South
Asia also houses large numbers of women headed
households which are particularly vulnerable.
“Their unequal position in society means women
have less access to money, land, food, protection
from violence, education or healthcare. …
Therefore they are more exposed to climate shocks
and have fewer resources to protect their own lives,
assets and livelihoods while looking after their
families. There are many ways in which women are
affected differently, and more severely, by climate
change” (ActionAid and IDS, 2007).
the 2009 intense rain events in Sri Lanka caused
severe hardships to the IDPs who were displaced
during the last phase of the war. These intense
rains led to flash floods in the camps, flooding
some low-lying areas and toilets creating severe
hardships.
The elderly and disabled are other vulnerable
categories due to their specific social needs
during disaster events. In current disaster
management programmes their needs and
specific vulnerabilities have not been incorporated.
With the increase of extreme events, these
vulnerabilities will be heightened.
Another vulnerable category is communities
affected by conflict. Their vulnerability varies
during and in post conflict scenarios. For example,
In summary
The major rural livelihoods are dependant on natural resources. The changing climate will have differential
impact on these livelihoods based on the varying geographies and communities in South Asia. This will be
further aggravated by maldevelopment and issues of governance. Chapter 3 will discuss how the interplay of
these factors can trap them in the cycle of poverty, degraded livelihoods and vulnerability.
Notes:
1
38% of Sri Lanka’s labour force is in the plantation sector
41
42
South Asia Disaster Report 2010
Chapter 3
Local Linkages
43
D
isasters occur at the juncture where badly
planned and executed development meets
natural hazards. Put somewhat simplistically;
hazards are for the most part natural, and
occur all across the globe apparently without
discrimination. However, disaster occurs due to a
lack of ‘positive and sustainable’ development that
enables people to prepare for and face the hazard
with minimum impact.
In South Asia, the ills of the current model of
economic progress is manifest in rapid and
sprawling urban tenements, desertification across
rural areas and settlements in patently unsafe
locations on river bunds, deltas and coastal zones.
Progress has created new and added vulnerability.
The now apparent changes in seasons and rainfall
patterns, attributed to global warming, are
adding another dimension to the issue. Climate
change affects both the intensity and frequency
of the hazard and the general condition of
vulnerability. Climate change is already affecting
seasonal weather and thus, the nature dependant
livelihoods of millions of poor across the
developing world.
Despite elaborated policies and programmes,
globally, regionally and in each country,
planning processes for development for
disaster risk reduction and climate change
remain disconnected from each other. Separate
institutional arrangements and ownership by
different ministries and government departments
only make matters worse.
The answer may lie in devolution and
decentralization and inclusive development.
Strengthening local level planning and
implementing processes would result in
considering local priorities in a more practical way;
considering all issues together or engaging in
inclusive development plans. The inclusion of both
climate and disaster risks in development plans will
make local development more effective in the long
run. However, local governance structures, in their
current incarnation, are hardly prepared for the
undertaking.
3.1 The Web of Relationships: DevelopmentDisaster risk-Climate Change Nexus
In 1998, a fledgling Duryog Nivaran, networking
among civil society organizations engaged in
‘reducing vulnerability’, pointed out that disasters
are not natural. Rather, more often than not,
they are the result of failed development and
poor governance. At the time, however, this was
44
South Asia Disaster Report 2010
not the mainstream view and was, in fact, called
the ‘alternative perspective’ in deference to the
dominant view that treated disasters as an ‘event’
that should be responded to.
Over the past 12 years, this alternative view had
transformed to become the ‘dominant perspective’
and has been validated again and again through
repeated disaster events; where death and damage
were a reflection of the development status of the
country or region rather than the intensity of the
hazard. In a region that records every known type
of hydro-meteorological and geological hazard,
the vulnerability of South Asians is as much a
factor of exposure as it is of the level of economic
development and democratic governance.
3.1.1 Mal development…
The term mal-development may have been coined
by the French, but is entirely descriptive of South
Asia. Economic development of the past five to six
decades has resulted in an increase of inequity and
vulnerability.
The development trajectory of South Asia
continues on its upward curve bolstered by
upward movement in economic growth (GDP) and
per capita income. India’s growth rate has hovered
in the range of 8-9% annually between 2002 and
2007 (UNESCAP, 2008). Growth has not slowed
down despite a global economic meltdown.
The burgeoning middle class of India is a huge
consumer market targeted by global brands.
Infrastructure development is at an all time boom.
Positive growth is also common elsewhere in the
region, although not as dramatic as India; has
not been stifled by wars (Afghanistan, Sri Lanka),
civil unrest (Nepal); political instability (Nepal
and Pakistan) and recurrent disasters (India and
Bangladesh).1
On the other side of the coin is a region where 70%
of the population live in rural areas and about 75%
of them are poor (Damania, 2008). As discussed
in Chapter 2, the rural poor mainly comprises of
tenant farmers, agricultural laborers, small livestock
keepers, fishermen, people living in marginal lands,
tribal groups and socially excluded groups such
as widows, disabled and other disadvantaged
communities. The basic materials, which have gone
into the construct of poverty are economic and
social exclusion, integration of rural communities
into resource poor locations and inequitable
distribution of income due to growth-oriented
economic development models and socially nonresponsive governance, as discussed in Chapter 1.
While poverty may have reduced statistically,2
the problems of poverty and malnutrition are
very real for the region. A survey by ESCAP in
2008 found that while the region was performing
very well in most economic indicators, real
poverty (percentage living below $1 a day) has
actually increased over a decade in countries
like Bangladesh, and that despite enviable social
indicators, malnutrition still rages at 30% in Sri
Lanka. National indicators (such as Sri Lanka’s high
human development statistics) ‘hide’ regional
and community-wise income disparities. Within
countries and within regions the poor are often left
in the doldrums of development.
Meanwhile disasters are a regular bedfellow to
millions of South Asians. As discussed in Chapter
2, farming, fisheries, livestock and forest based
livelihoods, remain the mainstay of South Asians.
Given the heavy dependency of these forms of
livelihoods on the natural environment, farmers
and fishers in South Asia have found it difficult to
sustain their livelihoods in the context of eroding
ecological conditions. In addition, development
and improvements in agricultural and fishery
practices in general have heavily exposed the
poorer end of those engaged in these livelihoods
to disasters, especially to natural hazards such as
cyclones, floods and droughts. Climate change
makes this much more complex and worse.
The recent flood in Pakistan, billed to be ‘worse’
than the tsunami in terms of population affected
(nearly 19 million people) and which wiped out
half the country’s rice crop, is just the latest in a
series of mega disasters that plagued the region
in the past decade. While it is difficult to pin down
the cause of intensified hazard to climate change,
it is certainly linked to increased monsoon rain,
increased Himalayan waters due to melting glaciers
which could be attributed to climate change, but
also strongly to development processes such as
embankment plans, the way channeling of Indus
waters was done and new settlement planning
along the river, etc. It is also worth thinking how
Pakistan as a country which is categorized as
one of the two (along with Sri Lanka) as having a
relatively low risk of exposure to climate change
induced hazards could have suffered to such an
extent from a weather related disaster.
The Indian Ocean tsunami destroyed 80% of
Sri Lanka’s coastal fishing in 2005; Bangladesh’s
Cyclone Sidr in 2007 wasted 1.6 million acres of
croplands (mainly rice) and killed 382,000 cattle
(UN, 2007). The Indian Ocean Tsunami took most
lives and caused the greatest damage where
haphazard coastal development had placed a
large number of people in the path of risk. In
the Kashmir earthquake October 2005, children
died under concrete buildings constructed to
faulty standards. The recent catastrophic floods in
Pakistan swept away homes built along the banks
of the river and the delay in relief was attributed
to poor governance and decision-making. Regular
drought and crop loss across South Asia as
highlighted in Chapter 2 undermines the major
livelihood of the region (which is farming), and
places many families in the grip of poverty, eroding
their capacity to face and overcome other shocks.
All these are manifestations of poorly planned and
executed development, disguised as economic
progress and growth. However, in the face of
hazards, the veneer of growth falls apart, revealing
the corrupted roots of mal development among
the ruins of disaster.
The nature of vulnerability is better understood
today; and it has very little to do with the hazard
itself. Across the region, and the globe there is
agreement that disasters do not just happen. They
are a result of poverty and failed development
which increases vulnerability to hazard events
(UNISDR, 2009).
3.1.2 Still On the Wrong Track- Where did the
model fail us?
The way out of poverty appears to be robust
development. However, if the past is anything
to go by, the development experience of the
region is not a model of risk reduction. In fact,
mal development coupled with poor governance
has been the main risk driver for millions of
South Asians. Experience over last few decades
has clearly shown that development has a direct
bearing on disasters and vice versa. It is estimated
that 85% of those exposed to disaster risk live in
countries having either medium or low indices of
human development (UNDP, 2004). All South Asian
countries fall in these categories.
The development models pursued by the South
Asian countries have not reversed the trend
in disaster occurrence, rather at many points
the intensity and frequency of disasters have
multiplied (Duryog Nivaran, 2008a). As discussed in
Chapter 2, the South Asian region is geographically
prone to a wide variety of natural hazards,
including cyclones, droughts, earthquakes, floods,
landslides, storm surges and tsunami. These
hazards are being reshaped and new hazards
introduced by contemporary development trends
and has resulted the increase of development
45
induced disasters in the region (Duryog Nivaran,
2008a).
There are a great many examples of development
projects - especially mega infrastructure initiatives
such as river diversions, expressways and dams actually exacerbating disasters (Duryog Nivaran,
2008a). Projects and programmes executed in
the name of development have made people
more prone to disasters by altering river flows,
drainage patterns and caused massive deforesting.
In the state of Orissa, eastern India, large scale
deforestation for settlements and agriculture has
led to silted rivers, downstream flooding, eroded
river banks and coastal people more exposed to
cyclones.
In the Himalayan regions of Nepal, road
construction is commonly associated with slope
destabilisation and landslides. However, once a
road corridor is created, settlements spring up
along its boundaries, aware of the risk to their
lives and property, but preferring the location by
a highway. Landslides and mudslides routinely
take lives and destroy property of people living in
such vulnerable locations. Two express highways
under construction in Sri Lanka provide evidence
of disaster development linkages - communities
alongside the expressways had never before
experienced flood. Now in the monsoonal period,
flood has become an everyday phenomenon.
Sometimes even structures that were meant to
save people from disaster have increased their
vulnerability. In Bangladesh sea walls created to
keep out storm surges acted as a barrier to storm
water drainage during a cyclone, increasing flood
levels during the storm.
Describing the 2010 Pakistan floods, Azhar Lashary
- a Policy Coordinator in an international NGO
says, “Undoubtedly, the population growth and
ill-planned settlement patterns in last several
decades have aggravated the flood. However,
on the flip side, the very flood protection
embankments have created a false sense of
security and encouraged ill-settlement patterns
in the Kaccha area. The forests, pastures and
lakes have been turned into agricultural land.
The traditional flood preparedness strategies
have been abandoned, particularly in the new
settlements, as they were no more needed in the
presence of flood protection embankments”.
Arif Hasan; renowned urban planner and architect
from Pakistan said of the 2010 flood; “In the
colonised areas, over the last century, hundreds of
kilometres of road and protection embankments
have been built ten to twenty feet above the land
level. Except for the major drainage channels there
are no culverts and/or gates to let flood waters
pass or return through them. If these culverts and
gates existed at regular and appropriate intervals,
flooding could be controlled and the breeching
of these embankments and roads by the force of
the water or by design, would not be necessary.
Even in urban centres, large areas, especially low
income ones, are submerged because they are
surrounded by high roads and water from them
cannot be drained out. This is especially true of the
areas around Larkana, Sukkur and Shikarpur.”
Source: Duryog Nivaran, 2010
And by that, the current model of resourceexploitative development actually increases
hazard potential, by exposing communities to
greater harm from rainfall, dry weather, cyclones
and earthquakes. The absence of an interface
between development planning and practice
and disaster management leads to vicious
circles of failed development and increasing risk.
Inappropriate land-use planning and construction
standards and failure to include risk assessment in
development projects and planning are missing
links in the dominant development practice. Failed
development leads to risk accumulation through
which even a low level hazard can play havoc
with vulnerable people, weak livelihoods, and
fragile structures. By the same logic, development,
especially the oil-and-coal driven energy intensive
growth of developed countries, created the
problem of global warming leading to climate
change.
Not only does mal development cause hazard
46
South Asia Disaster Report 2010
intensification, it also marginalizes the poor
further, excludes them from power relationships
and destroys the natural resource base that is the
livelihood foundation for many rural farmers. Today
the world is well aware of the evils of a ‘limitless’
development path that over-exploits resources
and pollutes natural systems beyond capacity to
recover. Climate change, more than ever, puts a
burden on nations to curtail their thirst for fueldriven energy and emitting industries. However,
many developing nations do not see a viable
alternative other than the conventional growth
recipe to improve their human and economic
development indicators. South Asian economies
are no different. The onus on industrial production
in the region, believing it to be the path towards
rapid economic development, has considerably
increased pollution and stripped natural resources.
India, as a nation, is one of the biggest emitters
of greenhouse gases (its per capita emissions
are low due to the high population). Countries
like Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Pakistan also
record burgeoning growth fuelled by industrial
investments and infrastructural development that
strip the country of natural forests and increase
emissions/ pollutants. The energy sector in the
region, converting steadily from hydro-based to
coal/diesel based is another great emitter. Sri Lanka
in the late 1980s was highly hydro-based. Today
the share of hydro has reduced to less than 40%
replaced by high polluting diesel and coal.
The concept of sustainable development has
been around for many decades now. But the
development model in practice in this region
is hardly sustainable. It is hardly possible (or
necessary) for all South Asians to achieve standards
of living akin to the United States or Japan. But
individual countries vehemently defend their
right to achieve western-like standards of human
development and economic well being, albeit
on a faulty route. The model not only robs future
generations of their access and use of natural
assets, but also places millions of the present
generation in the direct path of disaster, by
increasing conditions of vulnerability.
Some exceptions could be found in Maldives
and Bhutan both of which practice high levels
of ecological sensitivity in their key economic
activities, which could be because the economies
of these countries are closely linked to their
environment or could be that recent green growth
thinking has influenced some of their policies.
Maldives depends heavily on tourism, and protects
its coral reefs, bays and beaches from pollution,
wastes and other exploitation. Fishery is also
protected by heavy levies and fines on foreign,
multi-day crafts within their territorial waters
to prevent over-fishing. Bhutan, the Himalayan
kingdom-turned-democracy conserves some
80% of its land in forests that serve as catchments
for major trans-boundary rivers. This protects its
capacity to produce hydro power and adds to its
attractiveness for tourists.
Asian Development Bank, which has been the
major financier of the growth-driven development
in South Asia had to admit lately that the
“environmental degradation in the region [South
Asia] is now pervasive, accelerating and largely
unabated.” Referring to the future of economic
development in South Asia, the Bank alerts that,
“people’s health and longevity have suffered,
natural resource-based livelihoods have been
compromised, and ecosystem services and
resources that underpin long-term economic
development are (now) at risk” (ADB, 2006).
It is thus believed rightly that Asia’s economic
development over the past few decades has come
at a very high environmental cost. Environmental
cost assessment varies from 4.5% to 5% of GDP
due to air pollution, groundwater mining, and
deteriorating quality of aquifers, land degradation
and deforestation. Annual economic costs of air
pollution, contaminated water, soil degradation,
and deforestation in India were estimated to be
8% of GDP by Tata Energy Resource Institute (TERI)
(Gautam, 2003). According to the Pakistan Strategic
Environmental Assessment, the degradation of
its resource base and high burden of disease is
costing Pakistan at least 6% of GDP or about Rs.
365 billion (US$ 6 billion) annually (World Bank,
2007). Overall, environmental health risks are
estimated to contribute more than 20 percent of
the total burden of disease in Pakistan (ibid).
Land use practices, rapid rates of deforestation,
poor irrigation and drainage practices, inadequate
soil conservation, steep slopes and overgrazing,
all have resulted in land degradation and soil
erosion in the South Asia region (Vasudeva, n.d.).
The degradation in soil fertility, coupled with water
and wind erosion emerged as a major crisis for the
agricultural future of South Asia. According to one
estimation, a total of 43% of the agricultural land
of the region is assessed as affected by some type
and degree of degradation (FAO, 1994). In India,
for instance, soil erosion accounts for the loss of 45
million tons of agricultural production annually.
In Bangladesh and the northern region of India,
soil salinity and acidification also affects large
areas under cultivation, while in Pakistan, salinity
47
is known to reduce crop yields by as much as 30%
(Vasudeva, n.d.).
Remaining forests of South Asia are declining
at 1 % rate annually due to industrialization,
agricultural expansion and a large dependence on
forest products for meeting the energy needs. This
is expected to deplete the water streams and the
natural asset of the forest dependent communities.
Development-induced displacement often
produces conflicts and violence within societies
and may provoke conflict induced displacement.
However, scarcity of resources, mounting pressure
on scare resources due to population expansion
and current inequalities in resource allocation
will have a greater impact on the lives of the
South Asian communities and could result in inter
and intra community violence. It must however
be emphasized that societies most vulnerable
to environmentally induced conflict are those
simultaneously experiencing severe environmental
scarcity and various forms of institutional, political
and economic failures (Vasudeva, n.d.).
The pressure on resources is also likely to
encourage cooperation between countries
- especially for water where rivers have transboundary river basins, actions of one political
entity can have direct implications on the other
(i.e. upstream and downstream). South Asia is
already experiencing such attempts through
various treaties and joint projects for water
resource development and utilization. Examples
are the Mahakali River Water Treaty signed by
India and Nepal and the Ganges River Water Treaty
signed by India and Bangladesh. It is remarkable
to note that the Indus River Water Treaty entered
into by India and Pakistan in 1960 has never once
been repudiated despite the continuing tension
between the two countries (Vasudeva, n.d.).
A recent report jointly released by the UN
Environment Programme and the Asian Institute
of Technology studied the Ganges-BrahmaputraMeghna (GBM), Indus and Helmand river basins,
all of which are trans-boundary rivers in South
Asia and has warned of the possible water
scarcity of these rivers putting millions of South
Asians at risk (UNEP, 2009b). The report argues
that “extreme population growth in the basins
over the last century has put pressure on the
region’s water resources, while around two-thirds
of the Himalayan glaciers that feed the basins
are receding. Additionally, groundwater levels
in the GBM and Indus basins are declining at a
rate of two to four metres per year due to intense
48
South Asia Disaster Report 2010
pumping. In India alone the amount of water per
head has decreased from 4,000 to 1,869 cubic
metres in the last twenty years” (Sreelatha, 2009).
The scarce water level has already caused lowering
of ground water table worsening the problems
further. It is expected that livelihoods of millions of
South Asians are trapped in a vicious cycle due to
depleting resources and the increased demand for
immediate consumption.
Climate change, as we now know, will be a
multiplier of hazards and significantly lend to the
increased disaster losses across the world (IPCC,
2007a). Climate change subtly, but decidedly
changes the equation between hazards, risk and
vulnerability. By increasing the risk of hazard
events (both frequency and intensity) it impacts
greatly upon the vulnerability of households and
communities. To expect a rural farmer barely
coping with seasonal drought to adapt speedily to
increasing weather anomalies and resultant crop
loss/water insecurity brought on by climate change
is putting undue pressure on him or her. Similarly,
frequent flooding events without the necessary
respite for recovery, may push urban slum dwellers
into greater poverty and deprivation. The cycle
of risk and recovery being addressed through
conventional disaster management practices is
now being challenged by increased frequency and
intensity of impact. Pakistan was just recovering
from many seasons of drought when this year’s
disastrous flood inundated a fifth of its land and
most of the staple rice crop. Both floods and
droughts are more common in the sub-continent
and the space between intense drought and flash
flooding is narrowing all the time.
All countries in South Asia are recording an
increase of climate-related hazard incidence and
an even greater degree of climate variability. Ageold crop calendars developed around monsoons
and their interim are of little use today as climate
variability (including high temperatures, more
intense and un-seasonal rainfall, delayed onset of
monsoons, less annual rainfall etc) has become
the norm for farmers across the sub-continent. The
uncertainty of climate variability and the inability
at present to issue seasonal climate predictions
only aggravates the headache for poor farmers
across the region, as reflected by farmer voices in
Chapter 2.
The poor bear a disproportionate burden of the
climate change phenomena (Venton and La
Trobe, 2008). This is not disputed any longer. The
UNISDR in its Global Assessment Report of 2009
defines the underlying risk drivers that cause this
disproportionate exposure. To summarise, these
are; vulnerable rural livelihoods, poor urban and
local governance, ecosystem decline and climate
change. Climate change will amplify disaster risk
(Pettengell, 2010) and will impact negatively on
the already vulnerable people, engaged in fragile
livelihoods and facing regular disasters across
South Asia. Chapter 2 provides a few testimonies of
people who suffer.
While Asia does believe in prosperity through
growth that seems to be within the reach of
many countries, the discussions and decisions of
governments are shifting to a limited extent to
being sensitive about environment and ensuring
minimum damage to it, through the introduction
and promotion of green technologies and options
for production and infrastructure development.
Financial incentives and penalties put in place by
governments are expected to drive development
towards this direction. However, all these good
intentions have yet to be put into practice and the
development mainstream trends have yet to take
these on board. While the global private sector
has understood “green technologies” as a business
opportunity, with blessings from governments,
there is little comparative enthusiasm in Asia to
develop green technologies that are suitable for
the region, particularly those that can get the poor
in South Asian countries or even the middle class
with lower buying power opted in.
3.2 Governance – Vulnerability – Climate
Change Nexus
South Asia is a region rich in culture and tradition
and poor in governance and human development
(ISDR, 2009a). The Worldwide Governance
Indicator (WGI) that takes into account voice and
accountability, political stability and absence of
violence, government effectiveness, regulatory
quality, rule of law and control of corruption
suggests that South Asia is one of the most poorly
governed regions in the world with the low values
for almost all indicators (Jabeen, 2007).
3.2.1 Disaster risk – governance linkage
“South Asia presents a fascinating combination
of many contradictions. It has governments that
are high on governing, but low on serving; it has
parliaments that are elected by the poor, but aid
the rich; and society that asserts rights of some, but
perpetuates exclusion for others. Despite a marked
improvement in the lives of a few, there are many
in South Asia who have been forgotten by formal
institutions of governance” (MHHDC, 1999).
Disasters are today recognized to be the pending
issues and unresolved problems of development
and governance. As discussed in Decentralised
Disaster Risk Management Training Manual of
Duryog Nivaran (2008b), this is so because of two
major reasons:
(a) State has assumed the ownership of natural
resources like rivers, lakes, forests; and regulated
them through the technologies of dams, barrages,
canals, spurs, embankments and so on. The
management of natural resources at larger
level lies within the domain of state in which
communities are not consulted and involved,
but taxed for these ‘services’. As a controller,
regulator and tax collector of natural resources,
it is the responsibility of the state to take note of
disaster risks emerging in the natural environment
owing to applied management mechanisms and
development interventions. It is quite apparent
that this has not happened in South Asia as
argued by SADR 2008. Traditional systems of
governance where community had assumed key
responsibilities in taking care of natural resources,
and in some isolated locations continue such
practices, seem as many agree to have worked
better. It has to be recognized that macro
disruptions in ecology cannot be adequately
mitigated at micro (community) level. For this,
prime responsibility rests with the governing
institutions at regional, national and local level.
However, non-state actors can come together to
address the interest of risk-prone communities,
areas and regions.
(b) Development policies and choices at national
and local level are made by the respective organs
of the state which cope with as well as create risk
geographies. As discussed earlier in this chapter,
it was observed in many cases that growth
and development models adopted by national
policy forums have increased risks in natural
environment and have created new vulnerabilities
for communities living with marginal resources
and meager assets. The applied development
paradigm has failed to distribute developmentIn very fundamental ways, all the policy alternatives
for ensuring that development contributes to
managing and reducing disaster risk have to be
underpinned by good governance. The failures of
urban planning, building regulations, environmental
control and regional development can be described
as governance failures. Successful disaster risk
reduction, at all levels will depend on governance
innovation (UNDP, 2004 cited in Duryog Nivaran,
2008b).
49
induced risks equally among social groups. Gains
of development for one group become the pains
of development for others. This results in the wider
exclusion of vulnerable communities from the
dividends of ‘development boom’ thanks to poor
governance. Against this backdrop, most of the
disasters appear to be the collateral damage of
growth-driven and speed-induced development
approaches pursued by competitive governments.
To address this issue, development agendas at
national and local level need to be reformed and
re-adjusted in a way that risk reduction becomes
the policy priority of development planning by the
central, provincial and local governments.
Natural and man-made disasters destroy human
lives and livelihoods. This has tragic consequences
for development - consequences that are
exacerbated when disaster reduction policies
benefit powerful groups at the expense of the
poorest, and when excluded people cannot access
the resources and services they are entitled to.
It has been suggested by various research studies
that poor people are excluded from risk reduction
measures as a result of ineffective state institutions,
corruption, poor accountability and a lack of
political will (ActionAid, 2005). Such evidence leads
us to conclude that the quality of governance
is critical in efforts to reduce the human and
economic cost of disasters in both the short and
long term.
One piece of research, a background paper for
Global Assessment Report (GAR) 2009 says that
since the late 1990s, there has been “a growing
emphasis on the governance and institutional
‘prerequisites’ to addressing climate change risks
especially with the likelihood of an increasingly
urban population. In this regard a key area for
exploration has been associated with the ongoing
processes of environmental degradation and
deterioration of people’s habitats” (ISDR, 2009a)
The structural issues associated with policies at
the national and local levels, livelihood practices
adopted by communities, and the scale and
magnitude of ‘natural’ climate variability impacts
on local environments and thus the people solely
dependant on these resources (Juneja, 2009).
Even in some of the more positive trends of
proposed strategies for green development there
is no explicit discussion about the role of the large
numbers of poor in achieving growth. Emphasis
on green infrastructure options and payments for
ecosystem services is encouraging. Translating the
strategies to policies and practices without clearly
50
South Asia Disaster Report 2010
appreciating the rights of poor to their traditional
livelihoods as well as appreciating the role some
of them play in protecting/managing ecology will
lead to problems. Many examples of such conflicts
can be found throughout South Asia.
SADR 2008 provides an example of how the
short-sighted policies could induce conflict
among communities: Lake Chilika, Orissa in India
is the largest brackish water lake in Asia with a
rich and unique biodiversity. The lake provides
direct livelihoods for more than 27,000 fishermen,
engaged in traditional fishing methods using
local traditional fishing gear. The new lease
policy introduced in 1991, later modified in 1994,
changed the traditional fisheries management
system in the lake, that subsequently caused
conflict between traditional fishers and the
nontraditional commercial fishermen.
3.2.2 Decentralised, but not empowered
Some South Asian countries already practice
considerable devolution of state power at
provincial/regional level. Both India and Pakistan
have decentralized governing mechanisms. In
other instances, devolution of power has been
proposed and exercised to a degree e.g. in Sri
Lanka since 1987 as a solution to conflict that
prevailed closed to 30 years in the island. Nepal
and Bangladesh also have local level governance
mechanisms. While increased decentralization and
devolution has become the norm in practically
every country in the region; real power is still
largely wielded by central governments or regional
elitists.
India’s state governments may be an exception
to this, but even here a strong central parliament
and powerful government ministers rule over the
state governments. In other countries, such as
Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, devolution on paper
translates to mere de-concentration at local level.
By holding on to the reins of fiscal budgets and
power over staffing, hiring and firing of personnel
in devolved institutions, the centre still controls
their actions and mandates. This has long impeded
the development of strong local governance
structures with appropriate decision-making
power.
Development practitioners and funders have
long expressed interest in effective local
governments and their proper functioning;
seeing them as alternate platforms to the often
corrupt, elitist regimes that are passed off as
national governments in developing countries.
Local governance structures, being smaller and
more manageable units, are seen as closer to the
people, hence more representative. It is assumed
that development planned and executed through
local governments have a better chance of being
equitable and sustainable because local interests/
resources would be protected. Local governments
could become the platform which brings together
the parallel streams of poverty reduction, climate
change and disaster risk reduction in to a coherent
local development plan. On the other hand local
governments are also weak, have low capacity,
facilities, skills, are not necessarily motivated due
to disempowerment within the system, and are
also often considered as corrupt, resulting in little
confidence in the systems of local governance.
in the planning of land use patterns, water
management, irrigation and water supply, building
codes, and agriculture extension, can reduce the
risk to climate change at the local level.
Nonetheless, local governments are now the
focus of policy on risk reduction in both disaster
management and climate change communities.
Local governments can promote risk reduction and
climate change adaptation by ensuring there is an
appropriate and widely understood information
base about climate change and its likely local
impacts. Local by-laws, plans and programmes that
take into account such climate risk information,
In an ideal scenario, local governments would play
a key role in gathering and analyzing local data for
effective planning, natural resources management,
development prioritizing through extensive
consultation, risk screening and risk reduction
by encouraging proper land use and livelihood
choices, and mobilizing resources for sustainable
development. Local governments could become
the key repository and disseminator of risk-related
The same climate phenomena will have very
different effects on the livelihood of residents in an
area depending on the nature of local governance
and local institutional arrangements/capacity.
For example, if farmers have access to irrigation
and back-up extension services, a year that yields
20% less rainfall will not bother them. But if caste,
class or livelihood choice marginalizes people,
preventing them from accessing services and
participating in decision-making, they would not
be prepared to face this climate variability.
What is Local Government?
Local government consists of political or elected representatives, who are expected to provide guidance,
and make decisions and policies related to local development. The administrative or bureaucratic cadre
which is the other layer in the local government is expected to turn policies and decisions to actions
through planning and implementation of local development. Effective local government may vary from
country to country as often in practice, higher levels of government continue decision making through
a complicated approach to governance. Any other influential institution/s (line ministries, civil society
organizations, etc.) need to be included; at times their leadership role may need to be acknowledged and
incorporated into DDRM in a manner that eventually empowers local leadership.
Current situation with local governments: In most of South Asia local governments are considered weak,
corrupt institutions, with low capacity for development initiatives. As a result the institutions are generally
not engaged in development decision making, and rather are considered as implementers of specific
actions directed by higher levels of governance of the country. NGOs too prefer to work directly with
communities and CBOs bypassing local governments. This situation keeps the local governments weak
and unable to give a strong formal voice to local and people’s concerns and suggestions.
Yet the realities of local governments needs to be understood clearly when specific interventions are
planned with them. Inability of the political cadre in local governments to assume its leadership role and of
the bureaucracy to deliver its administrative role is also a reality in most cases with the exception of a few
and mostly urban councils. The political leadership does not have visioning capacity while the bureaucracy
has little or no competency and motivation. There is a view that political authority is not permanent as
they may change with election cycles and efforts should be focused on the officials of local government
who are more permanent. Reality however challenges this perception. The political leadership may
change but they usually remain strong stakeholders in local politics. Despite expected political neutrality,
bureaucracy usually changes with political leadership change, and the bureaucracy takes orders from the
political leadership. So the focus should be on strengthening political leadership to make decisions and
direct bureaucracy to work towards sustainable local development.
DDRMT Manual (Duryog Nivaran, 2008b)
51
information generated by technical agencies to the
larger public, in order to promote safe homesteads
and risk-free livelihoods.
Broadly speaking local institutions shape the
risk-related decisions of communities in three
important ways: they influence how households
are affected by climate and disaster impacts; they
shape the ability of households to respond to these
impacts and pursue different adaptation practices;
and they mediate the flow of external interventions
in the context of adaptation (Agrawala, et al., 2008).
Duryog Nivaran has long been a keen advocate
of integrating disaster risk reduction to local and
regional development planning. This means that
at local level, disaster management structures
would not exist as a separate institution, but be
incorporated in to the plans and policies of every
key sector. The need for such integration has
been clearly demonstrated in grassroots-level risk
reduction projects that have achieved moderate
success implemented through civil society
partners, but tremendous impact when replicated
through local government channels.
However, let’s take a reality check. There is little
clarity at local governance levels of their role
in integrating risk reduction into development
planning. Risk reduction is particularly difficult
and slow at local levels. Local officials are not
necessarily familiar with new regulations and
there is a lack of dedicated organizational local
capacity for planning and implementation. In the
absence of clear monitoring and evaluation criteria
the enforcement of new regulations poses major
challenges. This is compounded by a general lack
of clarity on the roles of local government and/ or
competition of different administrative levels over
authority and resources (UNISDR, 2009b).
52
South Asia Disaster Report 2010
The truth is that many local governments do not
engage in proactive development planning of
their own. Instead they carry out mandates of
the central government (implement projects and
programmes designed at central level) at times
duplicating the parallel structures at local level.
Development funds for local levels are often
monitored by central government departments,
spent according to budgets and activities designed
by the national treasury. Real decision making
power often lies with the centre, as does the
money for development, disaster risk reduction
and climate change.
3.3 Grand Statements; Many Policies:
Little Results
In 2005, the leaders of South Asian countries met
in Dhaka, Bangladesh. In the wake of two mega
disasters in the region, the Indian Ocean Tsunami
and Kashmir Earthquake, the leaders made a
commitment to better disaster preparedness
and more collaboration on early warning. But
the Dhaka Declaration, while well-intended to
support global disaster management, had its
short-comings. The declaration paid no attention
to the real causes of risk - poverty and underdevelopment.
A year later, in New Delhi, government officials and
civil society in the region debated collaborative risk
reduction at the South Asia Policy Dialogue, held
in August, 2006.3 Emerging from this meeting,
the Delhi Declaration requires governments
to consider the links between disasters and
development and the situation of people living in
exposed regions and climates. It asks governments
to prioritize preparedness and the reduction of
vulnerability: to invest more in supporting people
to cope with natural hazards, as much as in smooth
delivery of emergency relief. If any lessons were
to be learnt from the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami,
considered by many to be a global wake-up call,
they were to streamline development and disaster
risk reduction; and to democratize information and
early warning. As such, the region is not without
examples of good intentions. Some of these good
intentions have even been translated into national
policies, and are at times reflected in national
plans, discussed below.
However, the intrinsic connections between
poverty and disaster risk, and new or the emerging
threat of climate change are yet to be fully
understood by governments and donor agencies
that fund ‘development’ in the poorer countries. As
such, planning for poverty reduction (conventional
development), disaster risk reduction and climate
change are handled by separate arms of the state,
reflecting greatly the global disconnect between
agencies tackling these subjects.
Globally, the agenda of development is driven
by multi-lateral banks and international donor
funding. These agencies deal directly with the
national planning and treasury departments
of developing country governments deciding
on investment priorities based on national
development plans. These plans rarely incorporate
disaster risk reduction and almost never consider
climate change related risks to these very
investments. Many governments have been
encouraged, nay pressured, by global conventions
to establish separate institutional arrangements for
disaster risk reduction. Strong national institutions,
elaborate plans and trained personnel for DRR
mean little when the concept of disaster risk and
development-induced vulnerability is still alien to
the development agenda.
In an ideal scenario, governments would make
necessary allowances for disaster risk and
climate variability into the plans and policies
that emanate from their departments of national
planning, treasury, and state/provincial planning
arms. Plans should seek to minimize risk along
the development path and importantly, not
create conditions for further risk. Unless and
until planning for disaster and climate change
(which exacerbates existing hazard trends) are
incorporated into general development plans
and poverty reduction strategies of national and
sub-national governments, there is little hope to
emerge through the recurrent cycle of disasterdriven poverty.
There is some progress on realizing the interlinkages, and disaster risk reduction is becoming
a significant part of poverty reduction strategy
papers (PRSPs) of these countries. The 2005
Bangladesh PRSP is a notable example. This
strategy identifies comprehensive disaster
management as one of the ten key goals on
which the success of PRSP will be judged. Being
a highly disaster prone country, the Bangladesh
government’s five year programme for Reducing
Disaster Risks of the Poorest through Sustainable
Livelihood Development seeks to address disaster
risk reduction in a development context with the
emphasis on building disaster-resilient livelihood
opportunities for the very poor and vulnerable
communities.
The National Planning Commission of India in
their 11th Five Year Plan 2007-12 recognizes and
recommends that risk reduction be an integral
part of planning for development. India’s national
planning process today considers disaster risk
and community vulnerability reduction as an
important development issue. In fact, even the
UNDP-Government of India Country Cooperation
Framework considers vulnerability reduction and
environmental sustainability as one of its four
pillars of cooperation.
While the subject of disaster management has
found a ministerial home in every SAARC country
(and even a regional centre based in New Delhi),4
climate change is yet to find such a regional or
national base. Climate change, especially climate
change adaptation, is either relegated to the
backwoods of the Ministries of Environment or to
technical agencies such as Meteorology. Despite
its very real implications, as detailed in Chapter 2,
on production, human health, urban development
and water availability, climate change is yet to
make it to the national planning agenda in many
South Asian nations, the exceptions being Maldives
and Bangladesh. In both countries the immediacy
of the threat posed by climate change and its
attendant impacts (sea level rise and increased
cyclonic activity) have forced policy makers to
prioritize the issue in national planning exercises.
Notably, it is not sufficient to have commitments
from focal ministries. Unless the key planners
and decision makers across various development
sectors are committed, favourable results are
unlikely to be achieved. The Environment Impact
Assessment (EIA) process introduced in mid
1980’s provides evidence for this. EIAs intended
to minimize the damage to environment through
development projects, encouraging consideration
of alternative development options to achieve the
required objective with the least environmental
53
Mal - Development
in South Asia
Mal-development
in the World
r Governance
Poo
Environmental
Degradation
Development
induced
Carbon emissions
Conflicts
Vulnerability
Poverty
Degraded
Livelihoods
Climate Change
Low predictability
Hazards
(Higher frequency
and Severity)
Disasters
Increased mortalities
and losses
Recovery
Current focus of disaster management
planning and implementation
New disaster risk reduction paradigm
Figure 3.1: Problem Diagram
impact. Looking back it is evident that this has not
happened and in fact, development has created
more problems than ever before in South Asia
(Duryog Nivaran, 2008a). Efforts on green growth
can also end with similar results.
As yet there is still very little tangible evidence to
show that such ‘mainstreaming’ efforts have begun
to demonstrate tangible results. Both disaster
exposure and losses have increased in all countries,
even Bangladesh, in the recent years despite these
proactive steps. The conventional development
drivers and investment often steamroll over
54
South Asia Disaster Report 2010
good intentions of disaster risk management
and environmental planning, including climate
adaptation. For millions of poor, disaster prone
people in South Asia, this means that they would
continue to bear the brunt of disaster impact.
3.4 Visualising the Problem
In order to understand clearly the problem, the
causal factors and resulting vulnerabilities created,
that have been discussed in chapters 1, 2 and 3,
a diagrammatic representation is attempted in
Figure 3.1. This diagram shows how these issues
are inter-related and come together to make
vulnerabilities of people more acute and increase
the intensity of disasters.
The thinner outer circle shows the current
development trajectory that leads to increased
emissions and development induced hazards
(such as river diversions, deforestation etc).
Mal-development has also a direct bearing on
degradation of environmental resources, livelihood
assets, poverty and conflict, all of which are
contributory factors of increased vulnerability.
The vertical line in the right hand side depicts
the increased frequency and severity of climatic
hazards by climate change related global warming.
Environmental degradation, resource scarcity,
conflicts and increased poverty are all symptomatic
of a region that is yet on the old development path
and possesses the lower indicators of governance.
Hazards, mal-development and CC negatively affect
vulnerability, reinforcing conditions of poverty
and powerlessness among many millions of South
Asians who are on the fringes of great South Asian
economic boom.
Notes:
1 However the recent flood in Pakistan is expected to slow down economic growth to between 0-1% from a projected 4% for 2010.
2 For example, the ESCAP (2008) report says that national statistics show a reduction of the Share of Population Under Poverty
Line in India between 1994 (36%) to 2000 (28.6%)
3 South Asia Policy Dialogue; organized by National Institute of Disaster Management, India, Duryog Nivaran, Practical Action and
UNDP, India, held in August 2006, in New Delhi
4 SAARC Disaster Management Centre (SDMC)
55
56
South Asia Disaster Report 2010
Part II
Part II explores possible solutions based on South Asian experience.
An ideal scenario is envisaged explaining the impact of global, regional
and local dynamics on vulnerable communities; and the current global,
regional, national and local policies and activities that could help move such
strategies forward. The Adaptive Livelihoods Framework is proposed as
one way of synergising DRR and CCA expertise thus ultimately contributing
towards reduced vulnerability, increased resilience and enhanced adaptive
capacity of the poor. The section also gives two sets of practical
recommendations – the first being tools for practitioners and the second
set on strategies for the inclusion of DRR and CCA into development,
targeting the policy makers and planners, national and decentralized
development planning and budgetary allocation processes in their countries.
57
58
South Asia Disaster Report 2010
Chapter 4
Constructing a
solution
59
C
hapter 1 argued that the levels of global
commitment and action towards reducing
greenhouse gases are far from sufficient to avoid
serious future impacts from increased disaster
frequency (IPCC, 2007a) and intensity and
changing climate patterns. Chapter 2 discussed
how women and men living in poverty, particularly
in developing countries, usually bear the worst
disaster impacts, with higher loss of life, greater
destruction to property and assets, and far longer
recovery periods. They are also the first and worst
affected by the impacts of climate change, due to
their livelihoods typically being more reliant on
the natural environment and their lack of capital to
pursue alternatives.
So what is the way out? This chapter explores
possible solutions based on South Asian
experience. Firstly, an ideal scenario is envisaged
and represented in a diagram which is used
to explain the impact of global, regional and
local dynamics on vulnerable communities. The
second section contains a description and critique
of current global, regional, national and local
policies and activities that are already in place
and could help move such strategies forward.
The chapter concludes with the introduction of
the Adaptive Livelihoods Framework (ALF), which
is proposed as one way of synergising DRR and
climate change adaptation expertise to reduce
vulnerability, increase resilience and enhance the
adaptive capacity of vulnerable communities, thus
ultimately contributing towards the ideal scenario.
4.1 The architecture of a solution
Figure 4.1 can help us to understand how the
global, regional and national/local policies,
practices and governance dynamics can contribute
to a community with reduced vulnerability,
increased resilience and strong adaptive capacity.
What must happen for this to become a reality? On
the right side of the diagram, we see that on the
global level, a dominant paradigm of sustainable
development and the pursuit of a low carbon
pathway are needed. This will not only help to
reduce climate change trends but also reduce
the severity of climate change and its associated
hazards, and thus expose vulnerable communities
worldwide to fewer climatic pressures and
disasters. This in turn results in fewer conflicts over
scarce resources, reduced disaster losses and more
secure natural resource dependent livelihoods.
On a regional level, sustainable, low carbon
development must also be the dominant strategy.
As described in Chapter 2, South Asia is particularly
60
South Asia Disaster Report 2010
hard hit by disasters and especially vulnerable to
climate change impacts, thus the mainstreaming
of climate change adaptation and DRR approaches
into socio-economic development policy is
needed. The merging of these currently parallel
tracks on their common foundation of vulnerability
reduction will enable communities to better shape
their own vulnerability reduction using up-to-date
meteorological information, technology and new
funding sources. A community’s vulnerability to
hazards is reduced through improved planning
informed by both disaster risk reduction and
climate change adaptation schools.
For the benefits of this combined DRR and
climate change adaptation approach to reach the
community, an enabling environment around the
community must also be in place. Currently, this
is often overlooked by climate change adaptation
and disaster risk reduction agreements, that focus
only on reducing vulnerability on the ground
instead of tackling the root causes (Venton and
La Trobe, 2008). Perhaps the most crucial part
of this enabling environment is an improved
governance structure that is sensitive to the need
for sustainable and equitable development, and
which views poverty reduction, natural resource
management and protection from natural hazards
as interlinked problems. Such a governance
structure would help to facilitate high adaptive
capacity, increased resilience and reduced
vulnerability through poverty reduction, conflict
resolution, sound natural resource management
and improved livelihoods.
4.2 Current DRR and climate change
Adaptation policy and practice: from the
global to the local
This section describes the status quo of efforts to
reduce the vulnerability and increase the resilience
and adaptive capacity of at risk communities, while
referring back to the Solution diagram. It covers
global, regional, national and local level policies
and practices. A common observation at all levels
is that DRR and climate change adaptation often
follow distinct paths, when in fact they have great
synergistic potential. This and other weaknesses of
the current adaptation and DRR dynamics will be
further elaborated on in the next section.
4.2.1 Global level
There are already a number of international
declarations that recognize links between disaster
risk, climate change and poverty, and establish
a basis for coordinated action (ISDR, 2009a). The
broader of these declarations correspond to
Sustainable
development in
South Asia
Sustainable
development in the
World
d Governance
Goo
pa
Ca
tiv
e
ap
Ad
Less
Conflicts
ce
ien
sil
Re
CCA & DRR
Mainstreamed
sed
rea
Inc
cit
y
Resilient
Environment
Reduced
Poverty
Low Carbon
Pathway
Reduced Vulnerability
Stable
Livelihoods
Reduced
Climate Change
Hazards
(Lower Severity and
Improved
Predictability)
Reduced Disaster
Losses
Figure 4.1: Solution Diagram
the boxes on the right hand side of the Solution
diagram, while declarations more targeted to DRR
or climate change adaptation act as guidelines
for the inner rings of the Solution diagram, closer
to the community itself. It is interesting to note
the breadth of institutions that have recognised
the need for incorporating climate change
adaptation (CCA) and disaster risk reduction (DRR)
considerations into their policies. Further, recent
efforts have been noted to bring CCA and DRR
that have been running parallel to each other in
their mainstreaming into development attempts,
together, to optimise resource use.
Climate change, disaster risk and poverty:
globally recognised links
The relationship between projected climate
change, disaster risk and poverty is already well
represented in international discourses. The
formulation and adoption of the widely accepted
Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) set the
goal-posts for poverty reduction and human
development in many developing nations.
Although disaster risk and climate change are
not specifically addressed, the MDGs address
underlying risk factors such as illiteracy and
economic poverty.
The IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (2007a)
stressed that climate change will erode nations’
capacities to achieve MDGs in parts of Africa and
South Asia. The World Summit on Sustainable
Development (2002) in Johannesburg asserted
that “an integrated multi-hazard approach to
address vulnerability … is an essential element
of a safer world in the 21st century”, while the
Bali Action Plan reaffirms that economic and
social development and poverty eradication are
global priorities in adapting to a changed climate
(UNFCCC, 2007).
Even within the international negotiations on
climate change, adaptation is of relatively recent
61
concern. Although mentioned in both the
UNFCCC (1992) and the Kyoto Protocol (1997),
the implementation of adaptation has come into
much sharper focus over the last decade, since the
7th Conference of Parties (CoP 7) in Marrakech in
2001. This was the first time specific funds were
established to support adaptation actions in
developing countries, as a precursor to the now
functional Adaptation Fund.1
An international effort more specifically addressing
adaptation was the Nairobi Work Programme
(UNFCCC, 2005). It was a five-year (2005-2010)
programme that fostered a wide range of initiatives
to help governments improve their understanding
of the impacts, vulnerability and adaptation to
climate change and take informed decisions on
practical adaptation actions. It did this mainly
through serving as an arena where technical and
scientific knowledge could be disseminated to
interested parties. The programme aimed to:
•
Improve capacity at international, regional,
national and sectoral, and local levels to
further identify and understand impacts,
vulnerability and adaptation responses, in
order to effectively select and implement
practical, efficient and high-priority adaptation
actions;
•
Enhance and improve the level and amount
of information and advice to the UNFCCC
conference of parties and its subsidiary
bodies on the scientific, technical and socioeconomic aspects of impacts, vulnerability and
adaptation;
•
Enhance the degree of dissemination and
utilization of knowledge from practical
adaptation activities;
•
Enhance the cooperation among parties,
relevant organizations, business, civil society
and decision-makers in order to advance their
ability to manage climate change risks; and
•
Enhance integration of adaptation into
sustainable development plans.
The International Decade for Natural Disaster
Reduction, beginning in 1990, began to look at
reducing the disaster risk of communities at risk
to natural disasters. Since 2000 the International
Strategy for Disaster Reduction (ISDR) has been
promoting the links and synergies between,
and the coordination of, disaster reduction
activities in the socio-economic, humanitarian
and development fields, as well as to support
policy integration. This was concretised in the
Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA) at the World
62
South Asia Disaster Report 2010
Conference on Disaster Reduction in 2005, where
strategies to build the Resilience of Nations
and Communities to Disasters were agreed and
committed to by governments. The HFA attempts
to promote a strategic and systematic approach to
reducing vulnerabilities and risks to hazards.
The priority for action 4 of the HFA, reduce the
underlying risk factors, recognizes and demands
action against disaster risks related to changing
social, economic, environmental conditions
and land use, including the impact of hazards
associated with climate change, and demands
for action in sector development planning and
programmes as well as in post-disaster situations.
However, recent studies (i.e. Global Assessment
Report 2009; Views from the Frontline 2009) have
shown that the uptake of the HFA priority for
action 4 has been lagging behind the rest, and this
is unfortunate as it is the most crucial in overall
vulnerability reduction and resilience building.
GAR 09 has identified that reducing underlying
risk factors is the most crucial part in overall risk
reduction. Vulnerable livelihoods, poor urban and
local governance, degradation of environment
and climate change are all seen as major drivers
in increasing challenges to reducing risk of
communities. Among the reasons discussed on the
slow uptake of HFA 4, the practical incompatibility
of current DRR structures to address development
issues is noted. The HFA driven national disaster
management centers/authorities do not have the
required mandate to ensure that DRR is achieved
through poverty reduction strategies.
HFA: Priorities for Action
1. Ensure that disaster risk reduction (DRR) is
a national and a local priority with a strong
institutional basis for implementation
2. Identify, assess and monitor disaster risks and
enhance early warning
3. Use knowledge, innovation and education to
build a culture of safety and resilience at all
levels
4. Reduce the underlying risk factors
5. Strengthen disaster preparedness for
effective response at all levels
Climate change adaptation strategies in UN
agencies and IGOs
Many UN agencies working in the wide arena
of poverty reduction have developed their own
frameworks and tools for integrating adaptation
into development planning. The UNDP (United
Nations Development Programme), which
supports a range of national policy interventions
in developing countries, is now taking proactive
steps to adapt development policies to suit a
future of climate change. UNDP activities seek to
incorporate climate change risks and opportunities
into national strategies and plans developed
in partnership with governments and in UNDP
and UN development assistance frameworks
in developing countries. The UN’s Food and
Agriculture Organization (FAO) has a mandate
over a sector which is uniquely vulnerable to
climate change and natural disasters. It agrees
that social and economic marginalization lies at
the root of vulnerability and exposure to both
disaster risk and climate uncertainty, and suggests
a multi-dimensional framework for adaptation that
combines:
change considerations into its activities. In 2008 it
presented its strategic framework on development
and climate change, which takes a demand-based
approach to identify development paths and
processes while offsetting costs that stem from
climate change impacts through climate-dedicated
finance. The strategy for developing countries
aimed to:
•
Risk-related information dissemination to
strengthen rural livelihoods through farmer
field schools and other networks;
•
Lobbying for supportive legislation and policy;
and
•
Increased capacity for technology and
knowledge transfer.
INGOs are recognising the same issues as these
intergovernmental institutions, and are accordingly
modifying their policies and activities.
Climate change adaptation: incorporated by
international financial institutions
In a sign of the widespread acceptance of the
urgency of climate change impacts and disaster
risks, even institutions normally narrowly
concerned with finance and economics are taking
heed of these issues. The OECD, a forum which
brings together the governments of 30 developed
nations in their Declaration on Integrating Climate
Adaptation in to Development Corporation,
commits its members to ‘work to better integrate
climate change adaptation in development
planning and assistance, both with their own
governments and in activities undertaken
in partner countries.’ This has led to detailed
policy guidance on integrating climate risk in to
development planning.
The World Bank Group recognised that most key
sectors of a country’s economy such as health,
sanitation, energy, transport, agriculture, trade
and tourism are impacted by climate change,
and thus saw the need to integrate the climate
•
Support climate actions in country-led
development processes;
•
Mobilize additional concessional and
innovative finance;
•
Facilitate the development of market-based
financing mechanisms;
•
Leverage private sector resources;
•
Support accelerated development and
deployment of new technologies; and
•
Step up policy research, knowledge, and
capacity building.
The World Bank Group has several projects
underway to strengthen the knowledge base
for climate change and to translate such insights
into informed decision making. The 2010 edition
of the World Development Report focuses on
development in a changing climate. Climate
change adaptation considerations are being
integrated into Country Assistance Strategies.
The Bank is also piloting innovative climate risk
insurance.
As discussed above, when the Hyogo Framework
for Action came into being and Priority Action
4 stated that reducing underlying risk factors
was important, the climate change adaptation
discourse was not developed to its current
extent. However today, there is an understanding
of what these underlying risk factors are and
agreement that climate change will affect these
risk factors. This presents the best opportunity for
climate adaptation to be merged into the current
international disaster risk reduction framework on
a common platform of development (ISDR, 2009a).
Despite the progress made, international
development policy and financial frameworks
still promote the development model articulated
from the “Washington Consensus” throughout the
region as discussed in Chapter 1. The development
and financial architecture of this thinking is yet
to undergo major changes although they have
accepted that “some structural changes are
necessary to meet challenges brought about by
climate change”. Further, international financing
63
mechanisms envisaged by the UNFCCC have
yet to fully materialise hence impeding the
implementation of key or priority adaptation
measures in the most vulnerable countries in the
region. The fulfilment of financial commitments to
adaptation funding by the developed countries has
been poor. This has further aggravated by tying the
adaptation funding to ODA’s.
4.2.2 Regional level
At the Asia Pacific regional level, the Asian
Ministerial Conference for DRR is the formal
mechanism for agreeing on DRR strategies
within the region, and is held every two years.
The last one, the 3rd AMCDRR, was held in Kuala
Lumpur where the KL Declaration on Disaster Risk
Reduction in Asia and the Pacific 2008 was adopted
by the Disaster Management Ministers.
The declaration called for “Multi-stakeholder
Partnership for Disaster Risk Reduction: From
National to Local” and agreed on six actions
points for DRR public-private partnerships: high
technology and scientific application; involvement
and empowerment of local governments and
civil society; mobilising resources; engaging the
media in increasing coverage; public awareness,
and education for disaster risk reduction. The
4th AMCDRR scheduled for Incheon is expected
to come up with a “Regional Roadmap on DRR
through CCA in Asia and the Pacific”
The Asia Pacific has also been at the forefront of
environmental concerns into development. In
March 2005, at the 5th Ministerial Conference on
Environment & Development in Seoul, Korea it was
agreed that Asia should pursue a path of “Green
Growth.” This facilitates countries in the region
to continue the much needed economic growth
necessary for poverty reduction (MDG1) without
compromising environmental sustainability
(MDG7) of the region. Five years hence, although
it is difficult to see Asia growing through green
concepts, some encouraging developments can be
identified particularly from stronger economies in
Asia.
South Asian countries have each explored
and defined their own paths to sustainable
development2 and have also made commitments
in the form of several collective agreements
(UNAIDS, 2006).
SAARC Environment Ministers having met at
Dhaka, Bangladesh in July, 2008 have adopted the
Dhaka Declaration on Climate Change. By this the
ministers committed to promote programmes for
64
South Asia Disaster Report 2010
advocacy and mass awareness raising on climate
change, resolve to cooperate on climate change
issues for capacity building, agree to initiate and
implement programmes to protect the lives and
livelihood of the people, to implement the SAARC
Action Plan on Climate Change and adopt this
declaration and the SAARC Action Plan on Climate
Change. In Thimpu, during the 16th SAARC
summit in 2010, Heads of States reaffirmed their
commitment to the SAARC Action Plan.
On the DRR front, the Male Declaration 20053
emphasized integrating disaster recovery
and reconstruction activity into national
sustainable development activities, formulating
a comprehensive regional framework on early
warning, disaster management and disaster
prevention, with existing SAARC institutions
playing an important role. The 13th SAARC
summit in Dhaka Bangladesh in November 2005
approved the establishment of the SAARC Disaster
Management Center (SDMC). Established in
October 2006, SDMC’s mandate is to be the key
driving force in South Asia to move its member
countries to initiate work on DRR. The SAARC
Comprehensive Framework for Action 2006-2015
in South Asia on DRR, formulated by an expert
group in Dhaka Bangladesh, was adopted by the
14th SAARC summit in Delhi in April 2007.
However, SAARC has been very passive in
mobilizing the member countries to work
collaboratively. Trans-boundary issues are a case
in point. The Dhaka Declaration was a right step
towards addressing these issues but it has failed
to materialize in terms of fostering commitments
from the member countries. Fostering meaningful
cooperation in policy making is a key value for
regional and national planning processes to
develop meaningful/rational adaptation regimes
across economic spectrums. SAARC has also failed
to meaningfully engage civil society and expert
knowledge within the region.4
4.2.3 National level
National Adaptation Programmes of Action
National level activities correspond to the green
ring of the Solution diagram (figure 4.1); they
are mostly indicators of the type of governance
environments in which communities live. Analysis
of the National Adaptation Programmes of
Action (NAPA) of the three South Asian countries
that have submitted them (Bangladesh, Bhutan
and Maldives) points to an overwhelming focus
on technological solutions based on current
information on climate futures. Countries have
EIA Steps
Strategic Phase
Project Need and Justification
Entry Points for Climate Change
Climate Change Screening
Does the project scope (e.g. design life and
investment level) justily consedering climate
change risks and vulnerability?
Could the project potentially be sensitive to
climate change?
If so, what would the broad implications be?
Strategic
Enviornmental
Assesment
Project Identification
Scoping the Climate Change Risk and
Adaptation Options Assessment
Concept Phase
What climate variables and elements of the
project need to be assessed?
Who will conduct the assessment ?
EIA Scoping
Determine what needs to be assessed
Implementation Phase
Detailed Assessment Phase
Conducting EIA
Baseline environmental characteristics
Potential impacts
Management messures
Conducting the Climate Change Risk
and Adaptation Options Assessment
What climate variables and elements of
the project need to be assessed?
Formal Public Consultation
Determination
Submission
Review
Conditions
Have climate risks and adaptation options
been correctly identified and assessed ?
Is there potential to produce maladaptation?
Implementation / Monitoring
Implementing
Climate Change Adaption Measures
Construction
Operation
Maintainance
Implementation of climate change
adaptation measures through the CMP, OMP,
and EMP
What Key Perfomances Indicators(KPI) can be
used to monitor climate change and climate
proofing over time?
Figure 4.2: Potential entry points for considering climate change impacts and
adaptation in EIA. Reproduced from Agrawala et al. (2010).
presented solutions modelled on conventional
projects, with funding largely for infrastructure
and technology transfer. Priority risks and possible
solutions for the three countries are listed below:
•
Bangladesh: responding to flash floods and
increased cyclonic activity in the Bay of Bengal.
Solutions include cyclone shelters, crop
insurance, etc.;
•
Bhutan: glacial lake outburst floods (GLOF).
Solutions include artificial lowering of lakes
(technological); and
•
Maldives: coastal flooding and increased
sea level leading to inundation of islands.
Solutions include evacuation of population,
sea walls to protect commercial/residential
infrastructure etc.
These NAPAs were prepared with support from
UNDP to create a path of access to the Least
Developed Country Fund (LDCF). The expectation
of every country that engaged in the process
was that adaptation financing would be ‘readily
available’ for the listed priority actions. However,
this was not to be. A trivial number of actions in the
three countries were funded through LDCF when
the fund wound down its activities in 2008.
65
National attempts at mainstreaming climate change
adaptation and DRR
At a national level, countries should develop
overarching national adaptation programmes
where climate change and disaster risks are
routinely considered in every part of national
planning and fiscal policy formulation –
mainstreaming DRR and climate change
adaptation should be the overarching principle
within which good governance occurs (see figure
4.1, Solution diagram). Mainstreaming in this way
ensures that information about climate-related
risks, vulnerability, and options for adaptation are
incorporated into planning and decision-making
in climate-sensitive sectors (e.g. agriculture, water,
health, disaster risk management and coastal
development), as well as into existing development
plans and poverty reduction efforts (e.g. Poverty
Reduction Strategies Papers).
The Maldives are exceptional in that their ‘Safer
Islands Strategy’ attempts to create a development
environment that integrates disaster risk reduction
and climate adaptation into national wellbeing.
Bangladesh has come close by assigning disaster
management to its high-powered Ministry of
Food and Agriculture in a move to merge poverty
reduction efforts with better disaster management.
Bangladesh has attempted to mainstream disaster
management and risk reduction into national
policies, institutions and development processes
through the introduction of Disaster Impact
and Risk Assessment (DIRA). Sri Lanka too is in
the process of developing their Disaster Impact
Assessment process to ensure the planning of
development projects pay due recognition to
disaster risks in the project implementing area. This
is expected to be achieved through a strengthened
EIA process. This however, is easier said than done
due to various policy gaps, bureaucratic processes
and lack of coordination among development
agencies. Another attempt at strengthening the
EIA process is suggested by Shardul Agrawala, et
al. (2010), towards incorporating climate change
impacts and adaptation in Environmental Impact
Assessments by the identification of the entry
points to climate proof the process. (figure 4.2)
Case Study: Building linkages to reduce vulnerability to
flooding in the Terai, Nepal
Working with communities in Nepal, Practical Action has implemented early warning systems in the Terai
plains – the most flood-prone areas of the country – since 2002. Whilst communication technologies
play an important part of the early warning systems, it is the relationships created between communities
vulnerable to flooding and those that can provide services that form the vital component of this approach.
As part of the project, generators and users of information relating to flood-alerts were brought together.
Representatives from downstream communities, who had previously no flood-warning information,
visited gauge stations upriver to explore what information could be made available. Similarly, employees
at the gauge station visited downstream villages to explore which information would be most useful.
It was agreed that the gauge stations would supply all the historical and real-time information that the
stakeholders said they needed to judge the indicators of flood risk relevant to their context. With this
simple intervention, the information generated by the gauge station was demand-driven and context
specific, and therefore, more effective.
The success of this approach was put to the test in June 2008, when the waters of the West Rapti River
rose alarmingly. Within 20 minutes of the water reaching the ‘trigger level’, the gauge reader had informed
a pre-assigned group of community stakeholders who raised the alarm. The communities downstream
spent the day monitoring the river and in the evening, community leaders sounded the sirens as the river
swelled further. A full evacuation proved that a good decision-making and information-sharing system had
been set up.
Impressively, this early warning system required a relatively meagre initial investment and recurrent costs
of just USD 250 per year. No major investments or scientific input was needed to save lives and property.
The success of the project was built on the relationship created between those with the information and
those in need of it, and is now so well established and autonomous that the early warning system now
sustains itself without Practical Action’s continued input.
Source: Practical Action, Nepal
66
South Asia Disaster Report 2010
Approach
Comments
Vulnerability reduction
Targets a particular hazard, and should aim to be ‘no
regrets’: meeting short-term needs while addressing
potential climate change
Strengthening resilience
Defined as the ability to absorb shocks or ride out changes
Reduces vulnerability to a wide range of hazards
Supported by diversity of assets or livelihood strategies
User input in decision making supports resilience by
reducing the chance of damaging the policy development
Building adaptive capacity
Strengthens resilience and reduced vulnerability to a wide
range of hazards
Amount, diversity and distribution of assets facilitates
alternative strategies
Requires information plus the capacity and opportunity to
learn, experiment, innovate and make decisions
Table 4.1: Approaches to adaptation, reproduced from Ensor and Berger (2009)
4.2.4 Local level
At this level, which corresponds to the innermost
circles of the Solution diagram (figure 4.1), the
DRR community has more experience than the
climate change adaptation community. However,
there is now a considerable body of work on
community-based adaptation that incorporates
both climate change adaptation and disaster risk
reduction strategies for positive local development
(Pelling, 2007). It should be remembered that for
communities to make the most of this body of
knowledge, a supportive governance environment
must be present. Donors also have a role to play;
they should do development ‘right’ by integrating
analysis of disaster risk and climate change into
funded programmes (Venton and La Trobe, 2008).
In the recent past, approaches to DRR have
evolved significantly. From early responsive and
relief interventions dealing with the post-disaster
impacts, separate strands of proactive disaster risk
reduction work have broken off and developed
a large portfolio of experience, instruments and
methods and risk assessments that consider why
the poorest are nearly always the worst affected
by disasters. Whilst relief work remains important,
and still the dominant model in practice, many
organisations now seek to reduce the risk of
disaster by considering the whole disaster
lifecycle from pre-impact planning, through to
the immediate relief, learning and reconstruction
(Blaikie, et al., 1994).
In the pre-planning stages, DRR organisations
typically carry out vulnerability assessments to
understand how and why a community is at risk
from particular hazards, e.g. Climate Vulnerability
and Capacity Assessments developed by CARE
(Daze, et al., 2009). This will assess various factors
such as a community’s physical vulnerability to a
disaster, caused by conditions such as exposure
to a hazard and level of protection, and will
involve geographical, meteorological, structural
and historical analyses. To fully understand
vulnerabilities, a qualitative analysis of why and
how some people have been, and are likely to
be, more affected by a disaster is needed. This
requires social, political and economic analysis to
understand the underlying dynamic factors that
place a community at greater risk or preclude them
from taking the necessary preventative measures
in order to lessen impacts. For example, the
marginalisation of certain vulnerable groups such
as women or disabled people within a community
leads to the exclusion of these groups from
political/decision-making processes, and is likely to
increase their vulnerability to the physical impacts
of disasters.
4.3 Livelihood approaches
Livelihood approaches to DRR have successfully
been used to address the economic causes of
vulnerability across South Asia and elsewhere. By
recognizing the link between disaster impact and
poverty, this approach aims to boost resilience
of livelihoods to disaster to reduce the effects of
disaster. The Sustainable Livelihoods Framework
(SLF) introduced by DFID (1996) was the first
such attempt to understand poverty – livelihoodvulnerability nexus and provide a framework for
analysis. The aim of the livelihood approach is to
build up and boost these assets in order to have
sustainable livelihoods.
67
The Disaster-Resistant Sustainable Livelihood
(DRSL) framework, developed by Duryog
Nivaran (Ariyabandu and Bhatti, 2005) argues
strengthening livelihoods assets to better face
disasters that frequently affect communities
concerned is important to achieve sustainability.
Strong livelihoods also can help people withstand
and recover from a disaster impact better. All
livelihood assets need to be disaster proofed to the
best possible extent. Assets do not transfer into
livelihoods automatically, but need an enabling
environment. Communities facing disasters
connected to people or groups which can provide
support is a vital attribute prior to, during, and after
a disaster.
Poverty forces people to seek out marginal and
highly risk-prone lands, on which they settle and
build their livelihoods. Engaging in such livelihoods
usually adds to and compounds the risks they
already face. Evacuating communities from fragile
and hazard-prone areas is sometimes the best
solution, but given the very limited communication
between communities and authorities it is usually
a challenge. DRR practitioners too, have firsthand experience of the difficulty of evacuation or
migration, as risks alone, especially the uncertain
risks which would occur in the future such as
those linked to climate change, are not enough to
persuade poor communities to leave unsafe areas.
Not having precise predictions should in no way
be a reason for inaction. Mal-adaptation that might
impact negatively on a community if the impacts
turn out different from the prediction must be
avoided. To this end, practitioners have to account
for the unknown in their planning. Scenario based
planning, for example, provides communities with
a range of coping measures and actions to respond
to various possible future outcomes of climate
change, which means they are not limited to a
particular future action. No-regrets approaches aim
to prepare communities for the most likely impacts
and, at the same time, create development benefits
without locking them into a specific technology or
development path that may burden them in the
future.
Reducing a community’s vulnerability to climate
variations and increased disaster risk by addressing
68
South Asia Disaster Report 2010
the underlying issues of why particular groups
would experience greater loss from a hazard is
usually a no-regrets option. Reducing vulnerability
in the context of climate change has been
described as having two processes – 1) building
resilience, the ability to withstand shocks and
stresses and to bounce back, and 2) increasing
adaptive capacity, the ability to make changes in
response to an expected impact.
Adaptation to predicted climate change
impacts through policy and planning initiatives,
and community-based adaptation (CBA) are
effective ways to help communities adapt to
future impacts of climate change despite the
lack of reliable downscaled climate predictions.
Knowledge acquisition is an important goal,
which is particularly relevant in facing climate
change consequences on ground. Knowledge
can be acquired and provided through networks
and linkages. Even when good information about
impending disaster risks is available, it is often
not available to the communities at risk and
particularly marginalised groups. This can be
overcome by building a community’s mechanisms
for predicting and communicating information
about disasters or by creating relationships
between a community and the relevant
information providers.
Improving livelihoods, as mentioned above,
has proven to be a successful approach for
boosting resilience to disaster risk intensified by
climate change impacts. In Nepal, for example,
farmers were encouraged to grow fruit trees
during the winter months when their land was
normally left fallow. This provided them with
an alternative livelihood and a way to deal with
risk. In Bangladesh, a range of food production
techniques, including floating gardens, pumpkin
growing on char lands and duck keeping, helps
farmers on marginalised lands to maintain a living
during the flood period. These techniques will also
be of use should these communities in Bangladesh
experience less or more flooding than predicted.
In both cases the communities were able to
withstand such impacts and maintain livelihoods.
4.4 A framework for Practitioners – Adaptive Livelihoods Framework
Building Adaptive Capacity
Build the asset
base of asset less
Protect and
strengthen the
livelihood assets
Diversify livelihood
options
Creating an
enabling
environment
Advocacy work to ensure the
enabling environment for
adaptive livelihoods
Adaptive Livelihoods
Adaptive
Livelihood
Strategies
Reduced
Poverty
Reduced
Vulnerability
Increased
Resilience
and Adaptive
Capacity
N - Natural, H - Human, F - Financial, S - Social,
P - Physical, K - Knowledge
Figure 4.3: Adaptive Livelihoods Framework (An extension of DRSL Framework)
The Adaptive Livelihood Framework (ALF) is
a further extension of Duryog Nivaran’s DRSL
framework, and is based on the lessons emanating
from the application on the field of Duryog
Nivaran members in the past few years.
The ALF suggests that increased adaptive capacity
cannot be achieved through a single, narrow
intervention. A more holistic approach is needed to
accurately identify the challenges and bottlenecks.
A strong asset base is a necessary but not sufficient
condition for an adaptive livelihood, since the
strongest asset base cannot yield an adaptive
livelihood unless an enabling environment also
exists. The livelihood asset base of a community
is constantly subjected to dynamic threats from
contemporary development policy and practice as
well as the natural environment.
The ALF suggests a livelihood centred approach
to build adaptive capacity. It looks both at the
livelihood asset base of the communities and
the existing enabling environment and suggests
adaptive livelihood strategies. Adaptive capacity
of the communities can be built by improving
livelihoods, while the livelihood development
process itself can build adaptive capacity - a cyclic
process which needs continuous assessments,
planning, implementation and evaluation rather
than a linear process.
The framework is not only an analytical tool,
but also provides an approach for practitioners.
However; an enabling environment cannot be
created through the interventions of local level
alone. Global and national decisions can have
a great impact on the decision making process
at the local level towards creating the enabling
environment for sustaining livelihoods.
Understanding the Adaptive Livelihood Framework
The ALF consists of three main elements i.e.
asset base of the producer groups, enabling
environment and adaptive livelihood strategies.
It is presumed that the livelihood assets of
nature-dependant producer groups exist within
an environment where risks resulting from mal
development, natural hazards and climate change
are present. Prevailing and persistent concerns
related to poor governance and mal development
are exacerbated by additional risks due to the
changing climate. These are expected to create
more pressure on the livelihood asset base of the
producer groups. It is important to understand the
increased disaster risk and the ALF provides the
tools to do this (explained in chapter 5).
Producer groups operate in a governance
environment where traditions and institutions are
in place that decide access to and control over
their livelihood assets. The policies and practices
implemented by the governing authorities are
decisive in sustaining livelihoods. Therefore,
an enabling governance environment is a
must in order to ensure that livelihood assets
69
Climate change will put pressure on peoples’
livelihood asset base. It has become increasingly
evident that both local knowledge and new
knowledge, from for example, scientists, is required
for meaningful climate change adaptation.
Therefore, development interventions are
compelled to assess not only the local knowledge
and existing capacities of the communities,
but also increase ease of access to forecasts,
appropriate technologies and practices.
In the Adaptive Livelihoods Framework,
‘knowledge’ (including skills and attitudes) has
been articulated as a separate asset group because:
are transferred to sustainable livelihoods. The
governance environment is not limited to local or
national level. It has increasingly been seen that
decisions made by global power groups have
significant consequences on the local livelihoods,
for example fuel price hikes in the global market
have direct impacts on almost all livelihoods in
South Asia.
a)
‘Knowledge’ is a pivotal and crosscutting asset,
linked to all other assets (See Table 4.2). How
communities use physical, natural, financial,
social and human assets to shape and respond
to climate changes is highly dependent on
knowledge, skills and attitudes.
b)
Knowledge, skills and attitudes may not
necessarily be impacted by a hazard in the same
way that other assets are. Homes, businesses,
natural resources, lives and human health can
be decimated by hazard event. In the same
context, people’s knowledge, skills and attitudes
will be impacted, affected, modified and maybe
strengthened or maybe weakened.
c)
To enhance their livelihoods, the knowledge to
access information, services, skills etc. is needed.
4.4.1 Livelihood Asset Base of the Communities
The Adaptive Livelihood Framework recognizes
that the livelihood asset base of the community
lies at the centre of building adaptive capacity. The
ALF builds on the logic behind the asset pentagon
in the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework and
introduces a sixth dimension to the asset model,
‘knowledge’, (See Figure 4.4). In the Sustainable
Livelihoods Framework, human capital/assets
include the knowledge, skills and attitudes that are
a vital part of how an individual/community makes
use of other livelihood assets.
Livelihood assets/capital
Examples for the assets
Physical
Livestock, shelter, tools and materials (eg. seeds stocks), infrastructure
(eg. transport, communication, irrigation etc.)
Natural
Land, water, forests, marine resources, bio diversity
Financial
Insurance, credit, savings mechanisms, capital
Social
Social support systems, access to political power, other social networks,
community and producer groups, power, caste, gender
Human
Health, labour/the ability to command labour, ability/disability
Knowledge
Knowledge on impacts of climate change
Knowledge on natural resource management
Knowledge and skills on establishing links, negotiation with
government agencies and markets
Attitudes to risk and risk taking ability
Knowledge on other five assets and skills on effective use of assets
Table 4.2: Examples for the assets
70
South Asia Disaster Report 2010
Why knowledge as a separate asset in ALF?
A.
B.
The modified pentagon in Figure 4.4 visualizes the inter-relationships between knowledge and other
assets.. Human assets include labour (physical strength) or the ability to command labour; with
knowledge, skills and attitudes comprising a sixth, central asset group. The diameter of the knowledge
asset circle indicates access to knowledge of an individual/community. The lines to different assets
emanating from ‘K’ represent the relationship between knowledge, skills and attitudes and other assets
– the length of the line can be used to express relative strength and weakness of the respective assets.
Figure 4.4: Livelihood assets in different scenarios
Pentagon A represents a community/individual
with a sound and balanced asset base, with good
knowledge and skills to utilise the other assets to
their maximum, and with strong traditional coping
capacity still in place. In such a case, if there is a
good enabling environment, the community/
individual is in strong position to engage in
sustainable livelihoods.
Pentagon B – In a real life example it will be difficult
to find a well balanced pentagon. e.g. smallholder
paddy farmers in Koggala, Sri Lanka, have a
decent natural resource base, with the traditional
knowledge on their livelihoods and good physical
health. The social networks within the community
are fairly strong, however their links with outside
are weak. Financial savings are fairly poor and
physical assets such as seed stock and farming
equipment are lacking. Together with traditional
coping knowledge, the knowledge related to make
maximum use of the other five assets, is the most
decisive factor in the livelihood asset base.
4.4.2 Enabling Environment
Elements of enabling environment in ALF are the
responsive policies, socially responsible markets,
disaster resistant social and physical infrastructures
and collective community initiatives. Global,
national and local level governance have direct
bearing on these elements and decide how these
have an impact on rural livelihoods.
Clearly, to ensure an outcome of effective, efficient,
appropriate and relevant adaptive livelihoods, it
is crucial for the practitioner to assess both the
asset base and the enabling environment before
designing livelihood strategies. This approach to
building adaptive livelihoods is at the heart of ALF.
Responsive Policy
Governance principles, policies and practices are
the most fundamental elements in ensuring an
enabling environment necessary for translating
assets into livelihoods. These should be responsive
to the needs of the people and be sensitive to the
increased risks posed by climate change. Across the
globe, inequalities amongst development policies
are becoming increasingly apparent (UNDP, 2008).
The richer nations have both the technology and
the resources to build flood defences, sea walls,
and put in place social security nets. Elsewhere,
in South Asia or Africa where large proportions
of populations are already more vulnerable due
to weaker livelihood asset bases, the threats are
arguably more serious and governments are
confronted with major challenges.
As with DRR, adaptation planning requires a
transformational change in governance practices
that goes beyond reactive measures (UNDP, 2008).
Particularly in low-income countries, it is the
government’s responsibility to create economic
and development policy that reduces communities’
71
Getting it right: Building gender justice into adaptive livelihoods
Asset access and ownership, division of labour, roles in the community, and even ways of communicating
and learning are often different for women and men. Women and men have different vulnerabilities
and risk profiles. They experience disasters and climate change differently, and thus have different
priorities and needs when trying to increase their adaptive capacity. It is therefore imperative that gender
considerations are mainstreamed into every step when operationalizing the ALF. Below are just a few
examples of why gender justice must be built into adaptive livelihoods right from the beginning.
Women produce between 60 and 80 percent of the food in most developing countries (FAO, n.d.), so when
climate change makes agricultural activities more difficult, workloads increase more for women than for
men. An individual’s gender also has a dramatic effect on their asset base. Cultures and traditions may
disadvantage women in inheriting or owning physical or natural assets, and this lack of collateral reduces
women’s access to credit and other financial assets. Women’s social capital and influence in social networks
may also differ to those of men due to cultural norms and women’s comparatively time-intensive duties.
Women may also have less human capital; as physical labourers, female workers are consistently paid less
than their male counterparts. Even knowledge and access to information has a gender bias. Differences
in education, literacy rates and internet access matter, and the different ways in which women and men
communicate and process information – women have been recorded to respond better to text while men
prefer images – will have an impact on what information is available and appropriate to them (FAO, n.d.),
and how well they are able to shape and engage the enabling environment. These differences should
be kept in mind while crafting adaptive livelihoods – solutions are seldom gender neutral. Women are
observed to benefit less from market-based solutions, for example.
For these reasons and many others, the ALF should be used with a gender perspective at every step, not
just paying lip service, but in a concrete way with gender specific targets, indicators, activities, needs
and vulnerability assessments, policy appraisals, budgeting, and even monitoring and evaluation, since
there is a dearth of data on how gender affects an individuals’ ability to adapt to climate change (FAO,
n.d.). However, gender differences need not be viewed as challenges but as opportunities; women are
sometimes conceptualised as victims but are in fact both decision makers and highly adaptable agents of
coping, and adaptive livelihood solutions which synergise the different strengths of men and women will
benefit whole communities.
vulnerability by addressing poverty, inequity and
other causes of marginalization. As mentioned
before, a successful response to current and
future challenges posed by climate requires the
mainstreaming of DRR and climate adaptation
thinking in all aspects of policy making, particularly
when planning for poverty reduction. However,
when it comes to mainstreaming adaptation,
there are important limitations that policy
makers should be aware of, such as the uncertain
nature of available climate risk information, and
the correspondingly limited capacity to assess
climate risks. Responsive policy, therefore, is one
that builds uncertainty arising from limitations
of current science into policy formulation and
implementation processes. In practice, this requires
periodic reviews, since climate science is constantly
improving, and policy makers must stay abreast
of the latest estimates. Such regular reviews will
also institutionalise learning from implemented
adaptation action – crucial to track the progress
of policy implementation. An enlightened
72
South Asia Disaster Report 2010
government will tailor the policy making process
itself to incorporate periodic reviews and necessary
revisions into development policies.
Devolution and Adaptation
Development decisions pertaining to changing
climate cannot always be made at national level
or from a remote location from the community.
These can be better made at the level that is
close to community, where direct information
on localized impacts and changes can be used
in decision making. Therefore, climate change
endorses practicing devolution because climate
change adaptation planning cannot be done
at national level. South Asian governments
are increasingly decentralizing delivery. This
is especially apparent in key development
sectors such as agriculture, water management,
education and social development. Important for
responsive policy are the links and accountability
from communities through local to national
governance levels. Local governance institutions
are supposed to be involved in shaping the way
communities will be impacted by and respond
to climate change (Agrawal, et al., 2008), since
they are the intermediaries of development
funding. Local government institutions should
lay the foundation for building adaptive capacity
and climate- and disaster-proof development by
instigating participatory planning with key local
stakeholders, especially vulnerable communities,
marginalized groups, women and indigenous
peoples. The existing knowledge, experience and
priorities of communities; combined with new
external information, infrastructure and social
protection are the building blocks of successful
adaptation. This means that responses to climate
change should be demand-led, based on the local
assessment of risks, needs and circumstances.
Required capacities should be available within
policy making, planning and implementation
levels to be better able to understand information
generated from weather data and make decisions
based on probabilities, on an ongoing basis.
It has been noted that the ability of the local
communities to shape, create and respond to
changes should be proactively encouraged by
the policy environment. Education and research
institutes should incorporate traditional and
local knowledge and also develop guidelines for
incorporating local knowledge for research and
communicating research findings in a manner that
is appropriate and relevant for the local context.
Policies that enable local communities to take
risks and respond to emerging and increasing risks
through better insurance schemes is also vital in
this context. Poverty reduction and micro financing
programmes targeted at vulnerable groups must
carry risk transferring mechanisms to harness the
best results. Development policies should be put
in place in a way that creates an environment to
promote local level innovations.
Strengthened extension services to ensure
producer groups obtain weather forecasts and long
term trend projections is increasingly crucial in
agricultural planning. New knowledge generated
in the research stations need to be transferred to
producer groups and other interested parties in the
value chain with no time lapse as the knowledge
could expire in short time spells. Special attention
is required to promote equal access to resources
and avoid social and political marginalization of
disadvantaged groups.
Socially responsible markets
South Asia’s rural poor are greatly dependent
upon agricultural livelihoods. Largely farmers,
pastoralists or fishermen produce and supply
primary products through intermediary
businessmen to markets which are often found at
the bottom of the value chain. The vulnerability of
such natural resource-based livelihoods to seasonal
fluctuations and extreme weather often affects the
whole market chain. In times of natural disasters,
market chains are disrupted, impacting on a
range of livelihoods across the chain and inflating
commodity prices. Recovery is often a long and
difficult road for farmers and other players at the
bottom caught in the cycle of disaster and poverty.
Monopolistic and discriminatory market
mechanisms negatively affect the subsistence
agriculture economies which are prevalent in
South Asia. The livelihoods of rural communities
are connected to fluctuations in world commodity
prices, since producers of primary goods are
affected by the market price of their product, and
even the rural landless’ and sharecroppers’ incomes
are dependent on commodity markets. Market
regulations that favour agricultural economies are
essential to stabilize rural livelihoods (Ariyabandu
and Bhatti, 2005).
Imports are required to be planned in line with
cropping calendars of the domestic producers.
This will be increasingly challenging in the face of
climate change. Mostly, imports reach the market
when local harvesting is being done affecting
the prices of local products. However, it is no
secret that many developed countries employ
protectionist agricultural policies, at times at the
expense of severe natural resource degradation.
Over-production is common, and surplus produce
is often dumped on developing nations as
cheaper alternatives to local food, making local
farmers unable to compete. Effective regulatory
mechanisms to counteract such imbalances
in agricultural markets are crucial. Agricultural
production systems, already stressed by natural
resource over-use and degradation, unfair
competition etc. now need to adapt to increased
climate variability and risk of hazards.
Other key stakeholders in the value chain also
need to understand urgently that continuous
degradation of natural resource base will affect
their commodity suppliers /producers and new
threats will ultimately effect their own businesses.
They have to understand and come forward
to help small producers and share investing in
73
risk reduction, which will ultimately safeguard
their own interests. They could also help create
awareness and facilitate knowledge links for
improved adaptive capacity at local level thereby
having more sustainable supply base for them.
Governments will need to fully appreciate the
threat to livelihoods and understand the level
of existing capacity of communities to face such
risks. Social protection programmes designed
to prevent temporary shocks from causing long
term destitution should be an integral part of a
national or local adaptation policy (UNDP, 2008).
Social protection systems such as India’s National
Rural Employment Guarantee Act5 would need to
be designed and implemented by national and
local governments. When correctly designed and
implemented, insurance, pensions and subsidies
can form social protection schemes that share risk
and allow people to capitalize on positive market
trends and tide them over in negative periods.
In South Asia, private sector risk-sharing
mechanisms are not designed to be pro- poor;
therefore national and local governments need to
step into this arena and propose state-subsidized
risk transfer schemes to protect the most
vulnerable producers from undue exploitation.
Some of the development agencies have
successfully tested micro insurance schemes that
need to further spread and keep pace with climate
change.
Socially responsible markets need government
policies and programmes that allow the poor as
well to be able to supply and benefit from markets
e.g. minimum prices for commodities, facilitating
commodity purchasing etc. Systems such as
these can absorb and share risks posed by market
dynamics often manoeuvred by powerful players
in the market chain. It is important that the policy
regulatory environment as well as social policy
consider added risks due to emerging climate
risk in a way that protects both producers and
consumers.
However we need to be mindful of limitations
in the real world. International geopolitics,
agreements such as Free Trade Agreements
and domestic power dynamics often prevent
governments from providing appropriate
protection and risk sharing. Farmer insurance
schemes in South Asian countries are woefully
inadequate to meet current uncertainties of
weather and climate already being experienced by
farmers.
74
South Asia Disaster Report 2010
Green production and sustainable consumption
promoted through green growth concepts in
Asia brings an interesting dimension to this
discussion. While international trade policies are
promoting strict competition, green growth calls
for preferential treatment for green technologies
and green products as well as promotes cautious
and implied lower consumption by calling for
sustainable consumption.
Disaster Resistant Community Physical and
Social Infrastructure
A focus on large-scale infrastructure such as dams,
dykes and sea walls, and solutions targeting
predicted impacts such as drought resistant
crops and improved water storage is evident in
the reviewed national plans and programmes for
adaptation of South Asia. Through NAPAs, South
Asian countries tend to orient their actions towards
such technological solutions, often based on endpoint vulnerability6 (Ensor and Berger, 2009). This
focus on infrastructure is popular with politicians
and policy makers, and also with communities in
the short term, since results are more tangible.
However, with this approach there is a danger of
mal-adaptation caused by expensive interventions
that are unsustainable in the long run.
From our previous discussions, it has emerged
that disaster risk reduction or climate change
adaptation is not about addressing these technical
issues alone, but is also about confronting the
societal context in which both disasters and
climate change are occurring (O’ Brien, et al.,
2008). While physical infrastructure is undoubtedly
important, especially to combat immediate threats,
such investments should be prioritized based on
a full understanding of the situation, including
information on social conditions, environmental
limitations and climate predictions. Infrastructural
interventions may be more sustainable when local
authorities are directly involved in their design,
implementation and upkeep, since a flood defence
or early warning system, however technologically
advanced, is only as good as the information
flow and the stakeholders’ ability to absorb
and react to that information. This approach
enables communities to shape the intervention,
safeguards the existing capacities and strengths
of a community, ensures that built infrastructure
actually supports their livelihoods and improves
resilience, and improves adaptive capacity by
increasing skill level and community asset base
(Ensor and Berger, 2009). In addition, participatory
local-level planning may yield creative alternatives
to large-scale infrastructure projects that are visible
Planning for uncertainty: Scenario-based planning for climate adaptation7
Scenario-based planning is a tool and strategy that is gaining popularity in climate adaptation design, and has its
roots in military and subsequently corporate risk management.
The procedure is as follows: given the uncertain nature and intensity of some climate impacts, planners assess
several possible outcome scenarios before designing any adaptation action. This requires consulting communities
about their perceived risks, available resources and existing adaptation measures, as well as gaining adequate
understanding of the current or baseline situation, climate models and data, land-use, development trends and
demands on the resources at risk such as forests or water. Through the exploration of multiple scenarios using
maps, local development plans can be designed which take these multiple scenarios into account. Participatory
tools and methodologies should be used to ensure that all local-level stakeholders, especially the poor and
vulnerable, and marginalised groups within these, are able to influence the process. Ultimately, the mapping
process should reflect the actual ground situation and experiences and needs of different stakeholder groups.
The rationale is that since the overall frequency and intensity of natural disasters is increasing while the
predictability of the disasters and seasonal variability is decreasing, planners should not ‘put all their eggs in
one basket’. The idea is that at first, the plan for the most likely scenario will be implemented, with a number of
optional plans that could be operationalised if needed as the situation evolves.
A more detailed description of the steps involved in scenario-based planning follows.
Land use patterns
First, current land use should be mapped, with active participation of stakeholders including local authorities.
The aim is to merge land use data from different institutions and update them with recent or previously
unavailable information. Many settlements of poor and vulnerable communities are informal and are thus not
reflected in official maps. If these omissions are not rectified at this early stage, any subsequent plans will be
based on an inaccurate understanding of the distribution of some of the most vulnerable people.
Hazard and vulnerability mapping
Next, the target community, together with the local authorities or government, prioritise hazard types in each
target location. Hazard and vulnerability levels combined with land use maps will identify potential disaster
locations. For example, flood scenarios could be created based on rainfall intensity data. The potential impacts
of resulting floods on areas like human settlements, infrastructure, social activities or agriculture will then
be mapped using participatory methods. The outcome of the process will be a matrix with multiple hazard
scenarios and the corresponding possible impacts on human activities and especially on vulnerable community
groups.
Developing climate scenarios
Climate scenarios describe the possible future climates for a given location. These are developed by combining
current trends for a given area over a given period with downscaled climate model data. Uncertainties must be
clearly represented, and it is important to have a baseline scenario based on meteorological observations against
which change is measured.
Participatory planning for local governance
Part of the planning process is carried out at the local governance level with representation and active
participation of all stakeholders. Using current research, technologies and approaches, it will result in participatory
scenario-based local development plans at each target location with an overall focus on strengthening livelihoods
against climate-related variability and hazards, and a particular focus on infrastructure, natural resource
management, and agriculture.
Review and reorient
As with any tool for increasing adaptive capacity, the key to scenario-based planning is its ability to evolve as
new climate information emerges. The locally-developed plans should be reviewed each year to ensure that the
planning loop remains open ended and responsive to the emerging vulnerabilities of the target communities.
75
only at a local planning level. Smaller projects with
much smaller investments might frequently be
able to deliver similar impacts while empowering
communities. Disaster risk and climate risk should
be considered in infrastructure planning. Land use
planning and risk zoning should be an integral part
of development planning. Scenario based planning
is a useful tool in this context that can be used in
incorporating both disaster and climate risk into
development planning.
Collective Community Initiatives (formal,
informal)
Ideally, a community should be able to use their
social networks and civil society activities to access
knowledge from the outside world and influence
policy development, since national development
and adaptation policies will have an impact on
their lives. In this way, social networks and the
ability of communities to affect higher-level
decision-making can be of significance to adaptive
capacity and resilience (Ensor and Berger, 2009).
Social networks can be formal or informal, and
include a wide range of networks such as family
groups, religious and faith-based organisations,
welfare-based groups, political groups, farming
and fishing cooperatives, local communitybased organizations and non-governmental
organizations (Duryog Nivaran, 2006). Formal and
informal networks or community institutions can
help to merge high-level climate science and local
experience-based knowledge. To facilitate this and
empower communities with information, Cash
(2006, cited in Ensor and Berger, 2009) suggests
the use of boundary organizations that work as
intermediaries between actors, and Patt (2008,
cited in Ensor and Berger, 2009) has proposed
stronger partnerships between scientists and users.
Policy at national, sub-national and local level
has an impact on social networks. Governance
structures that are insensitive or even outright
hostile to marginalized people and the poor in a
local area will undermine even the most positive
short term impacts of community or civil society
action. While it may be possible to achieve
synergies between networks and the state, the
reality is that dynamics of decision-making are
highly politicized.
Before external actors become involved in
climate change-related DRR, the roles, linkages
and influence of local institutions should be
understood. Since adaptation is inevitably
local, there is a great need to involve local-level
76
South Asia Disaster Report 2010
institutions in planning and implementing
adaptation policies and projects (Agrawal, et al.,
2008). Recognizing local partnerships as a solid
basis for delivery and enhancing the capacity of
such institutions to become effective conduits
between community and planners is crucial.
Close linkages and relationship between
community groups and governance bodies is the
only way out in a changing climate as planners
cannot plan without community information and
also community cannot survive without getting
the required information and knowledge from the
relevant agencies.
4.4.3 Developing appropriate adaptive
livelihood strategies
Livelihood centred approach to building adaptive
capacity includes building/strengthening
livelihood asset base and creating an enabling
environment for rural communities that eventually
results in sustainable livelihoods. As discussed in
Chapters 2 and 3, livelihood asset base of the rural
poor is continuously being subjected to various
climatic risks. It is foremost important that these
potential climate risks are systematically assessed
and appropriate livelihood strategies designed
in order to overcome these risks. Only a proper
assessment to the overall risk of the community,
capacity and vulnerability of their livelihood asset
base and the strength of the enabling environment
will make it possible for them to come up with
effective strategies. These strategies can broadly be
categorised into two:
1. Livelihood strategies to build/ strengthen
livelihood asset base of rural producer groups
2. Advocacy work at the local, national and
international level to strengthen the enabling
environment of target livelihood groups
It is important to note that both these strategies
are essential in ensuring sustainable livelihoods
that in turns build adaptive capacities.
Actions at local level to build/strengthen the
livelihood asset base and increase resilience of
assets
Communities are heterogeneous with varying
strengths and weaknesses in livelihood assets. The
ALF advocates livelihood strategies that build/
strengthen livelihood asset base of the vulnerable
communities. In very broad terms, producer
groups can be categorised into those with an asset
base sufficient to secure a sustainable livelihood,
and those without. If the livelihood assets are not
sufficient to secure a sustainable livelihood, focus
needs to be on building the livelihood assets. This
could include, for example, building
•
Knowledge assets – providing training
to increase technical and management
knowledge, providing required information to
make informed decisions regarding livelihoods
and build the capacity of producer groups to
analyze the existing traditional knowledge
with information received from external
sources
•
Physical assets – providing equipment,
livelihood support infrastructures and other
materials required for livelihoods
•
Financial assets – establishing access to loan
schemes, micro insurance and savings
•
Social assets – empowering groups and
building leadership, establishing links with
local level planners and decision makers,
establishing links to forecasting information
•
Natural assets – providing entitlements etc. to
ensure rights access to natural resources
•
Human assets – for example, ensure balanced
nutrient intake (i.e. through food for work
programmes etc.)
If livelihood assets are sufficient to secure a
livelihood and if people are already engaged
in livelihoods, strategies should be adopted
to protect the existing livelihood assets and
strengthen them further through improved
knowledge, skills and linkages to supporting
services and markets.
Impact of climate change can have differentiated
impacts on livelihood assets of different producer
groups/ individuals. If the Pentagon B given in
figure 4.4, which explains the asset base of the
paddy farmers in Koggala is considered, the
current livelihood is highly dependant on the
existing natural capital and traditional coping
knowledge of the farmers. Being a coastal low lying
area (where most of the paddy lands are below
sea level) the natural asset is first to get affected
due to any potential impact of climate change.
This can hamper the strongest asset of the paddy
farmers that can have serious negative impacts
on the sustainability of their livelihoods. However,
the impact of climate change on natural assets
which is common to most of paddy farmers will
have differentiated impacts to the livelihoods of
all farmers. Farmers who are better off in terms of
traditional coping knowledge have comparative
advantage in adapting to new changes. Thus,
neither the livelihoods nor adaptive capacities
are built unless the current asset base and the
climate vulnerability of the asset base are properly
assessed and asset base is built/strengthened to
face the new challenges posed by climate change.
Diversification of livelihoods is an option if current
livelihood assets, especially natural assets, are
vulnerable. However, diversification can be difficult
among producer groups who may be used to
particular patterns of livelihood and find change
difficult.
Influencing policy and practice to create an
enabling environment for target livelihood
groups
It is important that pro poor policies are in place for
the protection of nature dependant livelihoods. As
discussed in Chapter 2, nearly 70 percent of South
Asia’s population depend on natural resources in
their livelihood strategies. While these livelihoods
form the foundation of the economies of the South
Asian countries, nature dependant livelihoods are
also important in securing the food requirement of
the region.
As discussed earlier in this chapter, advocacy
programmes should be planned and implemented
targeting the global, national and local policies and
practices to ensure an enabling environment for
the sustainability of livelihoods. The importance of
building a responsive governance for vulnerability
reduction and building adaptive capacity should
be felt at all levels of governance. As previously
discussed, these advocacy programmes should
look at responsive policies, disaster resistance
infrastructure, socially responsible markets and
recognition to community collective initiatives,
which makes the enabling environment of the
different livelihood groups. The ALF also calls for
a change in the policies and processes of climate
change adaptation and poverty reduction.
Livelihood centred adaptive capacity building
should be an integral part of both climate change
reduction and thus poverty reduction.
77
Notes:
1 The LDCF (Least Developed Countries Fund) was intended to address in particular the low adaptive capacity
of the least developed countries (LDCs). The Marakkech Accords were established to fund countries to finance
National Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPAs) that established and prioritized adaptation needs of
countries.
The SCCF (Special Climate Change Fund) financed a multitude of activities in both mitigation and adaptation
in all developing countries. The activities can be specific to sectors: energy, transport, industry or agriculture or
aimed at adaptation through technology transfer or economic diversifications.
2 In response to the Earth Summit in 1990, environmental safeguards were incorporated into development
planning in all South Asian countries, albeit with varying degrees of effectiveness.
3 The Male Declaration was adopted at the special session of environment ministers of SAARC countries that
was held in Male, Maldives 6 months after the tsunami.
4 CANSA meeting, Kathmandu, 2010
5 The Act guarantees 100 days of employment at minimum wages for every rural household
6 End point vulnerability refers to a perceived or existing climate change impact that does not take in to
consideration the entire socio-economic baseline of a community/region. The solutions are based on a simple
problem-solution approach. Ensor, J. and Berger, R. (2009) Understanding climate change adaptation: Lessons
from community-based approaches, Practical Action Publishing, Rugby
7 This description of scenario based planning was developed based on material from Practical Action, UNCDF,
Lempert and Schlesinger, 2007;Lorenzoni et al, 2000; UNDP GEF 2006 (Guidance on Development of Regional
Climate Scenarios)
78
South Asia Disaster Report 2010
Chapter 5
Operationalizing
the Adaptive
Livelihoods
Framework
(ALF): Tools for
practitioners
79
T
he ALF (see diagram on p. 69 and next page)
provides a holistic understanding of the basis
for adaptive capacity, looking beyond the asset
base of target communities to include the limiting
factors of the environment in which they live.
This encourages development practitioners to
incorporate ideas from the schools of both DRR
and climate change adaptation into their adaptive
livelihood strategy designs.
As described in Chapter 4, the livelihood centred
approach is a sensible, effective way to address
climate change adaptation in addition to DRR. The
ALF captures the multiple issues that need to be
taken into consideration in development planning
at decentralized or local levels.
This chapter explains how the ALF can be
operationalized in a step-by-step manner to build
the adaptive capacities of vulnerable groups
and thereby contribute to the overall goal of
sustainable poverty reduction. For each step, the
chapter describes some appropriate tools that
have been developed, tried and tested by leading
organizations in the fields of DRR, livelihood
development and climate change adaptation.
While a multitude of tools exist, ranging from hightech computer programmes for climate impact
modelling to informal community-based hazard
mapping, the focus here is on participatory tools
that facilitate the creation of programmes highly
appropriate to the target community, and which
development project planners and managers will
be well-equipped to employ.
5.1 Coming together through the ALF:
DDR and climate change Adaptation
The Participatory Hazard, Vulnerability and
Capacity Assessment (PHVCA) is the most
common assessment tool currently used by DRR
practitioners to assess disaster risk and to plan
DRR strategies. Currently, livelihood-centred
approaches for DRR are gaining recognition as
an effective method to reduce the underlying
risk factors of the vulnerable communities, and
livelihood assessments are also now increasingly
being used in the DRR interventions. Amidst
the growing concerns about climate change
and increased vulnerability and exposure of the
communities to climate-induced threats, it has
become necessary to assess probable climate
risk as far as technically possible, and factor these
climate risks into livelihood development and
DRR planning. Although several organizations are
taking proactive measures to customise the already
available tools and methodologies to incorporate
80
South Asia Disaster Report 2010
climate change adaptation considerations, those
tools have yet to be adequately mainstreamed
and used at the local level of development
planning. The ALF emphasises the importance of
internalizing climate risks into existing DRR and
livelihood assessment tools.
The following tools and methodologies are based
on practical experiences and will help not only to
operationalise ALF as a planning tool, but also to
implement plans developed as a result.
5.2 Operationalizing the ALF in four
steps
For a specific target community, the ALF can be
operationalised in the following four steps:
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Step 4
Assess the community's overall risk context
Assess the community's asset base
Assess the community's enabling environment
Develop appropriate adaptive livelihood strategies
with the community based on findings from step 1-3
The following sections will present some tools
which can be useful at each step. It is not expected
here to provide an exhaustive list of available tools,
but to bring to the attention of local government
planners, development project planners and
managers a variety of tools that can be used within
the ALF. Practitioners can select tools as best fits
their needs.
As mentioned previously, only participatory tools
are included. Participatory methods not only reflect
the current understanding of the community as the
focal unit in increasing adaptive capacity, they are
also a practical way to overcome the uncertainties
and lack of local spatial detail in current predictions
of climate change scenarios as acknowledged in
the fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC.
Organizations are using different sets of
participatory tools to carry out PHVCA. Although
they each have slightly different characteristics,
all these tools have roots in Participatory Rural
Appraisals. The following list provides recently
developed selected tool sets that can be used by
the practitioners at local level to operationalize the
adaptive livelihood framework.
81
Other poverty
reduction strategies
Local
F
Global
K
S
F
Responsive governance
Socially responsible markets
Disaster resistant
community infrastructures
(physical/social)
Collective
interest/Community
institutions
N
H
Strong asset base
National
Enabling Environment
Common Foundation:
Adaptive livelihoods
Reduced vulnerability
Increased resilience and adaptive capacity
OVERALL GOAL: POVERTY REDUCTION
Adaptive livelihoods framework
Advocacy to create the enabling
environment for sustainable livelihoods
Build the asset base of asset-less
Protect and strengthen livelihood assets
Diversify livelihood options
Adaptive livelihood strategies for
practitioners
1. Community-Based Risk Screening Tool – Adaptation and Livelihoods (CRiSTAL)
Who developed it?
International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), Swiss Foundation for Development and
International Cooperation (Intercooperation), Stockholm Environment Institute – United States (SEI-US),
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)
What is it?
CRiSTAL is a decision support tool developed on the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) model and
the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework (SLF). The tool can be used in hard copy format or in Microsoft
Excel TM. The user inputs information to answer four ‘framing questions’ which describe the climate
context, the livelihood context, the impacts of project activities on livelihood resources, and how project
activities can be adjusted to reduce vulnerability and enhance adaptive capacity (Intercooperation, et al.,
2009).
CRiSTAL aims to provide a logical, user-friendly process to help users better understand the links between
climate-related risks, people’s livelihoods, and project activities. Specifically, CRiSTAL is intended to help
project planners and managers to:
•
Systematically understand the links between local livelihoods and climate;
•
Assess a project’s impact on livelihood resources important to adaptation; and
•
Devise adjustments that improve a project’s impact on livelihood resources important to adaptation.
Where can I find out more?
http://www.cristaltool.org/
2. Climate change and Environmental Degradation Risk and Adaptation assessment (CEDRA)
Who developed it?
Tearfund
What is it?
CEDRA is more a toolkit of information generation and decision making tools than a single tool.
It comprises six basic steps which help practitioners to assess environmental hazards and choose
appropriate adaptation options (Tearfund, 2009).
•
Identify climatic and environmental hazards from scientific and community sources
•
Prioritize hazards
•
Select appropriate adaptation options
•
Decide what to do if risks to existing projects are unmanageable
•
Consider new projects and project locations
•
Continual review
Like the ALF, CEDRA spans the whole process from hazard identification through to project design, but it
does not consider the enabling environment – all decisions are made based on hazard assessments.
Where can I find out more?
http://tilz.tearfund.org/Topics/Environmental+Sustainability/CEDRA.htm
82
South Asia Disaster Report 2010
3. Climate Vulnerability and Capacity Analysis (CVCA)
Who developed it?
Care International
What is it?
The CVCA provides a framework for analyzing vulnerability and capacity to adapt to climate change at
the community level. Rather than a single tool, it comprises several. Recognizing that local actors must
drive their own future, the CVCA prioritises local knowledge on climate risks and adaptation strategies in
the data gathering and analysis process (Daze, et al., 2009).
The main objectives of the CVCA are to:
•
Analyze vulnerability to climate change and adaptive capacity at the community level
•
Combine community knowledge and scientific data to yield greater understanding about local
impacts of climate change
Where can I find out more?
http://www.careclimatechange.org/cvca
4. Participatory Climate Risk Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment (PCR-VCA)
Who developed it?
Practical Action
What is it?
Participatory Climate Risk Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment provides a set of tools that can be used
in assessing the climate risk, capacity and vulnerability of communities and their asset base, coping
strategies and their effectiveness, and the enabling environment. The tool set has been tested and is
being used in Practical Action’s projects since early 2010 (Practical Action, 2010c).
Where can I find out more?
http://duryognivaran.org/documents/Tools_for_the_ALF.pdf
83
5.3 Tools for Step 1: Assessing the community’s overall risk context
This section attempts to extract the different tools from various tool sets developed by different organizations
that are directly relevant to the operationalizing of the ALF.
1. Disaster Prioritization Matrix
Who developed it?
Practical Action
What is it?
The Disaster Prioritization Matrix of Practical Action can be used to stimulate the participatory
information generation process and also to understand the community’s perceptions of various types of
disasters they encounter. The matrix provides the current perception of the community on the severity
and the frequency of different disasters. It can be used repeatedly to track changes in the community’s
disaster perceptions (Practical Action, 2010c).
Participants are asked to list all the disasters experienced in their locality. A scale from 1 to 5 is used to
mark the severity (S) and the frequency (F) of the different disasters, with 1 as the lowest score and 5 as
the highest. Scores for each disaster type are obtained by multiplying the marks given for severity and
frequency (F x S). These scores are then used to rank disasters, allowing priorities to be identified and
giving focus to DRR and adaptive livelihood generation strategies.
Severity
(S)
Frequency
(F)
Score
(S x F)
Rank
Accidents
2
3
6
4
Tidal Waves/High Waves
4
5
20
3
Cyclones
5
1
5
5
Flood
5
5
25
1
Ethnic Conflicts
1
1
1
6
Thunder
1
1
1
6
Drought
5
5
25
1
Disaster
Table 5.1: The result of the Participatory Disaster Prioritisation in Kalmadu GN division, Batticaloa district, Sri Lanka.
The outcome of this exercise can easily be cross-checked with available disaster data from governments
or other institutions e.g. Disaster Inventory Systems such as DesInventar, EM-DAT.
Disaster prioritisation matrix will help to create a dialogue among different groups and prioritise the
disasters for future interventions. It is important in a context where resources are limited.
Where can I find out more?
http://duryognivaran.org/documents/Tools_for_the_ALF.pdf
84
South Asia Disaster Report 2010
2. Participatory Hazard Mapping, Participatory 3D Modeling
Who developed it?
Many agencies are currently practicing Participatory Hazard Mapping and Participatory 3 D Modelling.
In this section approaches practised by Care International, Integrated Approaches to Participatory
Development (IAPAD), International Centre for Integrated Mountain (ICIMOD) and Practical Action are
discussed.
What is it?
Participatory hazard mapping is one of the most commonly used tools to identify specific areas,
infrastructures, houses and livelihood assets exposed to various climate-induced hazards. Traditionally,
it is a basic part of the DRR toolkit, but it is important to link the use of this tool with discussions on
the trends and changes in climate-related disasters. A representative cross-section of the community
including elders, youth, women and children is engaged in the process. Participatory hazard mapping
is described in a step by step process in Care International’s CVCA (tool 3 under 5.2 above) (Daze, et al.,
2009).
Participatory 3D modeling tool takes participatory hazard mapping to a new level. In principle the same
as 2D hazard mapping, it is a novel and engaging tool designed to support community discussions,
problem analysis and decision making, primarily about resource use and land tenure. According
to ICIMOD, the tangible and scaled information derived from participatory 3D modeling is easily
understood by all, and is a valuable way to combine more technical geographical conceptions of space
(from GIS practitioners for example) with communities’ mental maps and indigenous spatial knowledge.
Conventional DRR planning conducts hazard mapping exercises once during the project cycle. However,
the increased climate variability combined with the limitations of current climate change predictions
forces development practitioners to conduct more frequent and periodic participatory hazard mapping
exercises to understand the changes in disaster risks and vulnerability.
Participatory Geographic Information System (PGIS) is the result of a spontaneous merger of
Participatory Learning and Action (PLA) methods with Geographical Information Technology & Systems
(PGIT&S). PGIS practice is based on using geo-spatial information management tools ranging from
sketch maps, Participatory 3D Models (P3DM), aerial photographs, satellite imagery, Global Positioning
Systems (GPS) and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to compose peoples’ spatial knowledge in the
forms of virtual or physical, 2 or 3 dimensional maps. These are used as interactive vehicles for discussion,
information exchange, analysis and as support in advocacy and decision making (Rambaldi, et al., 2010).
Where can I find out more?
http://www.careclimatechange.org/cvca
http://www.iapad.org/participatory_p3dm.htm
http://duryognivaran.org/documents/Tools_for_the_ALF.pdf
85
3. Disaster Trend Analysis and Coping Strategies Analysis
Who developed it?
Many individuals and organizations have been involved in tracking the history of disasters in their region
of interest. Diverse organizations involved in development have used disaster trend analysis as a PRA tool
over the past three decades. Through PCR-VCA of Practical Action (2010c) and CVCA of CARE (Daze, et al.,
2009) the tool has been adapted to use in identifying increased climate risk.
What is it?
Disaster trend analysis is also known as historical timeline analysis. This is carried out mostly with a group
of senior citizens in the village who have thorough knowledge of the past disasters faced by the village.
This information largely depends on the experiences and memories of the local people and the ability of
the facilitator to help them to recall their experiences. Triangulation of data findings is recommended to
help increase accuracy, for example by comparing the information with official statistics.
Practical Action’s PCR-VCA incorporates livelihood trends and coping strategy patterns into the disaster
trend matrix, yielding a useful timeline of climatic challenges faced and how communities have reacted
and coped with them so far. This can inform the development of new adaptive strategies in the face of
emerging climate threats.
Time period
(year)
Livelihoods
Climate challenges
(e.g. paddy farming, (e.g. increased floods,
animal husbandry,
long dry spells,
fishing, forestry)
increased salinity)
Coping strategies –
measures taken to face
the climate induced
challenges (e.g. switched to
traditional varieties,
changes in
practices, abandoning
livelihood activities,
changing to new livelihood
generation methods)
Table 5.2: Livelihood trends, environmental challenges and coping strategies matrix.
The participatory exercise is carried out with those engaged in livelihoods and with senior citizens
who have considerable experience on the history of agricultural practices of the village. It has been
noted that only a few entrepreneurial farmers test innovations in cropping and agronomy practices. It
is important to identify these farmers and engage with them for this exercise in order to learn about
different adaptation approaches that worked or failed in the community. Although they have limited
access to new knowledge as discussed in Chapter 3, women often use different strategies to cope up
with changing climate. These coping strategies of women frequently go unnoticed. Participatory Coping
Strategy matrix provides an opportunity to identify these actions among different communities.
Where can I find out more?
http://www.careclimatechange.org/cvca
http://duryognivaran.org/documents/Tools_for_the_ALF.pdf
86
South Asia Disaster Report 2010
4. Seasonal Calendar
Who developed it?
Calendars describing timing of crop planting, harvesting and other agricultural activities have existed
for millennia. More recently, many organizations, including the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO,
1994) and IISD (Duraiappah, et al., 2005), have described and/or used seasonal calendars as a PRA tool.
CVCA (Daze, et al., 2009) and PCR-VCA (Practical Action, 2010c) provide the information regarding how
the tool can be used in identifying the climate vulnerability.
What is it?
The seasonal calendar is used to identify when various seasonal changes, environmental hazards, climatic
stresses, and community events occur throughout the year. A scale from one to ten is commonly used to
indicate the degree, severity or extent of the change.
Agricultural livelihood activities are intimately related to seasonal changes. These are largely depending
on the seasonality of rains, dry spells and other environment dynamics. A discussion related to the
observed seasonal changes of the environment and the changed practices of the livelihoods is helpful
in revealing the awareness of the community on the changing environment and the actions they have
taken to cope up with changes.
Women have specific roles in different livelihoods. Incorporating the gender disaggregated information
into the seasonal calendar is important to capture the gender based roles and responsibilities of the
livelihoods and how those get affected due to climate change.
Where can I find out more?
http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2005/economics_participatory_approaches.pdf
http://www.fao.org/docrep/W8016E/w8016e01.htm
http://www.careclimatechange.org/cvca
5.4 Tools for Step 2: Assessing livelihood assets
After assessing the overall risk context of the community, the existing livelihood asset base and the
vulnerability to or capacity to cope with climate induced risks should be investigated. It is important to
remember that communities are highly heterogeneous, and intra-community power relations can result in
unequal access and control of livelihood assets.
1. Participatory Livelihood Assets Assessment Framework
Who developed it?
The use of the asset pentagon to represent the human, social, natural, physical and financial assets
required for a sustainable livelihood was developed by the Department for International Development
(DFID) in the 1990s. Since then, the Sustainable Livelihood Framework developed by DFID has been used
and modified by organizations such as Duryog Nivaran/Practical Action and various researchers around
the world, as the livelihood based approach has evolved.
What is it?
When used as a participatory research tool, Practical Action’s Participatory Livelihood Assets Assessment
Framework matrix is filled out with different livelihood groups in the community. This matrix is adopted
from a framework developed by B. O. Elasha et al., (2005). Each of the six livelihood assets are assessed
on four dimensions – productivity, sustainability, equity and risks – using a ranking from 1 to 5 for each
87
indicator. An index for each livelihood asset is then created by averaging the results for all four dimensions.
The overall findings can be communicated using the familiar regular pentagon asset diagram, which
weights all assets equally. Knowledge assets can separately be viewed in the diagram with circles of
different sizes (see chapter 4).
Previous chapters highlighted the importance of accessible, appropriate and accurate knowledge for a
successful, adaptive livelihood. For this reason, the ALF suggests the addition of Knowledge as a sixth and
core dimension to the five assets model of the SLF (detailed in Chapter 4).
In addition to yielding an assessment of the community’s asset base for practitioners, use in the field has
shown that participatory livelihood assets assessment framework also stimulates independent discussion
among the community on productivity, sustainability, risks and equity of their livelihood asset base.
Participants have given feedback saying that the use of the participatory livelihood assets assessment
framework has stimulated producer groups to think more creatively about how livelihood assets can be
effectively used.
An example matrix is provided below, but it is important to remember that the criteria must be customized
based on the livelihood group and other socioeconomic factors of the producer group – every community
is unique!
Asset
Natural
Score
=
(a+b+c+d)/4
Human
Score
=
(a+b+c+d)/4
Financial
Dimension
Productivity
(efficiency and
effectiveness)
Rank
a = (1 – 5)
Sustainability
Over-use by different groups
b = (1 – 5)
Current practice and its implications on the asset
Equity
Accessibility by different subgroups of the
c = (1 – 5)
community (different genders, social groups etc)
Risk/ Stress
How observed climate changes (e.g. increased
rainfall or dry spell) affect the asset
How development in the area affects the asset
d = (1 – 5)
Productivity
Availability and quality of health services and
information
a = (1 – 5)
Sustainability
Balanced nutrient uptake
Outmigration of labour force
Impact of disasters on lives
Equity
Accessibility and affordability for public health
services and information
Equity in access to minimum nutrient
requirements
Risk
Pressure on household food security
Out migration of labour force
Impact of disasters on lives
Productivity
Score
=
(a+b+c+d)/4
88
Criteria
Quality of the natural assets (e.g. land, water,
climatic conditions, biodiversity etc.)
Ability to absorb climate stresses
Production potential
Availability and quality of savings
Liquidity of savings
Availability of financial services
Household income level, degree of
diversification
b = (1 – 5)
c = (1 – 5)
d = (1 – 5)
a = (1 – 5)
Sustainability
Stability of income generation activities
Safety of savings
Sustainability of financial services
Equity
Accessibility of financial services and credit for
different subgroups of the community
c = (1 – 5)
Risk
Pressure on savings due to disasters
d = (1 – 5)
South Asia Disaster Report 2010
b = (1 – 5)
Comments
Physical
Score
=
(a+b+c+d)/4
Social
Score
=
(a+b+c+d)/4
Productivity
Quality and quantity of materials, seeds stocks,
livestock etc.
Availability of the community infrastructures
a = (1 – 5)
Sustainability
Availability of maintenance systems for commu- b = (1 – 5)
nity infrastructures
Government intervention in maintaining the
infrastructures
Equity
Access of different groups of the society (gender,
c = (1 – 5)
social groups etc) to community infrastructure
Risk
Pressure on seed stocks, livestock and other
physical assets due to climate induced risks
Productivity
Availability of the community institutions
Cohesiveness of the producer groups
Access to government institutions and market
d = (1 – 5)
a = (1 – 5)
Sustainability
Availability of support from external agencies to b = (1 – 5)
build the community institutions
Leadership and management skills
Equity
Access of different groups of the society (gender,
c = (1 – 5)
social groups etc) to community institutions and
decision making processes
Risk
Pressure on social groups due to outmigration
Pressure due to poor governance
Knowledge Productivity
Score
=
(a+b+c+d)/4
Availability and quality the information
Attitudes of the community
Availability of the traditional knowledge and
skills on coping strategies
Ability of the community to synthesise and use
outside knowledge with the traditional knowledge for the improvement of the livelihoods
Knowledge and skills for effective and efficient
use of other five assets
d = (1 – 5)
a = (1 – 5)
Sustainability
Government intervention in providing the
information
Equity
Access of different groups (gender, social groups
c = (1 – 5)
etc) to education, information and knowledge
Risk
Loss of knowledge due to out migration and loss d = (1 – 5)
of lives of the members of the society
b = (1 – 5)
Human
Natural
Physical
Social
Financial
Figure 5.2: An example of how scores for the different assets can be represented. The score for the Knowledge asset is represented
by the size of the central circle
89
5.5 Tools for Step 3: Assessing the enabling environment
1. Venn diagram
Who developed it?
Originally conceived by British philosopher and logician John Venn in the 1800s, its use has expanded
into many diverse fields, ranging from mathematics to management. Use by development agencies and
organisations, and internationally is well accepted.
What is it?
In the development context, a Venn diagram is commonly used to assess the institutional support
available for communities. Almost all agencies use the same format of the tool as originally proposed in
PRA. As suggested in the CVCA Handbook of CARE International (Daze, et al., 2009), Venn diagram can be
used to :
•
“understand which institutions are most important to communities;
•
analyze engagement of different groups in local planning processes; and
•
evaluate access to services and availability of social safety nets.”
It is important to facilitate producer groups’ understanding of the enabling environment around
their livelihoods. This includes the policy, market actors, support services and extension services and
community institutions which rural communities often lack information about
Where can I find out more?
http://www.careclimatechange.org
2. Participatory Market Mapping
Who developed it?
Practical Action
What is it?
The participatory market mapping exercise is a part of the Participatory Market System Development
approach of Practical Action (Mike and Griffith, 2005). Participatory market mapping recognizes that the
market system of any product is highly complex in nature, and the tool suggests the conceptual division
of the market system into three broad levels for ease of execution. These are:
•
Market chain: the actors who own the product as it moves from primary producers to final
consumers, including farmers, intermediaries, processors, exporters, wholesalers and retailers;
•
Input/Service providers: the inputs and business/extension services that support the chains’
operations, including fertiliser and tool sellers, micro-financiers, banks, transporters, business
advisors, agricultural research institutions, packaging designers and cooperatives providing health or
education services; and
•
Business environment: the infrastructure, policies, institutions and processes that shape the market
environment, including roads, soil quality, water sources, telecommunications, agricultural policies,
market trends, business ethics, transparency, accountability and business organisations who
influence regional or national governments.
Each level can be fleshed out with the participation of actors involved in one or several of the three
levels.
90
South Asia Disaster Report 2010
Business Environment
Tsunami
Development Projects
Divisional/District
Administration
Inefficiency of
local government
Constitution of Lagoon
Management Committees
is not in practice
Inefficiency in
irrigation department
Tourist Hotels
Inefficiency and bureaucracy of
District Fisheries Extension Office
Inefficiency in National Aquaculture
Development Authority (NAQDA)
Seasonal production of the lagoon
Market Chain
Gill net
Fishermen
Fish kraal
fishermen
Cast net
fishermen
Migratory
fishermen
Small Scale Food
Sellers
Small scale
traders
Tourist Hotels &
Guest House
Large scale
traders
Customer
Local
Tourists
Foreign
Tourist
Catering
Services
Fish vendors
(on bicycle)
Supermarkets
Lone line
fishermen
Fisheries
Corporation
Hull panna
fishermen
Foreign
Markets
Exporters
Business Environment
Fishing Gear
Products
Credit Facilities
Storage Facilities
Waste Management
Technical Knowledge Quality Control
Institutional Coordination
Lagoon Water Management
Services of Fisheries Corporation
Fish-kraal Materials
Services of National Aquaculture Development Authority
Fingering
Hatchery
Figure 5.3: Fisheries market map for Rekawa lagoon, Sri Lanka
91
The tool has particular utility as part of the ALF, since the enabling environment of a particular livelihood
sector encompasses both service providers and the business environment. The broadness of the business
environment category means that it can also be used to identify the climate induced stresses to the value
chain of the producer groups.
As experienced by Practical Action, the market map concept provides a useful theoretical framework to
design various initiatives. Its great advantage is that it has the potential to promote dialogue, reflection,
awareness, understanding and systemic thinking not just amongst primary producers, but all actors in
the complex market web – even those higher up the market chain and those who influence the business
environment.
Where can I find out more?
http://practicalaction.org/?id=mapping_the_market
5.6 Step 4: Developing Adaptive
Livelihood Strategies
Once the overall risk of the community, capacity
& vulnerability of livelihood asset base and
the strength and weaknesses of the enabling
environment are assessed, appropriate adaptive
livelihood strategies are built that eventually
lead to building the adaptive capacity of the
communities. This has been explained in Chapter 4.
Development agencies have the choice in their
programmes of development, CCA, livelihood
92
South Asia Disaster Report 2010
development or DRR, to target the livelihoods
using the entry point of the asset base, the
enabling governance environment or both,
engaging the tools and process suggested above.
The application of the approach so far has been
limited, although the results the application has
shown has been encouraging. Development
organizations and practitioners are encouraged to
practice this in their own programmes of work and
develop it further.
Chapter 6
Recommendations
for policy makers
and planners
93
T
he upcoming 4th AMCDRR in October 2010
in Korea is expected to reiterate the linkages
between climate change and disaster risk and
reaffirm disaster risk reduction as a development
issue. Held every two years, the Asian Ministerial
Conferences on Disaster Risk Reduction have
provided valuable opportunities for key regional
stakeholders to reaffirm commitments to
implementing the Hyogo Framework for Action,
to tackle key issues and exchange experiences
and expertise at a practical level. Despite positive
developments in both policy and practice, massive
challenges remain. Asia and the Pacific still suffer
from the worst damages from disasters. Both the
frequency and scale of natural hazards are on the
increase, as are the damages that result. Climate
change is already adding yet another dimension to
disaster risk reduction which the region urgently
needs to find ways to address. Adopting the
theme “Disaster Risk Reduction for Climate Change
Adaptation”, the 4th AMCDRR will place emphasis
on the overlaps between DRR and climate change
adaptation; on how to ensure that the region has
access to technologies and approaches for DRR and
adaptation, and on the integration of DRR and CCA
into development for green growth.
This 2010 South Asia Disaster Report – Changing
Climates, Impeding Risks and Emerging
Perspectives is to be presented to Ministers at the
4th AMCDRR, to support the regional initiative
on devising policy approaches and practical ways
forward to integrate CCA with regional DRR efforts.
6.1 Greening Growth
In 2005, the 5th Ministerial Conference on
Environment & Development got Asia and the
Pacific thinking about and pledging to growth
through low-carbon, green technologies and
processes. The ‘green growth’ approach adopted at
the 5th MCED seeks synergy between environment
and economy, to harmonize economic growth with
environmental sustainability improving the ecoefficiency of economic growth.
South Asia is expected to show impressive growth
rates in the next few decades and the hope is
that green growth strategies will guide nations
away from destructive patterns of development: rewarding ‘green’ behavior in which environmental
concerns are taken into account in all decision
making levels; minimizing future and further
environmental damage, and indirectly reducing
development induced disaster risk. Ecological
efficiency is embedded within green growth and
is expected to assist in promoting growth that
94
South Asia Disaster Report 2010
favors ecological management. Eco taxation
and incentives are expected to work as policy
instruments. Life cycle assessments and carbon
footprint can be used as tools for measurement
that will help put concepts in to practice. Learning
from other economies such as South Korea,
China, Singapore and Japan that have taken
green development seriously on board, is also an
important component.
Since the 2005 commitments there have been
some policy initiatives (See Chapter 4, sections 4.2.2
and 4.2.3). However little clarity has evolved on the
practical implications of such policy shifts needed
to see a transformation in the region’s growth.
Fundamentally, green growth has to secure
livelihoods of large numbers of poor in the region.
At the same time as protecting the environment,
green growth has to tackle the inequitable human
development and poverty that is rampant in the
region and now well understood as a fundamental
challenge to disaster risk reduction and climate
change adaptation. As yet, however, green
growth is vague on both DRR and CAA priorities.
Policy planning regimes need to work towards
a new paradigm that integrates DRR and CCA
with development from national to local levels to
reduce poverty and vulnerability, strengthening
livelihoods and assets and increasing resilience to
all disasters. National climate change adaptation
programs will have to be streamlined with disaster
risk reduction plans to become an integral part of
a holistic development that promotes ‘no-regrets’,
low-risk, equitable development and poverty
alleviation.
Building on prior commitments made, the 4th
AMCDRR is expected to outline specific, timebound initiatives to set such development in
motion. Short-term, two-year targets are expected
to include national and local level development
plans that integrate climate change adaptation,
to include the development of hazard profiles to
be used by development planners in land use and
physical planning, particularly in rapidly expanding
urban areas; making increased resources available
for inclusive development, training, sharing of
technical expertise on climate change adaptation,
and promoting demonstration projects across
countries. Longer term, five-year priorities are
expected to focus on integrating CCA with DRR and
mainstreaming into development processes for
green growth across countries– allocating budget
lines, developing financing mechanisms, increasing
investments, and strengthening capacities of local
governments in regulating, monitoring adherence
to standards and implementing risk reduction
planning. It is important that South Asian ministers
and policy makers be part of this plan. Practical
options and experience on how to include DRR and
CCA must be shared to build DRR expertise across
government sectors, ministries and agencies, and
then used to convince national and decentralized
development planning and budgetary allocation
processes. Ultimately local governments are
needed on board to ensure that adaptive capacities
of communities in their jurisdiction are built.
Successful response to the current and future
challenges posed by climate change necessitates
the mainstreaming of both DRR and adaptation
through all aspects of policy making, especially
when planning for poverty reduction. Both DRR
and adaptive planning require transformational
change in current governance practices.
6.2 Framework for a Adaptation
The Adaptive Livelihoods Framework presented in
this report (Chapter 4, section 4.4) is a livelihoodcentered approach to building adaptive capacity
that includes building/strengthening the
livelihood-asset base and creating an enabling
environment to eventually lead to sustainable
livelihoods for poverty reduction. The ALF has
the capability of incorporating DRR and CCA,
identifying the specific vulnerabilities of nature
dependent livelihoods, and recognizing the
essential features of responsive governance that
can be used by practitioners to build livelihoods
and adaptive capacities of the poor. Establishing
responsive policies, social responsible markets,
disaster resistant social and physical infrastructures
and collective community initiatives are all part
of creating an enabling environment, essential in
order that adaptive livelihoods can be built.
Decentralized disaster risk reduction is accepted
as a good way forward to ensure DRR through
development. Given the aspects of uncertainty
that climate change brings to disaster risk
assessment, all levels of management will have
less control over DRR. Decentralized development
and governance not only make even more sense
under these circumstances, but will become
unavoidable. National or centralized plans for
adaptation strategies will only yield limited results
in finding solutions to reducing micro level risks.
Local Governments will need to take on more
responsibilities and DDRM provides an approach
for local DRM (governance). Facilitating local
development through decentralized systems, that
can better monitor climate variation at local levels,
and learn to interpret with knowledge gained,
is the most effective way to complement macro
policy and planning initiatives. It is essential
therefore to put decentralized governance to
practice. The ALF captures the multiple issues
that need to be taken into consideration in
development planning at decentralized, local
level. Toolkits presented in Chapter 5 show how
to operationalize the ALF in order to build the
adaptive capacities of vulnerable groups and
reduce poverty.
6.3 Governance
Vulnerability to climate change can only be
addressed through innovative thinking and
constant learning within cycles of short time
spans such as a year, or an agricultural season.
Aggravated situations of disaster and vulnerability
not only make governments unpopular, they
can also lead to nasty conflicts that in time may
become additional burdens to both governments
and suffering communities. Current governance
mechanisms in South Asia have gained a reputation
for being bureaucratic, corrupt and ineffective.
This has to change. The importance of ensuring
good governance in development and disaster
risk reduction activities at all levels has been
acknowledged by South Asian leaders (in Colombo
at the Policy Dialogue in 2006, at the 2nd Asian
Ministerial Conference on DRR, in Delhi in 2007, and
again at the 3rd AMCDRR in Kuala Lumpur in 2008).
Governments will have to change their attitudes to
become proactive and to provide leadership as we
run out of comfortable options.
6.4 Technology
Green growth will depend on technologies being
available. Green technologies should be inclusive
and democratic in access to bring about change
in all sectors, promote green employment and
jobs, and reduce vulnerability including of the
most marginalized in society such as women
and disabled people. This process requires
acquisition of the right skills and attitudes as well as
empowerment.
Despite the large numbers of poor in South Asia,
there is little attention in research and development
across sectors to develop technologies targeting
poor people. Poor and marginalized people either
have to cope with technologies that are not totally
suitable for them or do without. The commercial
sector rarely invests in such technologies due to
various reasons that contribute to commercial risk.
In South Asia, the public sector should have a role
to focus research on the needs of the majority who
are the poor as well as highly marginalized groups
95
to ensure they have adequate options to mitigate
and reduce increasing disaster risk.
It is expected that more than 50 “green products”
will be developed and presented ahead of climate
negotiations in Cancun in 2010. The producers of
these products anticipate preferential treatment
to promote them, such as low taxes, subsidies
and insurance. South Asia too must put in place
policies that recognize, reward, and provide
similar incentives for green technologies. Such
policy initiates are essential in order to motivate
and promote more local innovation and help
effective sharing of local technical and knowledge
systems that are proven to work at local levels. In
a region where the majority of people are poor,
governments need to devote serious attention to
doing this if they are to have adequate options
available for pursuing a green growth agenda.
Green technologies should build on people’s
technologies and knowledge systems and take
on board how people face disasters and their
coping logic. Looking inwards and learning from
local, traditional, culturally acceptable and holistic
lifestyles that protect human development, dignity
and the environment will be useful as countries
prepare for a low-carbon future. It is essential to
seek, develop, adopt and share technologies that
are environmentally sound, to avoid taking the
path of the dominant development trajectory,
but instead facilitate a transition to a modern, low
carbon society.
6.5 Financing adaptation
Most countries in the region are dependent on
international development partners through
bilateral development assistance and multilateral
financial support. If the region is to seek growth
with low risk to disaster through low carbon
pathways, conditionality of development aid
currently based on market expansion will also need
to change - towards accepting inclusive and socially
preferable development. Measurement of growth
targets will have to be revised and different targets
promoted based on, for example, carbon emissions
and vulnerability to disaster risk. To date, it is still
difficult to access the resources essential to green
growth. It is important that South Asian ministers
and officials negotiating on behalf of governments
lobby for this individually and collectively.
There are number of social, financial and policy
instruments that are available as well as targeted
national schemes that can be used for promoting
green development proactively. Greater awareness
96
South Asia Disaster Report 2010
needs to be created on such schemes and
adequate awareness and guidance is needed to
promote ecofriendly and ecologically preferable
products and services.
With respect to technology, there are number of
green technologies which have already proven
their worth in the context of eco efficiency and
reducing disaster risk and vulnerability, both at
community level and commercial levels. At the
same time, financing institutions claim that they
are waiting for green investment opportunities
with few opportunities that attract their interest. It
seems that somehow the two ends are struggling
to meet. Investor confidence combined with
consumer acceptance and confidence may be an
issue. Governments need to step in to strengthen
producer, consumer and investor confidence.
Testing some of these technologies through
the greening of public sector procurement and
through government facilitated disaster mitigation
and risk reduction projects could be a good way of
providing some support.
As climate change discourse gains ground, shifts
in attitudes on exploitation of natural resources
towards natural resource management are
happening. Natural capital and eco system
services are terminology that have come about
to explain the role of nature in economic
development and growth. While mechanisms such
as CDM are available to encourage big polluters
to implement emission-reduction projects in
developing countries, there are comparatively few
or no mechanisms that work for those who want
investment support to start or expand green or non
polluting enterprises. This is especially true at the
small, medium and micro-scale where bargaining
power is low. The cost-benefits of local, community
management of resources and infrastructure
needs to be understood and factored in decision
making. Poor and marginalized people should not
only be benefiting by DRR impacts resulting from
natural resource management, but should be able
play a role in managing and accessing ecosystems
services (ESS) that they are often heavily dependent
on.
It is also important that decision makers and
governments in using mechanisms understand full
implications for communities and civil society in the
short and long run. For example, REDD (Reducing
Emission from Degradation and Deforestation) may
make funding available for reforestation, but also
means restrictions for community access which
makes such schemes socially unattractive. While
protecting forests will reduce the vulnerability
of people to disaster risks, people may become
economically more vulnerable. Therefore, decisions
on such investments need to be considered very
carefully before entering in to them.
Risk sharing and risk transfer mechanisms for poor
or inclusive of poor are needed including providing
social protection, and strengthening existing
schemes to include reasonable compensation,
insurance and other forms of assistance to the
poorest and most at-risk segments of society.
Social protection could help poor people to buffer
themselves against changing hazard profile and
increase their capacity to adapt. Governments
have to play a key role in the introduction of
such systems. Social protection programs in the
form of social assistance, social insurance and
market regulations can help people reduce their
vulnerability by ensuring basic levels of lifestyle,
consumption and investment in productive
livelihoods.
6.6 Learning and building on experience
There is a lot of interest in the type of technologies
and knowledge systems that can move us towards
sustainable development and there is much that
South Asian nations can learn from each other as
well as from other regions to support adaptation
and transfer. It is important that governments
in South Asia endeavor to make use of this
opportunity to link into systems for learning that
work.
As countries prepare for a low-carbon future,
looking inward at culturally acceptable options,
and seeking models that are built on learning
from traditional and holistic lifestyles that ensure
human development, dignity and environmental
protection need to be made mandatory.
In this context, practical examples and options
that have been tested and work may be built
on as starting points. By focusing on people’s
existing assets, knowledge, physical, social etc., by
recognizing that communities are heterogeneous
and include highly marginalized groups such as
women and people with disabilities, and by looking
at the multitude of local systems, institutions and
structures relevant to people’s livelihoods, the ALF
provides an approach and set of practical tools that
can help ensure that development interventions
are inclusive and make sense locally.
6.7 Awareness and Attitudes
Community and civil society in South Asia
needs to become a driving force in shifting gear
towards a greener path. Information for changing
attitudes of the large consumer base in South
Asia to avoid products that increase disaster
risk and vulnerability should be spread widely.
Governments and NGOs have a crucial role to play
in doing this with a conscious national political
mandate backing it up.
Attitude change in consumers can start with
education and be supported through marketing
campaigns. Current directions within marketing
do not provide much competitive edge or space
for genuinely better products if it does not have
a reasonable marketing budget. Given the
seriousness of the matter, regulators should put
restrictions on marketing campaigns that promote
products and services with a high ecological
footprint. Marketing campaigns should be made
to have environmental disclosure such as health
warnings that are compulsory for certain products.
Banning or limiting advertising of products and
services that increase climate and disaster risk
could be impractical under current circumstances
as most carbon pathways of production and
services have yet to shift in the right direction.
However, simple comparable systems (e.g. carbon
emission /unit) and mandatory labeling of carbon
footprint could help eco efficient products and
services to be rewarded through increased
consumer preferences and making them more
competitive.
Such measures are needed to underpin a social
transformation, moving away from self-centered
and back to community-centered societies. This
is not alien to traditional South Asian societies.
Development induced disasters are often caused
by externalities with the most vulnerable having
little to do with increasing vulnerability and risk.
Working towards societies that put the needs
of others in the centre and move away from
individualism has a role is changing this scenario.
6.8 Externalities
As the South Asia Disaster Report of 2008
emphasized, our current development model
has not delivered poverty alleviation and social
exclusion and neither has it managed to halt
environmental degradation. Growth irrespective of
being green has limits and therefore will not lead
to sustainable development. Green development
should not be about painting the same systems
in green, but a step towards a real change. Green
economies need to provide opportunities for poor
and marginalized people, making them partners of
green growth. Eco recovery therefore should not
97
be designed to reboot economies so that market
led development and economies can continue in
a similar manner, but it should be about a total
transformation where social and economic value
systems guide us towards a more equitable and
sustainable world.
•
It is also important that current industry and
service providers who are smart and powerful
are not allowed to manipulate policies and
systems that are put in place to facilitate green
development. Already some of the polluting
sectors such as coal and cement are making
a lot of effort to portray themselves as green
industries. While initiatives taken to reduce
pollution are appreciated, there should be
a way to minimize some of these industries,
mainly multi nationals who have significantly
contributed to create this problem.
•
Provide social protection including social
assistance, compensation, social insurance,
market regulation and other forms of
assistance to the poorest and most at-risk
segments of society. Such measures help to
ensure a basic standard of living, consumption
and investment in productive livelihoods, and
help poor people to buffer themselves against
changing hazard profiles, thus increasing their
adaptive capacity.
6.9 Collective Action
Collectively we need to work on:
Justice
•
Place additional pressure on Northern
countries to agree to legally binding targets
on emission reductions based on the latest
science to prevent catastrophic climate
change.
•
Communicate to Northern countries that
adaptation funding is not a question of aid,
but a matter of compensation for damages
and prevention of worse future impacts. All
developing countries should be supported
financially and technologically to develop
strategies for reducing emissions in a way that
does not impede on their human development
goals or poverty reduction targets. Least
developed countries that have submitted
NAPAs expected external financing from global
funds to implement their prioritized actions. To
date, very few of these concrete actions have
received any funding for implementation.
•
•
98
Ensure an information democracy where
people could easily access credible information
on climate change impacts, risks, coping
strategies and financing avenues from an
authorized national entity. Collect and provide
information for climate change and disaster
risk to support local planning and community
adaptation.
Recognize the limits of natural resources
and Eco System Services (ESS) will also lead
to the need for setting limits within green
development. Goals of green growth should be
about growth for poor and poverty reduction.
Therefore, when restrictions are imposed it
should not compromise poverty reduction.
This means imposing restrictions on lifestyle
products and services (which is responsible
for substantial carbon emissions or luxury
emissions) and relaxing and encouraging
investment targeted at changing living
conditions and reducing vulnerability of poor.
South Asia Disaster Report 2010
Governance
•
Policy planning regimes need to work towards
the new paradigm that integrates DRR/CCA
and development in order to reduce poverty
and vulnerability - increasing resilience to
all disasters by integrating DRR/CCA into
development processes from national to local
levels while strengthening livelihoods and
assets. ‘
•
Create capacity, provide recognition and
ownership to motivate and change attitudes of
local government to become better and better
at handling disaster risk and vulnerability
increase that climate change brings.
•
Strengthen the role of local governments
to ensure that the DRR/CCA is addressed in
local development planning and build their
capacity to collect, interpret and respond to
vulnerability, disaster risk and CC related data,
including its uncertainties.
Technology, know-how and financial capacity
•
Provide human, financial, technical resources
and services to support local adaptation. This
could take the form of allocating financial
resources to climate sensitive infrastructure,
offering education and skills training through
extension programs and projects, assisting
with the transfer and uptake of appropriate
technologies, introduction of government
facilitated disaster mitigation and risk reduction
projects etc.
•
•
Strengthen networks between all stakeholders
to ensure CC/hazard information that is close
to the lives and livelihoods of communities is
available at local level and enable communities
to feed in local knowledge and on-going
research.
Increase the capacity among community
to access, interpret and use information
in everyday decision making. Knowledge
management and sharing takes on a new
dimension of importance as cycles of learning
become crucial to build adaptive capacity and
make informed decisions by communities and
planners. Reviews and negative experience
will have to be given equal value and shared
within shorter periods of time for it to be
of a practical use to people who have to
constantly make and change decisions based
on changing weather patterns. It is important
to understand the different and essential role
that knowledge networks at all levels play in
delivering sustainable development and DRR in
the context of changing climate.
•
Develop and transfer/scale up ecologically
efficient technology, including people friendly
technologies.
•
Skills development of stakeholders including
local governments (and of the work force for
green production and services provided by
commercial sectors)
•
Facilitate markets that are equitable and socially
responsible.
•
Set up institutions to facilitate all above.
99
100
South Asia Disaster Report 2010
References
Absolute Astronomy (2010) Global Warming Controversy, Absolute Astronomy.com. [online] http://www.
absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Global_warming_controversy [accessed 14 October 2010].
ActionAid (2005) People-Centered Governance: reducing disaster poor and excluded people, an ActionAid and
Ayuda en Acción policy briefing for the World Conference on Disaster Reduction, Japan, January 18-22, 2005,
Action Aid [online] www.actionaid.org/docs/people_centred_governance.pdf [accessed 19 October 2010].
ActionAid and IDS (2007) We know what we need: South Asian women speak out on climate change adaptation,
Insititute of Development Studies (IDS)/ Action Aid, UK. [online] http://www.actionaid.org/assets/pdf/
ActionAid%20%20IDS%20Report%20_We%20know%20what%20we%20need.pdf [accessed 5 October 2010].
ADB (Asian Development Bank) (2006) Guide and Reference Book on Environmental Assessment and
Environmental Safeguards Requirements, ADB [online] http://www.adb.org/Documents/ETESP/2007/
Environmental-Guide-02.pdf [accessed 14 October 2010].
Agrawal, A. (2008) The Role of Local Institutions in Adaptation to Climate Change, prepared for the Social
Dimensions of Climate Change, Social Development Department, The World Bank, Washington DC. [online]
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTSOCIALDEVELOPMENT/Resources/updated_SDCCWorkingPaper_
LocalInstitutions.pdf [accessed 05 October 2010].
Agrawal, A., McSweeney, C., Perrin, N. (2008) The Social Dimensions of Climate Change, Community Driven
Development, The Social Dimensions of Climate Change, No. 113, World Bank [online] http://siteresources.
worldbank.org/EXTSOCIALDEVELOPMENT/Resources/244362-1164107274725/3182370-1164201144397/
Local_Institutions-Climate_Change_Adaptation_note113.pdf [accessed 18 October 2010].
Agrawala S., Kramer, A. M., Prudent-Richard G., Sainsbury M. (2010) Incorporating Climate Change Impacts and
Adaptation in Environmental Impact Assessments: Opportunities and Challenges, OECD Environmental Working
Paper No. 24, OECD Publishing, © OECD. doi: 10.1787/5km959r3jcmw-en [online] http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/
docserver/download/fulltext/5km959r3jcmw.pdf?expires=1293100966&id=0000&accname=guest&checksum
=8AF0A655640646BA6A26D0939B785D25 [accessed 18 October 2010].
American Geological Institute (2009) Survey: Scientists agree human-induced global warming is real.
Published: Monday, January 19, 2009 - 16:30 [online] http://www.agiweb.org/ [accessed 12 October 2010]
Angus, S.D., Parris, B., Hassani-M.B. (2009) Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation in Bangladesh: An agentbased approach, The Modelling and Simulation Society of Australia and New Zealand Inc. [online] http://www.
mssanz.org.au/modsim09/G4/angus.pdf [accessed 7 October 2010].
Ariyabandu, M.M. and Bhatti, A. (2005) Livelihood Centred Approach to Disaster Management: A Policy Framework
for South Asia, ITDG South Asia and Rural Development Policy Institute, Colombo, Sri Lanka /Islamabad,
Pakistan.
Babel, M. and Wahid, S. (2008) Vulnerability Assessment of Freshwater Resources to Environmental Change, UNEP.
[online] www.roap.unep.org/pub/southasia_report.pdf [accessed 8 October 2010].
Bairoch, P. and Kozul-Wright, R. (1996) Globalization Myths: Some historical reflections on integration,
industrialization and growth in the world economy, UNCTAD, Switzerland.
Bajracharya, S.R. (2010) Glacial Lake Outburst Floods Risk reduction Activities in Nepal, ICIMOD, Kathmandu,
Nepal. [online] http://geoportal.icimod.org/Publication/Files/15bf260e-8f19-46dc-95df-df523ce3916b.pdf
[accessed 19 October 2010].
BBC (2007) Bangladesh Toll More Than 2,000, BBC News [online] (Page last updated at 00:27 GMT, Sunday, 18
November 2007) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7099497.stm [accessed 12 October 2010].
101
BBC (2009a) Half of India Affected by Drought, BBC News. [online] (Page last updated at 05:45 GMT, Thursday, 20
August 2009 06:45 UK) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8211022.stm [accessed 19 October 2010].
BBC (2009b) India Drought ‘Worst since 1972’, BBC News. [online] (Page last updated at 11:25 GMT, Wednesday,
30 September 2009 12:25 UK) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8282503.stm [accessed 20 October 2010].
Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., Davis, I., and Wisner, B. (1994) At Risk: Natural hazards, people’s vulnerability, and
disasters, Routledge, London EC4P4EE [online] http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=QnviwGoT7
9AC&oi=fnd&pg=PA3&dq=Blaikie+et+al.,+1994,+At+Risk:+Natural+Hazards,+People%E2%80%99s+Vulne
rability,+and+Disasters.+London:+Routledge&ots=X3X1wJNZHK&sig=SGtrK_CiFHk_nC97FoPh8XPks0c#v
=onepage&q=Blaikie%20et%20al.%2C%201994%2C%20At%20Risk%3A%20Natural%20Hazards%2C%20
People%E2%80%99s%20Vulnerability%2C%20and%20Disasters.%20London%3A%20Routledge&f=false
[accessed 16 September 2010].
Blue Marble (2010) Climate Skeptics, Blue Marble, Dublin, Ireland. [online] http://www.bluemarble4us.com/
page09.html [accessed 14 October 2010].
Byravan, S. and Rajan, S. C. (2008) The Social Impacts of Climate Change in South Asia, [online] Available at SSRN:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1129346
CIFOR (The Centre for International Forestry Research) (2008) Climate Impacts on Forests Risk Impoverishing
Millions, Destroying Biodiversity, and Exacerbating Greenhouse Gas Emissions, CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia. (online)
http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/publications/pdf_files/media/CIFORMediaRelease-2008_11_28.pdf [accessed 20
October 2010].
Climate frontlines (2008) Project profiles, UNESCO. [online] http://climatefrontlines.org/en-GB/node/554
[accessed 7 October 2010].
Cruz, R.V., Harasawa, H., Lal, M., Wu, S., Anokhin, Y., Punsalmaa, B., Honda, Y., Jafari, M., C. Li, N. Huu Ninh, (2007)
Asia Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC [online] http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/
assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4-wg2-chapter10.pdf [accessed 8 October 2010].
Curran, S., Kumar, A., Lutz, W., Williams, M. (2002) Interactions between Coastal and Marine Ecosystems and
Human Population Systems: perspectives on how consumption mediates this interaction, JSTOR. [online] http://
www.jstor.org/stable/4315251 [accessed 19 October 2010].
Damania, R. (2008) Climate Change: Why is South Asia vulnerable, World Bank, Washington DC. In: United
Nations, Climate Change Conference in Poznan, Poland, 1-12 December. [online] http://web.worldbank.org/
WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/SOUTHASIAEXT/0,,contentMDK:21991827~menuPK:2246552~pagePK:286510
6~piPK:2865128~theSitePK:223547,00.html [accessed 28 September 2010].
Daze, A., Ambrose, K., Ehrhart, C. (2009) Climate Vulnerability and Capacity Analysis, CARE International. [online]
http://www.careclimatechange.org/cvca/CARE_CVCAHandbook.pdf [accessed 18 September 2010].
De Schutter, O. (2009) The Right to Food and the Political Economy of Hunger, FAO. Twenty-sixth McDougall
Memorial Lecture, Opening of the Thirty-Sixth Session of the FAO Conference, 18 November 2009, Rome.
[online] http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/food/docs/McDougall18November2009.pdf [accessed 28
September 2010].
DFID (Department for International Development) (1999–2005) Sustainable Livelihoods Guidance Sheets, DFID,
London, UK. [online] http://www.livelihoods.org/info/info_guidancesheets.html [accessed 12 September
2010].
DFID (Department for International Development) (2005) Disaster Risk Reduction: a development concern, UNDP.
[online] http://www.undp.org.cu/crmi/docs/dfid-drrdev-td-2005-en.pdf [accessed 14 October 2010].
Dickson, D. (2010) Two Cultures But one Message for Climate Change, Science and Development Network,
UK. [online] http://www.scidev.net/en/editorials/two-cultures-but-one-message-for-climate-change.html
[accessed 14 October 2010].
102
South Asia Disaster Report 2010
DPA (2010) US rejects Claims of Falsified Climate Science, Hindustantimes, HT Media House, India. [online] http://
www.hindustantimes.com/US-rejects-claims-of-falsified-climate-science/Article1-579770.aspx [accessed 14
October 2010].
Duraiappah, A.K., Roddy, P., Parry, J. (2005) Have Participatory Approaches Increased Capabilities? International
Institute for Sustainable Development, Manitoba Canada. [online] http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2005/economics_
participatory_approaches.pdf [accessed 04 October 2010].
Duryog Nivaran (2006) South Asia Disaster Report 2005: Tackling the Tides and Tremors, Duryog Nivaran
Secretariat, Rural Development Policy Institute and Practical Action – South Asia, Islamabad, Pakistan /
Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Duryog Nivaran (2008a) South Asia Disaster Report 2008: Disaster and Development in South Asia: Connects and
Disconnects, Duryog Nivaran Secretariat, Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Duryog Nivaran (2008b) Decentralized Disaster Risk Management Training, Duryog Nivaran [online] http://
duryognivaran.org/ddrmt.php [accessed 15 October 2010].
Elasha, B.O., Elhassan, N.G., Ahmed, H.,Zakieldin, S. (2005) Sustainable Livelihood Approach for Assessing
Community Resilience to Climate Change: Case Studies from Sudan, AIACC Working Paper No.17. [online] http://
www.aiaccproject.org./working_papers/Working%20Papers/AIACC_WP_No017.pdf [accessed 4 October 2010].
EM-DAT: The OFDA/CRED International Disaster Database – www.emdat.be – Université Catholique de Louvain,
Brussels, Belgium.
Ensor, J. and Berger, R. (2009) Understanding Climate Change adaptation: Lessons from community-based
approaches, Practical Action Publishing, Rugby, UK.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations ) (n.d.) FAO Focus: Women and Food Security
[online] http://www.fao.org/FOCUS/E/Women/Sustin-e.htm [accessed 12 October 2010].
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations ) (1994) Land degradation in South Asia: Its
severity, causes and effects upon the people, World soil resources reports, FAO, Afghanistan. [online] http://www.
fao.org/docrep/V4360E/V4360E07.htm#Summary:%20the%20severity%20and%20extent%20of%20land%20
degradation [accessed 15 October 2010].
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations ) (1997), Participatory Survey Methods for
Gathering Information, FAO. [online] http://www.fao.org/docrep/W8016E/w8016e01.htm [accessed 04 October
2010].
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations ) (2008) Climate Change Adaptation and
Mitigation in the Food and Agriculture Sector, Technical background document from the expert consultation
held on 5 to 7 March 2008, FAO, Rome.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations ) (2010b) Pro-poor Livestock Policy Initiative:
South Asia, FAO [online] http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/programmes/en/pplpi/sasia.html [accessed 20
October 2010].
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations ) (2010a) Global rice production in 2009 Impaired
by Return of El Niño Conditions, FAO, Brussels. [online] Relief web http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/
db900SID/SKEA-85BD3U?OpenDocument (accessed 19 October 2010).
Gardiner (2009) From Industrialisation through Globalisation to Defragmentalisation, The club of Rome,
Winterthur (Canton Zurich), Switzerland. [online] http://www.clubofrome.org/eng/meetings/london_2009/
presentations/Barry_Gardiner_MP.pdf [accessed 10 October 2010].
Gautam, P. (2003) The Cost of Environmental Degradation, Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies [online] http://
www.ipcs.org/article/india/the-cost-of-environmental-degradation-1026.html [accessed 14 October 2010].
103
Giljum, S and Eisenmenger, N. (2003) North-South trade and the Distribution of Environmental Goods and
Burdens: a biophysical perspective, SERI Working papers, Sustainable Europe Research Institute (SERI), Vienna,
Austria. [online] http://web205.vbox-01.inode.at/Data/seri/publications/documents/SERI%20Working%20
Paper%202.pdf [accessed 5 October 2010].
GLM (The Global Language Monitor) (2010) Top Words of 2010, Global Language Monitor, Texas, USA. [online]
http://www.languagemonitor.com/?s=2005+political+buzz+words [accessed 14 October 2010]
Global Network of Civil Society Organizations for Disaster Reduction (2009) Clouds but little rain, Views
from the Frontline: A local perspective of progress towards implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Action,
Global Network of Civil Society Organisations for Disaster Reduction, Teddington, United Kingdom. [online]
Prevention web http://www.preventionweb.net/files/9822_9822VFLfullreport06091.pdf [accessed 21
September 2010].
GRAIN (2009) The International Food System and the Climate Crisis, Share the World’s Resources, London. N7
8UX, United Kingdom. [online] http://www.stwr.org/climate-change-environment/the-international-foodsystem-and-the-climate-crisis.html [accessed 28 September 2010].
Gulati, A. (2001) The Future of Agriculture in South Asia: W(h)ither the small farm, in Sustainable Food Security for
all by 2020, Bonn, Germany, 4-6 September 2001, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). [online]
http://conferences.ifpri.org/2020conference/PDF/summary_gulati.pdf [accessed 8 October 2010].
GWF (Global Warming Forecasts) (n.d.) Global Warming 2050 Climate Change 2050. [online] http://www.globalwarming-forecasts.com/2050-climate-change-global-warming-2050.php [accessed 15 October 2010].
Hallman, D.G. (2002) Globalization and Climate Change, World Council of Churches, Geneva 2, Switzerland.
[online] http://www.oikoumene.org/resources/documents/wcc-programmes/justice-diakonia-andresponsibility-for-creation/climate-change-water/globalization-and-climate-change.html [accessed 14
October 2010].
Harmeling, S. (2010) Global Climate Risk Index 2010, German Watch. [online] http://www.germanwatch.org/
klima/cri2010.pdf [accessed 19 October 2010].
Harrabin, R. (2010) How Climate Change Hits India’s poor, BBC. [online] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_
asia/6319921.stm [accessed 14 October 2010]
Hasan, A. (2010) Floods and After, Duryog Nivaran [online] http://duryognivaran.org/documents/Floods_and_
after.pdf [accessed 14 October 2010].
Helmer, M. and Hilhorst, D. (2006), Natural Disasters and Climate Change. Disasters, 30: 1–4. doi: 10.1111/j.14679523.2006.00302.x [online] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/disa.2006.30.issue-1/issuetoc [accessed
5 October 2010].
ICIMOD (International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development) (2009) Mountain Biodiversity and
Climate Change, ICIMOD publications, Kathmandu, Nepal. [online] http://books.icimod.org/index.php/search/
publication/613 [accessed 10 October 2010].
IFAD (International Fund for Agricultural Development) (2009) Climate Change Impacts, South Asia In: IFAD, Asia
and the Pacific annual performance review workshop, Bangkok, Thailand 1-4 March 2009. Rome, Italy. [online]
http://www.ifad.org/events/apr09/impact/south.pdf [accessed 8 October 2010].
Intercooperation, IISD (International Institute for Sustainable Development), IUCN (International Union for
Conservation of Nature), SEI (Stockholm Environment Institute) (2009) The CRiSTAL Tool: Community based risk
screening tool - adaptation and livelihoods, Version 4 Cristal, Switzerland. [online] http://www.cristaltool.org
[accessed 04 October 2010].
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (2007a) Climate Change 2007: impacts, adaptation and
vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change, Parry, M.L., Canziani, O.F., Palutikof, J.P., van der Linden P.J. and Hanson C.E. (Eds) Fourth
Assessment Report of the IPCC, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, USA.
104
South Asia Disaster Report 2010
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (2007b) Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change
2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’ IPCC [online] http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/
wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf [accessed 19 October 2010]
ISDR (2009a) Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction, United Nations, Geneva, Switzerland.
Ives, J.D., Shrestha, R.B., Mool, P.K. (2010) Formation of Glacial Lakes in the Hindu Kush-Himalayas and GLOF Risk
Assessment, International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development, Kathmandu, Nepal. [online] http://
books.icimod.org/uploads/tmp/icimod-formation_of_glacial_lakes_in_the_hindu_kush-himalayas_and_glof_
risk_assessment.pdf [accessed 11 October 2010].
Jabeen, N. (2007) Good or Good Enough Governance in South Asia: constraints and possibilities, Inaugural Address
as Professor to the Prince Claus Chair in Development and Equity 2006-2007, delivered on April 2, 2007 at
Utrecht University [online] http://www.princeclauschair.nl/userdata/download/30PCCJabeen070402.pdf
[accessed 15 10 2010].
Juneja, S. (2009) Disasters and Poverty: The risk nexus, a review of literature, Background Paper for the 2009 ISDR
Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction, UNISDR (United Nations International Strategy for
Disaster Reduction Secretariat), Geneva, Switzerland. [online] http://www.preventionweb.net/english/hyogo/
gar/background-papers/documents/Chap4/Juneja-disasters-and-poverty-the-risk-nexus.doc [accessed 14
October 2010].
Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., Mastruzzi, M. (2010) The Worldwide Governance Indicators: Methodology and
analytical issue, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 5430. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/
abstract=1682130 [accessed 15 October 2010].
Kelegama, S. (2001) Poverty Situation and Policy in Sri Lanka, in Asia and Pacific Forum on Poverty: Reforming
Policies and Institutions for Poverty Reduction, Asian Development Bank, Manila, 5-9 February 2001. [online]
http://www.adb.org/poverty/forum/pdf/Kelegama.pdf [accessed 12 October 2010].
Kelkar, U. and Bhadwal, S. (2007) South Asian Regional Study on Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation:
Implications for human development, Human Development Report Office OCCASIONAL PAPER, Human
Development Report 2007/2008, UNDP. [online] http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2007-2008/papers/
kelkar_ulka%20and%20bhadwal_suruchi.pdf [accessed 7 October 2010].
Lashary, A. (2010) Embankment Flood: The surging mighty Indus River requires a debate on water management
and flood protection, Duryog Nivaran [online] http://duryognivaran.org/documents/dn_09.09.pdf [accessed 16
October 2010].
Leopold, L. (2007) Globalization Is Fueling Global Warming, AlterNet. [online] http://www.alternet.org/
environment/71873/ [accessed 14 October 2010]
Livelihoods (2005) Critique of the Green Revolution, Livelihoods [online] http://www.livelihood.wur.nl/index.
php?id=44 [accessed 28 September 2010]
Lofdahl, C. L. (2002) Environmental Impacts of Globalization and Trade : A systems study, Massachusetts Institute
of technology, USA
London School of Economics, and Institute for Science, Innovation and Society, University of Oxford (2010) The
Hartwell Paper - A new direction for climate policy after the crash of 2009, University of Oxford. [online] http://
sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-2821-2010.15.pdf [accessed 12 October 2010]
Macchi, M., et al. (2008) Indigenous and Traditional Peoples and Climate Change, Issues Paper, IUCN. [online]
http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/indigenous_peoples_climate_change.pdf [accessed 5 October 2010]
Maverick (2010) Pakistan Plans Desertification Control Fund to Combat Climate Change, Maverick Pakistanis.com
[online] (posted in 17 June 2010, 7:19 pm) http://www.maverickpakistanis.com/?p=3739 [accessed 9 October
2010].
105
MHHDC (The Mahbub ul Haq Human Development Centre) (1999) Human Development in South Asia 1999:
the crisis of governance, Oxford University Press, Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP. [online] http://www.
mhhdc.org/reports/HDRSA%201999.pdf [accessed 10 October 2010].
Michel, D. and Pandya, A. (2010) Coastal Zone and Climate Change, The Henry L. Stimson Center, Washington,
DC. [online] http://www.stimson.org/images/uploads/research-pdfs/Coastal_Zones-Complete.pdf [accessed
20 October 2010].
Mike, A. and Griffith, A. (2005) Mapping the Market: A framework for rural enterprise development policy and
practice, Practical Action, Rugby, United Kingdom. [online] http://practicalaction.org/?id=mapping_the_
market [accessed 4 October 2010].
Ministry of Water Resources India (n.d.) Flood Prone Areas, Ministry of Water Resources, India [online] http://
mowr.gov.in/index3.asp?sslid=355&subsublinkid=359&langid=1 [accessed 7 October 2010].
Mitra, P. (2010) Flash floods in Leh : 150 people dead and more than 500 missing, 06 August, All Voices. [online]
http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/6457150-breaking-news-flash-floods-kill-60-people-in-kashmir
[accessed 15 October 2010].
MoE (Ministry of Environment), Government of Pakistan (2003) Pakistan’s Initial National Communication on
Climate Change, Ministry of Environment, Islamabad, Pakistan. [online] http://www.environment.gov.pk/pubpdf/Pak-inccc2003.pdf [accessed 10 October 2010].
MoEF (Ministry of Environment and Forests), Government of India (2004) India’s Initial National Communication
to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, IND/COM/1 B, Ministry of Environment and
Forests, New Delhi, India. [online] http://u-nfccc.int/resource/docs/natc/indnc1.pdf [accessed 10 October
2010].
New Age (2008) Faces of Change, a special issue on climate change, New Age. [online] 31 May http://www.
newagebd.com/2008/may/31/climatechange08/climatechange08.html [accessed 8 October 2010].
O’Brien, K. et al. (2008) Disaster Risk Reduction, Climate Change Adaptation and Human Security, Report prepared
for the Royal Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs by the Global Environmental Change and Human Security
(GECHS) Project, GECHS Report 2008:3. [online] http://www.gechs.org/downloads/GECHS_Report_3-08.pdf
[accessed 19 September 2010].
O’Hare, G. (2008) Cyclones in the Indian Ocean: Facts and figures, Science and Development Network [online]
http://www.scidev.net/en/south-asia/features/cyclones-in-the-indian-ocean-facts-and-figures.html [accessed
8 October 2010].
Oxfam GB (2009) Climate Change, Poverty and Environmental Crisis in the Disaster Prone areas of Pakistan,
Community Based Research, Oxfam GB, Pakistan Programme Office, Islamabad, Pakistan. [online] www.oxfam.
org.uk/.../climate_change/climate-change-poverty-pakistan.html [accessed 19 October 2010].
Pakistan Defence (2008) Is South Asia ready to Cope with Financial Contagion?, Pakistan Defence. [online] 19
October, http://www.defence.pk/forums/economy-development/15398-south-asia-ready-cope-financialcontagion.html [accessed 2 October 2010].
Panayotou, T. (2000) Globalization and Environment, CID Working Paper No. 53, Environment and Development
Paper No.1, Center for International Development at Harvard University. [online] http://www.hks.harvard.
edu/var/ezp_site/storage/fckeditor/file/pdfs/centers-programs/centers/cid/publications/faculty/wp/053.pdf
[accessed 5 October 2010].
Parkin, R.E. (2008) Invention, Technology, and the GI Bill, The Forum on Public Policy, USA. [online] http://www.
forumonpublicpolicy.com/summer08papers/archivesummer08/parkin.pdf [accessed 30 September 2010].
Pelling, M. (2007) Making Disaster Risk Reduction Work: The 2007 Provention Forum, Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania;
Hazards, Vulnerability and Risk Research Unit, King’s College London for Provention Consortium [online] http://
www.proventionconsortium.org/themes/default/pdfs/Forum07/Forum_2007_report.pdf [accessed 21 October
2010].
106
South Asia Disaster Report 2010
Pettengell, C. (2010) Climate Change Adaptation: Enabling people living in poverty to adapt, Oxfam GB, UK.
[online] http://www.oxfam.org.uk/resources/policy/climate_change/downloads/rr_climate_change_
adaptation_full_290410.pdf [accessed 15 October 2010].
Practical Action (2010a) Wellbeing, Technology Justice, and Sustainable Development: fighting poverty as if people
really mattered, internal narrative, Practical Action, Rugby, UK.
Practical Action (2010b) Hunger, Food and Agriculture: Responding to the ongoing challenges, Narrative on Food
and Agriculture, Practical Action, Rugby, UK.
Practical Action (2010c) Participatory Climate Risk Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment (PCR-VCA): Tools for
operationalizing the Adaptive Livelihood Framework, Practical Action, Colombo, Sri Lanka [online] Janathakshan.
net, http://janathakshan.com/tools-and-downloads/tools-for-alf/ [accessed 20 October 2010].
Priyadarshi, N. (2010) Global Warming Threats Agriculture- with special reference to India, American Chronicle,
ULTIO, LLC, CA, USA. [online] http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/120713 [accessed 14 October
2010]
Rai, G. (2009) Drought Situation in Tharparkar District of Sindh Pakistan, Indus Asia Online Journal (iaoj), Sindh.
[online] 18 July. http://iaoj.wordpress.com/2009/06/19/drought-situation-in-tharparkar-district-of-sindhpakistan/ [accessed 7 October 2010].
Rambaldi,G., et al. (2010) Participatory GIS, IAPAD (Integrated Approaches to Participatory development)
[online] http://www.iapad.org/participatory_gis.htm [accessed 04 October 2010].
Roberts, J. and Bradley, P. (2003) Globalization, Vulnerability to Climate Change, and Injustice, All Academic
Research, Oregon, USA. [online] http://www.allacademic.com/one/www/research/index.php?cmd=www_
search&offset=0&limit=5&multi_search_search_mode=publication&multi_search_publication_fulltext_
mod=fulltext&textfield_submit=true&search_module=multi_search&search=Search&search_field=title_
idx&fulltext_search=%3Cb%3EGlobalization%2C+Vulnerability+to+Climate+Change%2C+and+Injustice%3C
%2Fb%3E&PHPSESSID=9259f5449c9a039183afb93abd66dd89 [accessed 14 October 2010]
SAAM (South Asian Academy of Management) (2010) About South Asia, Kent, UK. [online] http://
southasianaom.org/?page_id=12 [accessed 15 October 2010].
Sachs, J. (2010) Globalization: In the Era of environmental crisis, International Trade Forum Issue 1/2010,
International Trade Centre UNCTAD/WTO, Geneva, Switzerland. [online] http://www.tradeforum.org/news/
fullstory.php/aid/1556/Globalization:_In_the_Era_of_Environmental_Crisis.html [accessed 30 September
2010].
SDMC (SAARC Disaster Management Centre) (2008) South Asia Disaster News - Weekly highlights, Issue No.48,
08 September 2008, SAARC [online] http://saarc-sdmc.nic.in/pdf/saarc_news/news48.pdf [accessed 19
October 2010].
Shiva, V. (2009a) Climate Change, Drought, Looming Food and Water Crisis, Deccan Herald, Bangalore, India.
[online] http://www.deccanherald.com/content/24517/climate-change-drought-looming-food.html [accessed
19 October 2010].
Shiva, V. (2009b) Climate Change, Drought and India’s Looming Food and Water Crisis, GM Watch, Norfolk, UK.
[online] http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/11418-vandana-shiva-replies-to-henry-miller
[accessed 30 September 2010]
Sreelatha, M. (2009) South Asia’s Largest Rivers Threatened, Warns UN, Science and Development Network
[online] http://www.scidev.net/en/news/south-asia-s-largest-rivers-threatened-warns-un.html [accessed 15
October 2010].
Tangtham, N. (2009) Climate Change and Foreseen Climate Change and Foreseen Effects and Implication for Asia
ppt prepared for the First Seminar on SELAMAT Sustainable Network, 25 November 2009, Bangkok, Thailand.
[online] http://www.selamat.net/Document%20Library/presentations_bangkok_2009/1-3-tangtham.pdf
[accessed 12 October 2010].
107
Tearfund (2009) Climate Change and Environmental Degradation Risk and Adaptation Assessment, Tearfund
[online] http://tilz.tearfund.org/Topics/Environmental+Sustainability/CEDRA.htm [accessed 04 October 2010].
The Huffington post (2009) Obama UN Climate Change Speech, The Huffington post. [online] http://www.
huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/22/obama-un-climate-change-s_n_294628.html [accessed 14 October 2010]
The Nation (2010) 59 Dead, Over 300 Injured in Leh Flash Floods, The Nation online, 6 August, 2010 [online]
http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Politics/06-Aug-2010/59-deadover-300-injured-in-Leh-flash-floods [accessed 15 October 2010].
UN (United Nations) (2007) Cyclone Sidr: Rapid Initial Assessment Report, United Nations, Bangladesh. [online]
http://www.cdmp.org.bd/cdmp_old/publications/Cyclone_Sidr_UN_Rapid_Initial_Assessment_Report.pdf
[accessed 14 October 2010].
UN ESCAP (2008) Economic and Social Survey of the Asia and Pacific, UNESCAP, New York.
UNAIDS (2006) The Delhi Declaration of Collaboration: Male sexual health and HIV in Asia and the Pacific
international consultations, 26th September 2006, New Delhi, India. [online] UNAIDS http://data.unaids.org/
pub/NotesForTheRecord/2006/20060927-delhi_declaration_en.pdf [accessed 18 October 2010].
UNDP (United Nations Development Programme) (2004) Reducing Disaster Risk- a challenge for development,
Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery, UNDP, New York. [online] www.undp.org/cpr/whats_new/rdr_
english.pdf [accessed 14 October 2010].
UNDP (United Nations Development Programme) (2007) Fighting Climate Change: Human solidarity in divided
world, Human Development Report 2007/2008, United Nations Development Programme, New York, USA.
[online] http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_20072008_EN_Complete.pdf [accessed 10 October 2010].
UNDP (United Nations Development Programme) (2008) ‘Human Development Report 2007/2008’, UNDP
[online] http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2007-2008/ [accessed 18 October 2010].
UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme) (1997) Natural Hazards, Chapter 1, Asia Pacific Environment
Outlook, UNEP EAP.AP, Thailand. [online] http://www.rrcap.unep.org/apeo/Chp1h-nathazards.html [accessed 8
October 2010].
UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme) (2009a) South Asia Environment Outlook, UNEP. [online] http://
www.roap.unep.org/publications/SAEO%202009.pdf [accessed 19 October 2010].
UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme) (2009b) UNEP/DCPI: Briefs Archive, The Environment In The
News, February 10 2009, UNEP. [online] www.unep.org/cpi/briefs/2009Feb10.doc [accessed 15 October 2010].
UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) (2008) Report of the Conference of
the Parties on its Thirteenth Session, held in Bali from 3 to 15 December 2007, Part Two: Action taken by the
Conference of the Parties at its Thirteenth Session, 1F4C CMCa/rCchP /22000087 /6/Add.1*, UNFCCC. [online]
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2007/cop13/eng/06a01.pdf#page=3 [accessed 21 October 2010].
UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) (2005) Nairobi Work Programme on
Impacts, Vulnerability and Adaptation to climate change (2005-2010), Understanding vulnerability, fostering
adaptation, UNFCCC [online] http://unfccc.int/adaptation/nairobi_work_programme/items/3633.php
[accessed 21 September 2010].
UNISDR (United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction) (2009b) Regional Synthesis Report
on Implementation of the HFA in Asia and Pacific 2007 – 2008/ 09, UNISDR [online] http://www.unisdr.org/
preventionweb/files/11776_HFAasia.pdf [accessed 14 October 2010].
V & A Programme (2009) Vulnerability and Adaptation Experiences from Rajasthan and Andhra Pradesh: Pasture
land development, SDC V & A programme, India. [online] www.swiss-cooperation.admin.ch/india//ressources/
resource_en_192485.pdf [accessed 7 October 2010].
108
South Asia Disaster Report 2010
Vasudeva, G. (n.d.) Environmental Security: A South Asian perspective, UNPAN [online] http://unpan1.un.org/
intradoc/groups/public/documents/apcity/unpan015801.pdf [accessed 14 October 2010].
Venton, P. and La Trobe, S. (2008) Linking Climate Change Adaptation and Disaster Risk Reduction, Tearfund,
UK. [online] http://www.tearfund.org/webdocs/Website/Campaigning/CCA_and_DRR_web.pdf [accessed 20
September 2010].
Waraich, O. (2010) Flood Recovery Could Push Pakistan to the Edge, Time online, 23 August. [online] http://www.
time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2012548,00.html#ixzz110R3oNeb [accessed 7 October 2010].
World Bank (2006) Managing Climate Risk: Integrating adaptation into World Bank Group operation’s, The World
Bank, Washington DC. [online] http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/
IB/2006/09/28/000090341_20060928112135/Rendered/PDF/374620Managing0Climate0Risk01PUBLIC1.pdf
[accessed 19 October 2010].
World Bank (2007) Environmental Degradation Threatens to Slow Pakistan’s Economic Growth, The World Bank,
New York. [online] http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/SOUTHASIAEXT/0,,contentMDK:
21459669~menuPK:158843~pagePK:2865106~piPK:2865128~theSitePK:223547,00.html [accessed 14 October
2010].
World Bank (2009a) South Asia: Shared Views on Development and Climate Change, The World Bank, Washington
DC.
World Bank (2009b) Kathmandu to Copenhagen: a regional climate change conference, The World Bank,
Washington DC. [online] http://beta.worldbank.org/climatechange/news/kathmandu-copenhagen-regionalclimate-change-conference [accessed 7 October 2010].
World Bank (2009c) The Regional Scene: South Asia’s climate vulnerability and contribution to greenhouse gas
emissions, The World Bank, Washington DC. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/SOUTHASIAEXT/Resources
[accessed 7 October 2010].
World Bank (2010) World Development Report 2010, Development and Climate Change: regional vulnerability to
climate change, The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank, Washington DC.
[online] www.worldbank.org/wdr2010 [accessed 19 October 2010].
WWF (World Wildlife Fund) (2008) Climate Witness: Anil Krishna Mistry, India, WWF, Gland, Switzerland. [online]
http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/aboutcc/problems/people_at_risk/personal_stories/witness_
stories/?uNewsID=147322 [accessed 10 October 2010].
WWF Nepal Program (2005) An Overview of Glaciers, Glacier Retreat, and Subsequent Impacts in Nepal, India
and China, Kathmandu, Nepal. [online] http://assets.panda.org/downloads/himalayaglaciersreport2005.pdf
[accessed 8 October 2010].
109
Annexes
Annex A Statistical Summary of Disasters in South Asia (from Dec. 2008-Sep.2010)
Dates: start date
end date
Country
Location
Disater Type
Disaster Sub Type Deaths
January 18 2009
Afghanistan
Saland region (Hindu
Kush ...
Mass Movement
Wet
Avalanche
10
32
March 25 2009May 24 2009
Afghanistan
Kach Guzar, Nasrat
Abad, ...
Flood
General Flood
39
60016
April 04 2009April 15 2009
Afghanistan
Daykundi, Kandahar,
Herat ...
Flood
Flash Flood
19
2500
April 17 2009
Afghanistan
Sherzad, Hesarak
(Nangarh ...
Earthquake
(seismic activity)
Earthquake
(ground shaking)
22
3309
August 14 2009
Afghanistan
Sherzad, Hesarak
(Nangarh ...
Earthquake
(seismic activity)
Earthquake
(ground shaking)
22
3309
September 03
2009
Afghanistan
Laghman province,
Alingar ...
Flood
General Flood
11
April 19 2009April 20 2009
Bangladesh
Banshkhali, Anowara,
Sita ...
Storm
Tropical cyclone
7
19209
May 25 2009- May
26 2009
Bangladesh
Khulna, Satkhira, Patuak
...
Storm
Tropical cyclone
190
3935341
July 03 2009- July
06 2009
Bangladesh
Near Habanganj
Flood
General Flood
6
500000
July 29 2009
Bangladesh
Dhaka, Comilla,
Rajshahi, ...
Flood
General Flood
10
July 2009- August
2009
Bangladesh
Drought
Drought
December 15
2009-January 31
2010
Bangladesh
Extreme
temperature
Cold wave
135
May 25 2009-May
26 2009
Bhutan
Storm
Tropical cyclone
12
September 21
2009
Bhutan
Mungaar, Tashingang
Earthquake
(seismic activity)
Earthquake
(ground shaking)
11
November 27
2008- December
04 2008
India
Tirivarur, Thoothukudi,
V ...
Flood
Flash Flood
December 2008Janauary 2009
India
Uttar Pradesh, Bihar,
Har ...
Extreme
temperature
Cold wave
70
January 2009October 2009
India
Uttar Pradesh
Epidemic
Viral Infectious
Diseases
311
1521
March 31 2009
India
Kendrapara district
(Oris ...
Storm
Local storm
15
9050
April 14 2009- July
26 2009
India
Orissa, West Bengal,
Biha ...
Extreme
temperature
Heat wave
May 11 2009
India
Uttar Pradesh
Storm
Local storm
32
23
110
Rajbari; Jessore;
Damurhu ...
South Asia Disaster Report 2010
Affected
50000
12
Dates: start date
end date
Country
Location
Disater Type
Disaster Sub Type Deaths
Affected
5100000
May 25 2009
India
Calcutta, Parganas,
Howra ...
Storm
Tropical cyclone
96
June 07 2009
India
Uttar Pradesh
Storm
Local storm
20
June 28 2009June 29 2009
India
Bihar, Jharkhand states
Storm
Local storm
35
July 29 2009
India
Delhi
Flood
Flash Flood
11
July 2009- August
2009
India
Uttar Pradesh, Madhya
Pra ...
Drought
Drought
July 2009September 2009
India
Bihar, Orissa, West Benga
Flood
...
General Flood
992
1886000
July 2009November 2009
India
Bihar, Orissa, West Benga
Flood
...
General Flood
992
1886000
August 08 2009
India
Pithoragarh district
(Utt ...
Mass Movement
Wet
Landslide
45
August 26 2009August 28 2009
India
Bihar, Darbhanga,
Purnia, ...
Flood
General Flood
52
September 03
2009
India
Mumbai
Mass Movement
Wet
Landslide
10
September 25
2009- October 12
2009
India
Belgaum, Gulbarga,
Bijapu ...
Flood
General Flood
300
October 09 2009
India
Jainta Hills district (Me ...
Flood
General Flood
20
November 03
2009- November
08 2009
India
TNilgiris, Coty, Coonoor
...
Flood
General Flood
70
November 11
2009- November
12 2009
India
Storm
Tropical cyclone
20
November 25 2009
India
Belgaum, Gulbarga,
Bijapu ...
Flood
General Flood
300
November 14 2009
Iran Islam
Rep
Bandar-e Abbas
(Hormozgan ...
Earthquake
(seismic activity)
Earthquake
(ground shaking)
May 01 2009August 23 2009
Nepal
Achham, Baitadi,
Bahjang, ...
Epidemic
Bacterial
Infectious
Diseases
314
July 26 2009July 28 2009
Nepal
Takdoo
Flood
General Flood
30
July 28 2009
Nepal
Sankhuwasabha district
Mass Movement
Wet
Landslide
10
October 04 2009October 12 2009
Nepal
Kanchanpur, Kailali,
Dade ...
Flood
General Flood
78
December 2009January 2010
Nepal
Saptari, Bara districts
Extreme
temperature
Cold wave
18
Flood
Flash Flood
14
10
12
2000000
8
2000000
269
58874
175027
April 14 2009
Pakistan
Mardan district (NorthWe ...
July 17 2009July 19 2009
Pakistan
Karachi
Flood
General Flood
52
70
August 15 2009August 17 2009
Pakistan
Ismalia, Kalu Khan,
Adina ...
Flood
Flash Flood
36
75000
111
Dates: start date
end date
Country
Location
January 2009November 18 2009
Sri Lanka
Kandy, Colombo,
Gampaha, ...
August 15 2009August 16 2009
Sri Lanka
November 21
2009- November
22 2009
December 14
2009- December
16 2009
Disater Type
Affected
Epidemic
Viral Infectious
Diseases
Vavuniya, Ratnapura,
Kalu ...
Flood
Flash Flood
20000
Sri Lanka
Colombo and surburbs
Flood
Flash Flood
60000
Sri Lanka
Batticaloa, Ampara
distri ...
Flood
Flash Flood
Created on: Sep-26-2010 Date Version: v12.07
Source: “EM-DAT: The OFDA/CRED International Disaster Database
www.emdat.be-Université Catholique de Lovian - Brussels - Belgium”
112
Disaster Sub Type Deaths
South Asia Disaster Report 2010
277
3
33856
300000
Annex B: Number of Deaths by Country and by Disaster Type
Number
of People
Killed
Afghanistan
Drought
Earthquake
(Seismic
Activity)
2009
Epidemic
Extreme
Temperature
22
2010
Bangladesh
2009
135
2010
Bhutan
2009
Flood
Storm
Total
69
91
70
70
16
197
348
77
11
88
12
23
218
2094
198
548
11
2010
India
2009
311
2010
Nepal
Pakistan
120
1445
350
2009
314
2010
19
18
108
440
102
102
19
2009
2010
Sri Lanka
23
2009
277
2010
33
Grand Total
921
623
23
3
280
20
20
1910
659
4146
Flood
Storm
Total
Created on: Sep-27-2010. Data version: v12.07
Source: “EM-DAT: The OFDA/CRED International Disaster Database
www.emdat.be - Université Catholique de Louvain - Brussels - Belgium”
Annex C: Number of Disasters Occurred by Country and by Disaster Type
Disaster
Drought
Occurrence
Afghanistan
Bangladesh
Earthquake
(Seismic
Activity)
2009
3
2010
2009
1
2010
Iran Islam
Rep
2009
Grand Total
2
6
2
2
4
1
2
6
15
3
5
1
1
1
1
6
2
1
1
2010
2009
1
2010
1
1
2
4
1
2009
Sri Lanka
1
2
2010
India
Pakistan
4
1
1
2010
2009
Nepal
Extreme
Temperature
1
2009
Bhutan
Epidemic
3
2010
3
1
2009
1
2010
2
3
4
5
1
3
4
1
1
23
15
52
Created on: Sep-28-2010. Data version: v12.07
Source: “EM-DAT: The OFDA/CRED International Disaster Database
www.emdat.be - Université Catholique de Louvain - Brussels - Belgium”
113
Annex D: Number of Disasters Occurred by Country
(from 2009 to Sep. 2010)
Country
Number
Annex E: Percentage of People Killed by Natural
Disaster Category: 2009 to Sep. 2010
Percentage (%)
Afghanistan
7
11.7
Bangladesh
10
16.7
Bhutan
2
3.3
India
23
38.3
Iran Islam Rep
1
1.7
Nepal
6
10
Pakistan
6
10
Sri Lanka
5
8.3
Total
60
100
Created on: Sep-28-2010. Data version: v12.07
Type
Number of
Deaths
Percentage
(%)
Geolophysical
(Including Tsunami)
33
0.8
Hydrometeorogical
3192
76.9
Biological
927
22.3
Total
4152
100
Created on : Sep-28-2010. Data Version: v12.07
Source: “EM-DAT: The OFDA/CRED International Disaster
Database
www.emdat.be - Université Catholique de Louvain - Brussels
- Belgium”
Source: “EM-DAT: The OFDA/CRED International Disaster
Database
www.emdat.be - Université Catholique de Louvain - Brussels
- Belgium”
Annex F: Top 6 Natural Disasters of the World (from
2009 to Sep. 2010)
Disaster
Country
Number
of
Deaths
Annex G: Worldwide Time & Natural Disasters
Occurrence (from 2000 to Sep. 2010)
Country
Natural Disaster Occurrenc
2000
528
2001
450
2002
506
2010 Earthquake (Seismic
Activitiy)
Haiti
222570
2010 Earthquake (Seismic
Activitiy)
China
People's Rep
2291
2003
420
2004
402
2009 Earthquake (Seismic
Activitiy)
Indonesia
1252
2005
487
2006
462
2009 Epidemic
Nigeria
1701
2007
450
2009 Flood
India
1445
2009 Storm
Philippines
1269
2008
376
2009
351
2010
151
Created on : Sep-29-2010. Data Version: v12.07
Source: “EM-DAT: The OFDA/CRED International Disaster
Database
Created on : Sep-29-2010. Data Version: v12.07
www.emdat.be - Université Catholique de Louvain - Brussels
- Belgium”
Source: “EM-DAT: The OFDA/CRED International Disaster
Database
www.emdat.be - Université Catholique de Louvain - Brussels
- Belgium”
114
South Asia Disaster Report 2010
Annex H: Worldwide Annual Reported Economic
Damages from Natural Disasters
(from 2000 to Sep. 2010)
USD
2000
Annex I: Countries Most Hit by Natural Disasters
(from 2009 to Sep. 2010)
Million USD
45,844,436
Country
Number of Events
45
China People's Rep
38
23
2001
27,049,439
27
India
2002
52,084,544
52
Philippines
30
2003
69,810,350
70
United States
23
10
2004
136,175,178
136
Mexico
2005
214,202,351
214
Indonesia
14
2006
34,104,949
34
Brazil
13
Bangladesh
10
2007
74,420,257
74
2008
190,548,541
190
Created on : Sep-29-2010. Data Version: v12.07
2009
42,909,540
42
2010
55,199,867
55
Source: “EM-DAT: The OFDA/CRED International Disaster
Database
www.emdat.be - Université Catholique de Louvain - Brussels
- Belgium”
Created on : Sep-29-2010. Data Version: v12.07
Source: “EM-DAT: The OFDA/CRED International Disaster
Database
www.emdat.be - Université Catholique de Louvain - Brussels
- Belgium”
Annex J: Worldwide Human Imapct by Disaster Types: Comparison between 2009 to Sep. 2010
People Affected
2009
People Killed
2010
2009
2010
Drought
68,469,873
1,402,000
Drought
2
0
Earthquake (Seismic
Activity)
3,085,776
5,363,653
Earthquake (Seismic
Activity)
1,815
225,493
498,986
33,374
Epidemic
4,768
1,312
Epidemic
829,106
0
Extreme Temperature
1,284
453
Flood
57,215,474
31,334,578
Flood
3,487
1,426
Storm
50,326,452
2,950,559
Storm
3,314
758
47,537
4,300
Volcano
0
0
10,169
0
Wildfire
190
0
180,483,373
41,088,464
14,860
229,442
Extreme Temperature
Volcano
Wildfire
Total
Total
Created on : Sep-29-2010. Data Version: v12.07
Source: “EM-DAT: The OFDA/CRED International Disaster Database
www.emdat.be - Université Catholique de Louvain - Brussels - Belgium”
115
Annex K: Worldwide Natural Disaster Occurrence by
Disaster Type: Comparison 2009 to Sep. 2010
2009
2010
Drought
15
9
Earthquake (Seismic Activity)
22
11
Epidemic
42
20
Extreme Temperature
24
7
Flood
150
69
Storm
87
31
Volcano
2
3
Wildfire
9
1
351
151
Total
Created on : Sep-30-2010. Data Version: v12.07
Source: “EM-DAT: The OFDA/CRED International Disaster
Database
www.emdat.be - Université Catholique de Louvain - Brussels
- Belgium”
116
South Asia Disaster Report 2010
This publication is printed on recycled paper