* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download South Asia Disaster Report 2010 UNISDR
Michael E. Mann wikipedia , lookup
Soon and Baliunas controversy wikipedia , lookup
Climatic Research Unit email controversy wikipedia , lookup
Global warming hiatus wikipedia , lookup
Heaven and Earth (book) wikipedia , lookup
Economics of climate change mitigation wikipedia , lookup
Global warming controversy wikipedia , lookup
Fred Singer wikipedia , lookup
German Climate Action Plan 2050 wikipedia , lookup
ExxonMobil climate change controversy wikipedia , lookup
General circulation model wikipedia , lookup
2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference wikipedia , lookup
Global warming wikipedia , lookup
Climate change denial wikipedia , lookup
Climate change feedback wikipedia , lookup
Climatic Research Unit documents wikipedia , lookup
Climate sensitivity wikipedia , lookup
Climate engineering wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming on human health wikipedia , lookup
Climate resilience wikipedia , lookup
Citizens' Climate Lobby wikipedia , lookup
Attribution of recent climate change wikipedia , lookup
Economics of global warming wikipedia , lookup
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change wikipedia , lookup
Politics of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Solar radiation management wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in Tuvalu wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in the United States wikipedia , lookup
Climate change and agriculture wikipedia , lookup
Media coverage of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Climate governance wikipedia , lookup
Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme wikipedia , lookup
Scientific opinion on climate change wikipedia , lookup
Climate change adaptation wikipedia , lookup
Public opinion on global warming wikipedia , lookup
Surveys of scientists' views on climate change wikipedia , lookup
Climate change, industry and society wikipedia , lookup
Climate change and poverty wikipedia , lookup
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