/var/lib/tomcat6/webapps/pdnadmin/data/documents/3405

Environmental Guidance

Note for Disaster Risk Reduction

Healthy Ecosystems for Human Security

About IUCN

IUCN, International Union for Conservation of Nature, helps the world find pragmatic solutions to our most pressing
environment and development challenges.

IUCN works on biodiversity, climate change, energy, human livelihoods and greening the world economy by
supporting scientific research, managing field projects all over the world, and bringing governments, NGOs, the UN
and companies together to develop policy, laws and best practice.

IUCN is the world’s oldest and largest global environmental organization, with more than 1,000 government and NGO
members and almost 11,000 volunteer experts in some 160 countries. IUCN’s work is supported by over 1,000 staff
in 60 offices and hundreds of partners in public, NGO and private sectors around the world.

www.iucn.org

IUCN’s Ecosystem Management Series

The  wellbeing  of  people  all  over  the  world  depends  on  the  various  good  and  services  provided  by  ecosystems,
including  food,  fuel,  construction  material,  clean  water  and  air,  and  protection  from  natural  hazards,  Ecosystems,
however, are under increasing pressure from unsustainable use and other threats including outright conversion. To
address this concern, IUCN promotes the sound management of ecosystems through the wider application of the
Ecosystem  Approach  -  a  strategy  for  the  integrated  management  of  land,  water  and  living  resources  that  places
human needs at its centre. The aim of the IUCN Ecosystem Management Series is to support best practice ecosystem
management, both at field and policy levels, to help realise IUCN’s vision of a just world that values and conserves
nature.

Acknowledgements

Prepared in collaboration with the UNISDR Partnership for Environment and Disaster Risk Reduction

This guidance note is based on the collective “wisdom” of published, unpublished documents and guidelines on
ecosystems,  environmental  management  and  disaster  risk  reduction.  We  expect  that  further  consultations  will
evolve into full guidelines with revised indicators in the upcoming year. We consider this “environmental guidance
note”  to  be  work  in  progress,  yet  based  on  a  wide  consultation  with  different  IUCN  programmes,  commission
members, technical experts and partnering organizations, notably with the UN/International Strategy for Disaster
Reduction (UNISDR) Partnership for Environment and Disaster Risk Reduction (PEDRR), which benefits from the
participation of the following organisations: Asian Disaster Preparedness Centre (ADPC), Global Fire Monitoring
Center (GFMC), International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), ProAct Network, Stockholm Environment
Institute  (SEI),  World  Wildlife  Fund  (WWF),  United  Nations  Environment  Programme  (UNEP),  United  Nations
University  –  Institute  for  Environment  and  Human  Security  (UNU-EHS).  We  would  like  to  thank  all  persons  who
have provided suggestions, ideas and critiques of this document, especially Ilan Kelman (CICERO, Norway), Brian
McAdoo  (Vassar  College,  U.S.),  Fabrice  Renaud  (UNU-EHS,  Germany),  Ali  Raza  Rizvi  (IUCN-ELG2,  Sri  Lanka),
Jonathan  Randall  (WWF),  Lorena  Aguilar  (IUCN),  Radhika  Murti  (IUCN)  and  Nina  Saalismaa  (ProAct  Network).
Special thanks to Glenn Dolcemascolo (UNISDR) and Carolin Schaerpf (UNISDR) for their support.

Karen Sudmeier-Rieux, IUCN Commission on Ecosystem Management
Neville Ash, IUCN Ecosystem Management Programme

The designation of geographical entities in this book and the presentation of the material, do not imply the
expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of IUCN concerning the legal status of any country, territory, or
area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.

The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of IUCN.

Published by:

IUCN, Gland, Switzerland

Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes is
authorized without prior permission from the copyright holder provided the source is
fully acknowledged.

Reproduction of this publication for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited
without prior written permission of the copyright holder.

Citation:

Sudmeier-Rieux, K. and N. Ash (2009) Environmental Guidance Note for Disaster Risk
Reduction: Healthy Ecosystems for Human Security. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN, iii + 34 pp.

ISBN:

978-2-8317-1164-5

Cover photos:

Front: Flooded village of Godadha, Bangladesh 2008 @Reuters/A. Biraj, 2008

Back: Post-tropical storm Stan, Mexico 2005 @ M. Calvo, IUCN-ORMA, 2005

Layout by:

100 Watt, St-Martin-Bellevue, France

Printed by:

Polygravia Arts Graphiques, Lausanne, Switzerland.

Available from:

IUCN Publications

rue Mauverney, 28

1196 Gland,

Switzerland

Tel. 0041 22 999 0000

Fax. 0041 22 999 0020

books@iucn.org

www.iucn.org/publications

A catalogue of IUCN publications is also available.

Printed on FSC paper.

Introduction: Human well-being,

healthy ecosystems and disasters

This note was developed to provide guidance on the benefits of and ways

to integrate

environmental concerns into disaster risk reduction strategies (DRR) at the local
and national levels. As recognised and outlined under the Hyogo Framework for Action
priority 4: “Reduce the Underlying Risk Factors”, healthy ecosystems and environmental
management are considered key actions in DRR. Although the field of disaster risk
management has evolved to recognize the need for addressing development issues for
reducing risk, the environmental dimension has not to date received adequate attention
and practical guidance.

The questions we would like to answer with this guidance note are:

• What are healthy ecosystems and ecosystem management?
• How can we integrate these environmental considerations into DRR?

The  rise  in  number  and  intensity  of  many  extreme  hydro-meteorological  events  is
increasingly recognized as being the result of global and regional climate change. More
broadly  and  importantly,  the  underlying  risk  factors  of  disasters  are  increasing:  more
people  are  living  in  vulnerable  areas,  such  as  low  lying  coastal  areas,  steep  hillsides,
flood plains, near cliffs, or in forested areas on the outskirts of cities – most often out
of  necessity,  but  sometimes  out  of  choice.  Environmental  degradation  is  reducing  the
capacity of ecosystems to meet the needs of people for food and other products, and
to  protect  them  from  hazards.  The  people  affected  by  reoccurring  disasters  are  often
the  most  dependent  on  natural  resources  for  their  livelihoods,  and  the  appropriate
management of ecosystems can play a critical role in their ability to prevent, cope with,
and recover from disasters.

Investments in sustainable ecosystem management or sound environmental
management can offer

cost-effective solutions to reducing community vulnerability

to disasters. Healthy ecosystems, such as intact forests, wetlands, mangroves, and
coral reefs are beneficial to local populations for the many

livelihood benefits and

products that they provide: firewood, clean water, fibres, medicine and food, while
acting as

natural buffers to hazard events for flood abatement, slope stabilization,

coastal protection and avalanche protection, in addition to other structural and
disaster preparedness measures. These natural buffers are often

less expensive to

install or maintain, and often more effective than physical engineering structures,
such as dykes, levees, or concrete walls. The limited effectiveness of some physical
engineering  approaches  has  been  dramatically  demonstrated  by  disasters  such  as
Hurricane Katrina in 2005 with the failure of the dyke system established to protect
New Orleans. As a result, dams are being torn down and wetlands are being restored
along  the  Mississippi  basin  to  provide  an  ecosystem-based  approach  to  DRR.  The
services  provided  by  ecosystems  are  not  an  additional  luxury,  but  rather  a  basic
necessity  to  disaster  risk  reduction.  We  support  shifting  disaster  risk  management
from  reaction  to  prevention  and  placing  sustainable  ecosystem  management  for
livelihoods at the center of disaster risk reduction strategies.

Balancing prevention

with reaction requires political will, donor willingness and new strategies, to which
we hope this guidance note contributes.

The benefits that people derive from ecosystems, or “ecosystem services” are often
categorised into four types:

Supporting services: these are overarching services necessary for the production of all
other ecosystem services such as production of biomass, nutrient cycling, water cycling
and carbon sequestration.

Provisioning services: these are the services we often consider as “ecosystem goods”
and products obtained from ecosystems to support livelihoods such as food, fibre, genetic
resources, medicines, fresh water.

Regulating services: these are the services that offer protection and otherwise regulate
the  environment  in  which  people  live,
such  as  flood  regulation,  water  filtration,
pollination,  erosion  control,  disease
regulation.

Cultural services: these are services
supporting spiritual values, aesthetic,
educational and recreational needs.

(Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005)

What are healthy ecosystems….?

Ecosystems contribute to reducing the risk
of  disasters  in  multiple  and  varied  ways.
Well-managed ecosystems can reduce the
impact  of  many  natural  hazards,  such  as
landslides, flooding, avalanches and storm
surges. The extent to which an ecosystem
will  buffer  against  extreme  events  will
depend  on  an  ecosystem’s  health  and  the
intensity of the event. Degraded ecosystems
can  sometimes  still  play  a  buffering  role,
although to a much lesser extent than fully
functioning ecosystems

Ecosystems  are  defined  as  dynamic
complexes  of  plants,  animals  and  other
living  communities  and  their  non-living

environment interacting as functional units (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005).
They are the basis of all life and livelihoods, and are systems upon which major industries
are based, such as agriculture, fisheries, timber and other extractive industries. The
range of goods and other benefits that people derive from ecosystems contributes to the
ability of people and their communities to withstand and recover from disasters. The term
“sustainable ecosystems” or

healthy ecosystems, implies that ecosystems are largely

intact and functioning, and that resource use, or demand for ecosystem services does not
exceed supply in consideration of future generations.

Healthy ecosystems are comprised of interacting, and often diverse plant, animal and
other species, and along with this species and underlying genetic diversity, constitute the
broader array of biodiversity.

“Biodiversity” is the combination of life forms and their

interactions with one another, and with the physical environment, which has made Earth
habitable for people. Ecosystems provide the basic necessities of life, offer protection
from natural disasters and disease, and are the foundation for human culture (Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment, 2005).

Shelburne Bay,Great Barrier Reef Heritage Area, Australia

According to the World Bank (2004), investments in preventive measures, including

in maintaining healthy ecosystems are seven-fold more cost effective than the

costs incurred by disasters.

BOX 1

Figure 1. Ecosystem services and human well-being (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005)

Degraded ecosystems reduce com-

munity resilience for sustainable

development as well as disaster

preparedness and recovery.

BOX 2

What are healthy ecosystems….?

CONSTITUENTS OF WELL-BEING

Security
• Personal safety

• Secure resource access

• Security from disasters

Basic material

for good life
• Adequate livelihoods

• Sufficient nutritious food

• Shelter

• Access to goods

Health
• Strength

• Feeling well

• Access to clean air

and water

Good social relations
• Social cohesion

• Mutual respect

• Ability to help others

Freedom of choice

Opportunity to be able to

achieve what

an individual values

doing and being

ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

Supporting
• Nutrient cycling
• Soil formation
• Primary production
• …

LIFE ON EARTH - BIODIVERSITY

Provisioning
• Food
• Fresh water
• Wood and Fiber
• Fuel
• …

Regulating
• Climate regulation
• Flood regulation
• Disease regulation
• Water purification
• …

Cultural
• Aesthetic
• Spiritual
• Educational
• Recreational
• …

arrow’s color
Potentiel for mediation
by socioeconomic
factors

Low
Medium
High

arrow’s width
Intensity of linkages between
ecosystem services and
human well-being

Low
Medium
High

© J Thorsell 2001

Five reasons why ecosystems matter to disaster risk reduction:

•

Human well-being depends on ecosystems that enable people to withstand, cope
with, and recover from disasters. Disaster-resilient communities, especially in rural
areas, are based on healthy ecosystems and diverse livelihoods;

•

Ecosystems, such as wetlands, forests, and coastal systems can provide cost-
effective natural buffers against hazard events and the impacts of climate change.
According to the World Bank (2004), investments in preventive measures - including
in maintaining healthy ecosystems is seven-fold more cost effective than the costs
incurred by disasters;

•

There are clear links between resource degradation and disaster risk. Degraded
ecosystems are unable to provide the benefits that help communities to reduce their
vulnerability to disasters. In addition, many disasters are caused by reoccurring
conflicts, which are based on competition for scarce natural resources – and once a
conflict has started it can also lead to additional environmental degradation;

•

Healthy and diverse ecosystems are more robust to extreme weather events.
Disasters can affect biodiversity through the spread of invasive species, mass species
mortality, loss of habitat and poorly designed post disaster clean-up efforts. This may
have a negative impact on progress toward achieving the objectives of the Convention
on Biological Diversity

and Millennium Development Goals;

•

Ecosystem degradation reduces the ability of natural systems to sequester
carbon, exacerbating climate change impacted disasters.

The  Millennium  Ecosystem  Assessment
(MA), a five-year international assessment
initiative, clearly demonstrated the strong
and  varied  links  between  human  well-
being, human security, livelihoods, health
and  intangible  benefits  such  as  equality
and  freedom  of  choice,  with  ecosystem
services.  The  MA  also  highlighted  that
ecosystem  degradation  is  undermining
this  link  due  to  a  number  of  human
activities, mainly:

over-exploitation of resources or higher
demand for ecosystem goods than can
be sustained, such as overfishing;

land use and land cover changes,

or changes to habitats due to conversion to croplands and urbanization;
-

climate change impacts are affecting ecosystems and exacerbating environmental
degradation;

invasive alien species are introduced species that compete and encroach vigorously
upon native species, with the potential to degrade ecosystem services and cause
severe economic damage;

pollution, from chemical waste and agricultural inputs has severely degraded many
ecosystem services, and continues to act as a major driver of change.

(modified from Miththapala, 2008)

Ecosystem  degradation  and  loss  have  led  to  serious  impacts  on  human  well-being:
these include reduced availability of goods and services to local communities, increased
spread of diseases and reduced economic opportunities. This, in turn, is leading to loss
of livelihoods, and reduced food security (Miththapala, 2008.)

Healthy  ecosystems  both  reduce  vulnerability  to  hazards  by  supporting  livelihoods,  while
acting  as  physical  buffers  to  reduce  the  impact  of  hazard  events.    As  such,  this  “natural
infrastructure” is in many cases equally effective in reducing the impact of hazard events, and
are often less expensive than human-built infrastructure.  Disasters also hamper development
goals, and yet few governments, donors and development organizations adopt a precautionary
approach in the design and management of projects, and fewer still recognize the role and
value of ecosystem management for reducing disaster risk (UNEP, 2007).

Environmental Guidance Note for Disaster Risk Reduction

The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) has three objectives, of the conservation of biodiversity, the sustainable

use of its components, and the equitable sharing of benefits from the use of biodiversity. In 2002, the CBD adopted the
2010 Biodiversity Target, to reduce the rate of loss of biodiversity by 2010. The 2010 target was subsequently endorsed
at the World Summit on Sustainable Development, and has been incorporated into the Millennium Development
Goals, as a target under MDG7 on environmental sustainability.

Pakistan earthquake and landslides, 2007

© J. Nessi, 2007

….and why do they matter to

disaster risk management?

Examples and values of protective ecosystem services:

Regulating flood waters

Wetlands and peatlands provide storage
space for flood waters, and there is
growing

evidence

that

maintaining

vegetation and associated soil structure in
local watersheds regulates the flow of rain
water  into  streams  and  rivers,  although
this  service  can  be  overwhelmed  with
large-scale  rainfall  and  flooding  events.
Sri Lanka’s Muturajawla marsh is a coastal peat bog covering over 3,100 hectares and
an important part of local flood control as the marsh buffers and regulates flood water
discharge into the sea.  The annual value of this service was estimated at more than
$US 5 million, or $US 1,750 per hectare (Emerton and Bos, 2004).  Riparian and coastal
vegetation  also  stabilizes  shorelines  and  riverbanks.  The  costs  of  losing  vegetation
along  riverbanks  has  been  estimated  at  up  to  $US  425  per  meter  of  bank  (Ramsar
Convention on Wetlands, 2005).

Reducing landslides, avalanches and rockfalls

In  addition  to  providing  improved  aesthetics  over  engineering  structures,  forests  are
estimated  to  save  between  $US  2-3.5  billion  per  year  in  disaster  damage  (UNISDR,
2004).  Switzerland, for example, long ago recognized the value of ‘protection forests’
in reducing damage from avalanches, landslides and rock falls, and forests are a key
part  of  the  country’s  disaster  prevention  plan  (Stolten  et  al.,  2008).  Healthy  forests
are less likely to be invaded by pests, invasive alien species and destroyed by natural
hazards, and provide numerous additional benefits such as the storage of carbon, and
the opportunity for recreation, timber production and non-timber products.

Improving coastal management and flood risk reduction

Intact  coastal  ecosystems  -  in  particular  mature,  stabilized  sand  dunes,  coral  reefs,
lagoons,  salt  marshes,  and  mangroves  -  play  an  important  role  in  reducing  flood
damage  during  coastal  storms  (UNEP-WCMC,  2006).  Coastal  ecosystems  are
particularly  effective  in  reducing  flooding  from  small  and  medium–scale  events.  In
addition  to  reducing  coastal  flooding,  mangroves  provide  many  other  services,  such
as nursery habitat for fish and other marine species, firewood, building materials and
medicine which support the needs of communities for both disaster risk reduction and
development (ProAct Network, 2008).

Drought, Sand Storm and Fire regulation

Wildfires, wind erosion, severe drought are expected to increase worldwide as a result of
climate change-induced weather changes. Wind erosion causes severe loss of topsoil,
estimated at 161 tons of lost soil annually in Canada alone, and causing significant
economic losses (ProAct Network, 2008). Ecosystems can act to buffer the processes
of drought and desertification through shelterbelts, greenbelts, hedges and other “living
fences”. These buffers help break the force of winds, provide shade, stabilize dunes,

How can ecosystems contribute to reducing disasters?

Climate  change  and  disaster  events  are
creating  greater  population  vulnerability,
especially  among  women  and  children.

This is due to slow creeping

environmental degradation, populations living in more

exposed areas, more frequent or more intense (or higher magnitude) extreme weather
events and the social and governance factors that affect livelihoods. Disasters are
mainly social constructs: they are largely determined by

how a society manages its

environment,  how  prepared  it  is  to  face  adversity  and  what  resources  are  available
for  recovery.    Vulnerable  populations  are  more  at  risk  to  natural  disasters  –  those  in
rural areas are also heavily dependent on ecosystem services for their livelihoods and
for physical protection. Therefore, investing in ecosystems and mainstreaming disaster
risk  and  ecosystem  management  in  development  planning  is  likely  to  make  a  major
contribution to the goal of achieving sustainable livelihoods for the poor.

Mamberamo River, Papua Indonesia

Broadly defined, the total economic value of ecosystems includes:

Use values

• Direct values: benefits derived from the use of environmental goods either

for direct consumption or production of other commodities

• Indirect values: benefits provided by ecosystem functions and services that

maintain and protect natural and human systems such as maintenance of

water quality and flow, flood control and storm protection.

• Option values: the premium placed on maintaining an ecosystem service

(i.e. a pool of species, genetic resources and landscapes) for future uses

Non-use values

• Bequest value: the willingness to pay to ensure that future generations

inherit a particular environmental asset and

• Instrinsic value – i.e. the value of biodiversity in its own right independent of

value placed on it by people.

(Emerton and Bos, 2004)

BOX 4

An analysis of 141 countries in the

period 1981 to 2002 found that di-

sasters (and their subsequent im-

pacts) on average killed more women

than men, or they killed women at

a younger age than men in societies

where women’s economic and social

rights are not protected (Neumayer

and Plumper, 2007).

BOX 3

How can ecosystems contribute to reducing disasters?

Declining ecosystems are increasing

the vulnerability of people to disasters

and their inability to absorb related

shocks and stresses (Emerton, 2006).

BOX 5

© Intu 2008

maintain  soil  structures,  trap  water  and  restore  organic  material,  rendering  soil  more
favorable  to  agricultural  practices.    Fire  is  a  natural  part  of  many  ecosystems,  and
can  enhance  vegetation  by  controlling  invasive  plants  and  enhancing  regenerative
processes, especially in grazing lands.  Where a reoccurring feature, fire is best managed
as a part of agro-ecosystems, creating firebreaks, and controlling understory vegetation
(Goldammer, 1988; ProAct Network, 2008; Stolten et al., 2008).

Environmental Guidance Note for Disaster Risk Reduction

On the Cost Effectiveness of Ecosystems as Natural Buffers to Coastal

Protection in Indonesia

Along Indonesia’s coastlines, the value of marine and coastal ecosystems in

decreasing vulnerability to risks and disasters accrue mainly through damage

costs avoided – and these averted losses are typically substantial. A study in

Bintuni Bay, West Papua, valued mangroves at US$600 per household per year

based on their ability to control erosion.

A variety of values have been calculated for the coastal protection functions of

coral reefs in Indonesia, depending on their location: reefs adjacent to sparsely

populated areas where agriculture is the main activity have been valued at

US$829/km (based on the value of agricultural production that would be lost),

reefs adjacent to areas of high population densities at US$50,000/km (based

on the cost of replacing housing and roads), and reefs in areas where tourism

is the main use at US$1 million/km (based on the cost of maintaining sandy

beaches). In total, Indonesia’s coral reefs are estimated to have a value of some

US$314 million for coastal erosion prevention.

When marine and coastal ecosystems are degraded and these important coastal

defense functions are lost, high economic costs arise. The value of coastline

protection by coral reefs in Wakatobi National Park has been estimated to

be worth $473/km. The damage caused to reefs as a result of coral mining

in Lombok is calculated to incur net present costs of between US$12,000-

260,000/km

in terms of the resulting increase in coastal erosion. One hotel in

West Lombok has spent US$880,000 over a seven-year period to restore a 250

m stretch of beach which had been damaged by past coral mining, and more

than US$1 million has been spent in Bali to protect 500 metres of coastline that

is no longer protected by coral reefs.

(Emerton, 2009)

BOX 6

What is ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction?

Ecosystem management is central to building
resilience of communities and nations under
the Hyogo Framework for Action, especially
HFA priority 4.

Therefore,

ecosystem-based

disaster

management

policies,

practices

and

guidelines  need  to  be  an  integral  part
of  national  disaster  risk  reduction.
Ecosystem-based  disaster  management
refers  to  decision-making  activities  that
take  into  consideration  current  and  future
human  livelihood  needs  and  bio-physical
requirements of ecosystems, and recognize
the  role  of  ecosystems  in  supporting
communities  to  prepare  for  and  cope  with
disaster situations.

This is of particular relevance to the field of
disaster risk management as it is a meeting
point  for  enhanced  livelihood  security  for
the  poor  and  long-term  management  of
ecosystems.  It  is  a  strategy  consistent
with  the  Ecosystem  Approach  of  the
Convention  on  Biological  Diversity,  for  the
integrated  management  of  land,  water
and  living  resources  for  human  benefits
as  well  as  conservation  goals  (See  Annex
1).  Ecosystem-based DRR recognizes that
ecosystems are not isolated but connected
through the biodiversity, water, land, air and
people  that  they  constitute  and  support
(Shepherd,  2008).  Sustainable  ecosystem
management is based on equitable stakeholder involvement in land management decisions,
land-use  trade-offs  and  long-term  goal  setting.  These  are  central  elements  to  reducing
underlying risk factors for disasters and climate change impacts

Mangroves, providing spawning grounds

for numerous fish species, Sri Lanka

Sprats, Sri Lanka

See “Ecosystem-based DRR” (www.iirr.org)

© S. Miththapala, 2008

Environmental Guidance Note for Disaster Risk Reduction

How can ecosystem management

be integrated with disaster risk management?

Although disaster risk management, ecosystem management, development planning (and
climate change adaptation) institutions each have their own specific set of stakeholders,
goals  and  actions,  a  number  of  these  are  interrelated  (see  Figure  2).  They  each  seek
the overarching goal of sustainable development, human well-being and human security.
Improved  dialogue  and  specific  coordinating  mechanisms  are  being  created  between
these spheres, although more effort is needed to achieve greater convergence.  Likewise,
conservation programmes can benefit by including risk and climate change considerations
into project planning and monitoring. Below are examples of specific actions that can be
taken toward bridging the gap between ecosystem-based management and disaster risk
management.

Three previously separate institutional spheres need to converge to form new

procedures for integrated disaster risk management. Ecosystem management

becomes central to all aspects of disaster risk reduction, without which goals of

human security, sustainable development and climate change adaptation cannot

be achieved.

BOX 8

Indonesia takes steps to integrate environmental and disaster risk

reduction policies

Recognizing Indonesia’s vulnerability to hazard events and disasters, the 2006-

2009 National Action Plan for Disaster Risk Reduction was launched. This important

document (also backed up by legislation via the Disaster Management Law No. 24

of 2007) makes repeated mention of the importance of ecosystems and a healthy

environment in disaster risk management and reduction. Ecosystem degradation

is recognized as one of the major factors, which interact to cause disasters, and

the Plan itself includes a series of actions to encourage the sustainable use and

management of ecosystems. It demands that “Regions that depend themselves

on extractive industry and exploitation of natural and environmental resources are

expected to equally invest on the efforts of mitigation, preparedness, response

and recovery from disaster impacts that have been or may be caused by those

activities”. The plan specifically calls for natural resource protection and zoning

in coastal and sea areas.

(Emerton, 2009)

BOX 7

Ecosystem management

Goal : Resilient ecosystems support livelihoods

and human security

Identify vulnerable ecosystems; restore

ecosystems/natural defenses; monitor ecosystems

Disaster risk management

Goal : Save lives and protect

livelihoods

Identify emergency response,

early warning, preparedness

and preventive

Development planning

Goal: Reduce poverty and

increase human well-being

Identify and reduce economic,

physical and social vulnerability

Ecosystem-based DRR for sustainable

development and human security

Fig. 2 Ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction, a more sustainable approach to DRR and climate change adaptation

•

Conduct integrated risk assessments
(coupling physical risk, vulnerability and
environmental assessments);

•

Implement  ecosystem  restoration
and  rehabilitation  that  follow  clear
technical  guidance  and  match  local
needs and priorities;

•

Incorporate environmental safeguards
into disaster emergency response plans,
such as Rapid Environmental Assess-
ments (see checklist below);

(Modified from UNEP, 2009)

Engaging with stakeholders

Ecosystem  management  practices  are
the  most  successful  when  they  involve
communities  as  stakeholders  and  land
stewards,  such  as  community-managed
marine protected areas, or community forest
user groups. These environmental mechanisms can become especially relevant and effective
for disaster risk reduction if they incorporate disaster risk assessments. To achieve this, there
is a need to put into place mechanisms for consultations between environmental, planning and
disaster management authorities. It is important to:

•

Build dialogues and mechanisms for collaboration between environmental, planning
and disaster risk management authorities and people affected by the decisions;

•

Include communities, especially women, minorities, and people with disabilities in
designing and implementing the above procedures.

Knowledge creation and exchanges

Capacity-building through awareness-raising, education and training are critical to
changing attitudes and behaviors toward more sustainable environmental practices.
As  an  example,  ecosystem  rehabilitation  and  restoration  can  be  options  in  the
aftermath  of  a  disaster  or  to  safeguard  against  new  ones.  However,  successful
ecosystem  rehabilitation  requires  time,  knowledge,  resources  and  should  be
conducted  in  consultation  with  communities,  appropriate  technical  advice,  and
based on local needs and priorities especially when natural restoration may be the
most effective option.

Awareness raising, education, training and knowledge exchange can help to:
•

Promote new knowledge creation and sharing among scientists, practitioners and
communities;

•

Recognize the value of local practices and knowledge;

•

Recognize the special role that women play as agents of change and stewards of
natural resources and as being highly affected by extreme events.

Prioritizing ecosystem-based DRR

Many countries have already recognized the need for legislation and zoning regulations
that  support  sustainable  development  and  environmental  principles.    However,  where
legislation  often  fails  is  in  the  implementation  and  enforcement,  leading  the  way  for
unsustainable and risk-building practices, such as locating housing in dangerous places.
Policies  and  financial  incentives  can  be  offered  for  investing  in  ecosystem  protection,
such as “Payments for Ecosystem Services”, or through new carbon market and other
schemes such as REDD

, which aim to reduce environmental degradation. Incorporating

environmental concerns into contingency plans for disaster response is intended to follow
the principles of “do no harm” to long-term recovery (i.e. improper waste management
practices that pollute waterways, or locating transitional shelters and settlements in
floodplains or elephant pathways) and aim to rebuild back better.

Appropriate National and local governance and policies:

•

Recognize the value of ecosystems as necessary for disaster risk reduction;

•

Grant relevant legal authority to environmental, planning and disaster management agencies
to coordinate and enforce sustainable environmental DRR policies and procedures;

•

Seek to integrate national adaptation processes, such as NAPAs with DRR and
environmental national strategies.

•

Encourage new financial incentives for investments in sustainable ecosystem
management that emphasize ecosystems as part of disaster risk planning, possibly
financed through payments for ecosystem services;

Implementing environmental monitoring and enforcing sustainable
land use planning

Progress can be made by integrating land use planning and environmental monitoring into
disaster management such as maintaining wetlands for flood risk reduction. Environmental
monitoring implies maintaining baseline data on ecosystem health and tracking trends in
environmental degradation, such as deforestation and drought, and restoration. Integrated
risk assessments can be designed as a useful tool to couple physical risk, vulnerability
and environmental assessments. They go beyond the Environmental Impact Assessment
(EIA) and Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) processes, which are conducted for
new development projects.

Integrated mechanisms and procedures are useful to:

•

Promote  and  enforce  integrated  land  use  (spatial  and  temporal)  planning
and  zoning  that  include  protection  of  ecosystems  (e.g.  Integrated  Coastal  Zone
Management,  Integrated  Water  Resources  Management,  and  forest  management
plans) and risk assessments.

•

Conduct environmental monitoring and assessments (ecosystem baseline data,
EIAs, SEAs for new development projects and programmes);

How can ecosystem management be integrated with disaster risk management?

Environmental Guidance Note for Disaster Risk Reduction

REDD: Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation in Developing Countries

Payments for Ecosystem Services

These financial mechanisms are

increasingly being used successfully

to finance ecosystem conservation

and restoration. Examples include

payments to a community to maintain

forest cover in sensitive water

recharge areas, or on steep slopes to

reduce the occurrence of landslides

or downstream flooding.

The beneficiary community or other

third party would pay for the benefits

incurred.

(IUCN-UNEP 2007)

BOX 9

Environmental Guidance Note for Disaster Risk Reduction

5 years after the Indian Ocean tsunami - lessons learned from Sri Lanka

• Beach clean-up efforts led to the spread of invasive species, notably prickly

pear (Opuntia humifusa);

• Dumping of debris from the cleanup into waterways and wetlands created

pollution and drainage problems that hampered long-term recovery;

• Several transitional settlements were located in elephant pathways and near

waterways, creating animal-human conflict and pollution of drinking water;

• In some instances, sand dunes and coral reefs that protected coastal

communities from the tsunamis’ full impact were used for building materials,

thereby reducing coastal protection;

• Better coordination and information flow between environmental authorities,

NGOs and disaster management authorities could have avoided several of

these pitfalls;

• Women died and were affected in much larger numbers, likely due to restricted

clothing and lack of swimming skills;

• Boats were improperly distributed post-tsunami, creating social tension and

lasting development problems;

• Mangrove restoration efforts have largely failed due to improper planting

procedures, lack of community involvement, and planting in the wrong

places;

• A positive outcome of lessons from the tsunami is the “Sri Lanka Road

Map” for disaster risk management, which includes several provisions for

integrating environmental considerations into disaster risk reduction planning

and operations.

(Modified from Miththapala, 2008)

BOX 10

Practical steps for integrating

ecosystem management with DRR

Pre-disaster:
• Prevention, mitigation and preparedness

stages  should  ensure  that  proper
environmental practices are followed
that  value  and  restore  ecosystems,
especially wetlands, coastal ecosystems
and  forests  on  steep  slopes  as  natural
buffers.    Specific  projects  may  include
wetland  restoration,  tree  planting,  and
restoring coastal open spaces.

• Disaster

risk

reduction

planning

should include

coordination with

environmental ministries, in addition
to disaster management and land use
planning authorities.

• Ensure that existing legislation is being followed and enforced, especially related to

zoning and land-use planning, for example respecting coastal buffer zones and
proper road building in mountainous areas to avoid landslides; and ensure that land
use planning

is not damaging to ecosystems and human well-being.

•

Conduct education and training about the role of ecosystems and their multiple
benefits for protection and human well-being.

Post-disaster:
• Response, recovery and rebuilding stages progress from quick relief to save lives

to short and medium-term planning of lodging and livelihood solutions. Basic
environmental

concerns must be integrated into each of these stages, following the

goal of “reducing the underlying risk factors”. Basic environmental considerations can
be included in contingency plans and standard disaster response procedures in order
to avoid potential damage that can be incurred and impede long-term recovery.

•

Minimise pollution and make waste management effective; ensure that waste
does not contaminate waterways or wetlands areas and hazardous waste materials
are secured;

•

Locate transitional shelters and settlements

away from sensitive ecosystems

and from areas that may put people in harms way (such as floodplains, wetlands and
animal habitats) while providing adequate sanitation facilities;

•

Take care that building materials are sustainably sourced (e.g. not mining coastal
sand dunes, mangroves, or coral reefs to rebuild houses);

Bururi Province, Burundi

For more information see: (www.sheltercentre.org)

© Intu 2008

•

Rehabilitate damaged ecosystems with native species and prevent the spread
of invasive alien species; these are non-native species that can invade habitats and
agricultural land.

• Special provisions should be made for women, children and other vulnerable

populations, according to Sphere Handbook charter

•

Rapid Environmental Assessments

are useful to assessing the environmental

situation post-disaster in a quick and low cost manner for more effective immediate
and long-term recovery planning. (Modified from Miththapala 2008)

Environmental Guidance Note for Disaster Risk Reduction

Key actions for ecosystem-based DRR:

Watersheds, forests and coastal zones are naturally linked – for example without

adequate upstream forest cover, sedimentation can create severe downstream

pollution and damage to coastal vegetation and coral reefs.

Watershed management

Watershed management is necessary for agricultural, environmental, and

socioeconomic development. The physical and biological resources of

watersheds provide goods and services to people, including water protection,

attenuation of disasters by regulating runoff, protection of coastal resources

and fisheries, protection of the environment and protection of productive

lowlands. Watershed management programs need to build on existing

environmental initiatives.

- When located in floodplains, structures should be built to withstand flood

damage, to prevent floodwater contamination, and to avoid disruption to river

courses, river banks and vegetation;

- Intensive agricultural activity should not to be permitted on slopes greater

than a specified percentage reflecting land stability;

- Clear cutting of forests should be limited with forest conservation and

sustainable forest management prioritised;

- Institutional bodies, such as River Basin Organisations should be formally

established to address land use conflicts, and staff trained in conflict-resolution;

- Public participation of both men and women should be increased in

management decisions;

- Effective management plans and enforcement of environmental and zoning

regulation are critical;

- Regional environmental impact assessments are needed to ensure that

cumulative impacts of economic activities are sustainable.

BOX 11

Forest management

Forest management is required to balance demand for forest products with the

ecological requirements of forests, while ensuring other key benefits for livelihoods,

notably by stabilizing steep slopes and reducing soil erosion. Although listed separately

here, forest management is often integrated into watershed management.

- Protect and improve the forest environment through increased vegetation;

- Help alleviate poverty by generating income through increased tree cover and

related activities;

- Increase forest resources;

- Establish community-driven economic activities based on forest plantation;

- Increase multiple uses for land; and

- Create popular awareness about sustainable forest management.

Coastal zone management

Ecosystems such as coral reefs and coastal mangrove forests can adapt to

change and recover from storms and floods and still provide services of protecting

the coast and absorbing pollution. But once these ecosystems are put under

pressure by coastal development, they may lose their resilience. Coastal zone

management strategies being considered in the Asia-Pacific region after the 2004

tsunami highlighted the continuum of inland areas, coasts, and oceans. Below are

some key entry points.

- Replant coastal forests and restoration of mangroves, which have been taken

up as a part of the environmental recovery process.

- Restore and maintain the health of the coral reefs and seagrass beds.

- Maintain and/or develop mangrove belts as buffer zones for coasts and coral

reefs.

- Protect wetlands and watersheds to minimize sedimentation.

(Modified from DEWGA, 2008)

(www.sphereproject.org)

(www.abuhrc.org)

Practical steps for integrating environmental management with DRR

An island village, Fiji

© R McWilliam 2005

Using  indigenous  techniques  to  reduce
disaster  risks,  reverse  land  and  water
degradation and improve livelihoods –
traditional  agroforestry  on  hillsides  in
Honduras

In remote villages of hilly southwest Honduras,
local farmers have an age-old trick to protect
their  crops  from  hurricanes.  Thousands  of
resource-poor  farmers  have  readopted  and
adapted traditional farming techniques which
have substantially improved their livelihoods
and  provide  them  with  multiple  benefits
and  at  the  same  time  successfully  reduced
impacts of natural disasters.

The traditional farming methods have proven
a high degree of resilience to extreme weather events such as severe droughts and extreme
rain during el Niño and la Niña events. When the disastrous hurricane Mitch went almost
directly over the villages in 1998, there was very little evidence of destruction in the region,
while elsewhere eroded soil and rocks crashed into houses and roads.

The  explanation  for  this  success  story  is  an  ecosystem-based  farming  system  called
“Quesungual  Slash  and  Mulch  Agroforestry  System  (QSMAS)”.  It  is  based  on  local
traditional  knowledge  and  improves  an  indigenous  method  which  was  conserved  by  a
small group of farmers in a village called Quesungual. In the early 1990s a project by the
central government, in collaboration with the UN Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO)
office, rediscovered and promoted the traditional Quezungal method. This involves planting
crops under dispersed native trees whose roots anchor the soil. Vegetation is pruned to
keep competition to a minimum, provide nutrients to the soil and conserve soil water, while
terracing reduces soil erosion. The crops are directly planted without burning and with zero
tillage, which permanently keeps the soil cover and protects the soil from raindrop impact
and crust formation while minimizing surface evaporation.

Based on a holistic approach, local perspectives and a participatory, collaborative
community-based learning process, the QSMAS project not only led to reduction of disaster
risks, but also proved to be an entry point for a successful integrated development strategy
with multiple concrete benefits from farm to landscape level.

Sources:
FAO, Rome Mr Luis Alvarez Welchez, Agroforestry expert at the FAO Lempira
Extension System Project (SEL), Lempira, Honduras. http://www.bbc.co.uk/mundo/
participe/2009/05/090515_participe_cambio_climatico_quesungual_am.shtml

Fernández, Liliana and Edgardo Navarro. 2005. «El Sistema Agroforestal Quesungual: Una
opción para el manejo de suelos en zonas secas de ladera». Sistema de Extensión Lempira
(SEL). Tegucigalpa, Honduras: FAO.

Case study Guatemala

Responding to tropical storms
and flooding in Guatemala / Mexico

In  the  high-altitude  upper  watersheds  of
the  Coatán  and  Suchiate  rivers,  straddling
the  borders  of    Guatemala  and  Mexico,
and  flowing  off  the  slopes  of  the  Tacaná
volcano to the Pacific Ocean, environmental
degradation and climate change are raising
the risk of devastating flash floods.

These watersheds have been deforested and
are badly degraded in many places. Severe
erosion  of  formerly  deep  soils  has  reduced
their  capacity  to  hold  water.  Population
density  is  high  and  degradation  of  the
environment  has  limited  people’s  livelihood

options. Communities are therefore increasingly vulnerable to flooding caused by tropical
storms and hurricanes.

In  2005  tropical  storm  Stan  dropped  torrential  rains  in  the  region,  causing  flooding  and
mudslides that led to an estimated 2,000 deaths and damages of up to USD$40 million.
Roads,  bridges,  water  supply  systems,  crops  and  local  economies  were  destroyed.
This disaster propelled communities to take action and find ways to reduce the risks of
flooding. With the support of IUCN’s Water and Nature Initiative and other organizations,
local  communities  organized  themselves  into  ‘micro-watershed  councils’  to  coordinate
watershed management among groups of villages. People have become aware of the effects
of unsustainable environmental management. They have identified the different demands
on water and defined priorities for managing and restoring watersheds that responds to
their development needs.

Driven by the need to expand their livelihood options to reduce poverty, these community
councils have led to diversification of farming systems, including terracing of degraded
slopes and reforestation through the introduction of agroforestry. Communities are investing
their labour and capital in restoration of natural infrastructure. As self-organisation expands,
communities are becoming better equipped to adapt to climate change and less sensitive to
severe storms.

Source: IUCN Water and Nature Initiative, and IUCN Central America
http://www.iucn.org/es/sobre/union/secretaria/oficinas/mesoamerica/

Smith, D.M. and Barchiesi S, 2009. Environment as infrastructure – Resilience to climate
change impacts on water through investments in nature. In: Perspectives on water and
climate change adaptation. CPWC, World Water Council, IUCN and IWA
Available at:
http://www.waterandclimate.org/index.php?id=5thWorldWaterForumpublications810

Post tropical storm Stan, Guatemala

Lempira, Honduras

Case study Honduras

© N Baquera, 2006

© IUCN-ORMA

Protective Effects of Coastal Vegetation
during the 2004 Tsunami in Sri Lanka

The  tsunami  in  December  2004  hit  large
parts of the Sri Lankan coastline. In addition
to more than 30,000 fatalities the waves also
affected  valuable  coastal  ecosystems  such
as lagoons, mangroves, and salt marshes. To
check the hypothesis that coastal vegetation
saved  lives  by  reducing  the  energy  of  the
waves, a survey was carried out in Balapitiya,
a  densely  populated  town  at  the  south-
western Sri Lankan coast. In the hinterland
of  the  town  there  is  Maduganga  Estuary,
which  is  connected  to  the  sea  through  a
narrow inlet just south of Balapitiya.

In addition to detailed household surveys, coastal vegetation was mapped along a length
of 1.7 km of coastline, together with the damage classes of the surveyed houses (up to
distance of 300 m from the shoreline) and the water level at the houses, which was reported
by the respondents. Vegetation was a mixture of Pandanus (screw pines), coconut palms,
and  various  shrubs.  After  dividing  the  mapped  vegetation  into  three  classes  depending
on  their  composition,  statistical  analyses  (linear  regression)  showed  that  the  buffering
effect  of  the  class  without  Pandanus  was  significantly  lower  compared  to  the  other  two
classes.  Distance  of  the  houses  to  the  sea  was  also  taken  into  account.  The  analyses
further  revealed  the  channelling  effect  of  the  inlet,  as  many  houses  along  the  inlet  were
completely  destroyed.  The  small  mangrove  strips  in  front  of  the  houses  did  not  provide
any protection in this case, as they were too narrow to reduce the destructive force of the
waves significantly.

The study showed on a local level that coastal vegetation has the potential to buffer the
impacts  of  tsunami  waves  and  protect  lives  and  property,  with  the  composition  of  the
vegetation being a very important factor. However, results of this study are only transferable
to  similar  situations,  and  further  confounding  factors  should  also  be  considered.  It  also
revealed  that  particular  attention  should  be  paid  to  water  bodies  connected  to  the  sea,
which might be dangerous places due to channelling effects. In this case, any vegetation
buffer must have a certain width and composition to provide reliable protection.

Source:
extract from a paper submitted to Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences: Kaplan,
M.; Renaud, F.G.; Lüchters, G. (2009): Vulnerability Assessment and Protective Effects of
Coastal Vegetation during the 2004 Tsunami in Sri Lanka.

United Nations University, Institute for Environment and Human Security, Bonn; University
of Bonn, Center for Development Research, Germany

Reducing fire disasters through ecosystem
management in the Mediterranean

Fire  is  the  main  cause  of  forest  loss  in  the
northern  Mediterranean,  with  considerable
impact  on  properties  and  livelihoods.  An
average  of  over  400,000  ha  is  burnt  each
year,  with  a  massive  751,798  ha  burnt  in
2003  alone.  National  strategies  allocating
major  efforts  and  resources  to  fire  fighting
(i.e. buying of hydroplanes and helicopters)
have  proved  to  be  inefficient  in  the  light  of
the growing trend of large-scale devastating
fires.  An  integrated  fire  management
strategy should be based on a risk reduction
management framework aiming to increase
ecological and social resilience to adapt to
the complex interrelation between the predicted increase of heat waves and the human-
induced impacts on natural ecosystems.

In April 2008, IUCN, WWF, FAO and other regional IUCN members and partners agreed on a
common position – the Athens Statement - for climate change adaptation in Mediterranean
forest conservation and management, with a special focus to increase resilience to major
disturbances.

A new forest fire strategy was adopted in Lebanon through a participatory process with
the Lebanese government, and incorporating a climate change adaptation goal: “Reducing
the risk of intense and frequent forest fires whilst allowing for fire regimes that are socially,
economically  and  ecologically  sustainable”.  IUCN  is  supporting  pilot  actions  to  start
implementing  the  new  national  strategy,  mainly  looking  at  building  ecological  and  social
resilience to climate change impacts in high fire risk landscapes, by:

• Developing a participatory planning process to design landscape patterns resilient to

fire, and prevent land use changes which may alter their traditional mosaic structure and
increase fire risk (i.e. the current trend of intensification of pine plantations).

• Identifying fuel reduction opportunities through traditional and innovative land uses (i.e.

promoting livestock grazing in high fire risk areas).

• Developing and exploring opportunities to help adopt fire resilient land uses and

landscape patterns (i.e. innovative management systems, economic incentives, etc).

• The ecological restoration of healthy forest conditions diversifying forest land with a

higher number of native re-sprouting species, which regenerate better after fire.

• Preventive forest practices and fuel management aiming at reducing high forest fuel

litter and the landscape susceptibility to fires.

Source:
Regato P (2008) Adapting to Global Change - Mediterranean Forests., IUCN-Med. and
IUCN Regional Office for West Asia

Forest fires, Andket, Akkar Lebanon

Case study Sri Lanka

Case study Lebanon

Fishermen, Muthujarawela Marsh, Sri Lanka

© AFDC, 2008

of the proposed (and any) indicators are multiple. They need to be configured to the local
context in order to become SMART; they are not universal; they will not always apply to
all countries, at all scales; they may not adequately reflect cultural considerations and
specific contexts. However, the following list of indicators is intended to provide guidance
for integrating ecosystem management into disaster risk reduction policies and practices, a
dimension that has not received adequate attention and practical guidance to date.

The suggested indicators can be used for further defining and refining nationally and locally
relevant indicators. They have also been classified according to disaster risk management,
vulnerability related, policies, operational mechanisms, knowledge and education, human
well-being, ecosystem services, drivers of threats to ecosystem services and characteristics
of disaster-resilient communities.

Important work has already been conducted in developing and testing relevant indicators
for  sustainable  development  and  human  well-being,  ecosystem  health,  ecosystem
services, disaster management.  We have drawn upon many of these sources (see section
“Resources”)  to  develop  this  list  of  indicators  relevant  to  ecosystem-based  disaster  risk
reduction.

Guidance indicators for sustainable environmental management

related to disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation

Guidance indicators for sustainable
environmental

management

related

to  disaster  risk  reduction  and  climate
change adaptation

What are indicators?
The  term  “indicators”  refers  to  data  of  a
quantitative  or  qualitative  nature  which  can
provide  and  communicate  scientifically
robust  measures  of  the  status  or  change
in  condition.  They  indicate  the  current
status  and  any  changes  in  a  process  or
a  system  with  respect  to  a  given  aspect
of  interest.  An  indicator  is  a  pointer.  It  can
be  a  measurement,  a  number,  a  fact,  an
opinion  or  a  perception  that  points  to  a

specific condition or situation, and measures changes in that condition or situation over
time. Indicators facilitate a close observation about the results of initiatives or actions, and
help to simplify the presentation of complex situations. They are very important tools to
evaluate and follow up DRR processes, and are valuable tools to help achieve better results
in projects or initiatives. A good indicator is considered SMART (Specific, Measureable,
Achievable, Relevant and Timely.)

Several types of indicators
Qualitative indicators are measures that refer to qualities. They deal with aspects that are
not directly quantifiable, opinions, perceptions or judgments from people about something,
such as people’s reliance on their boats as an instrument of economic independence.
On the other had

quantitative indicators are measures that directly refer to numbers

or amounts, such as the number of women who own boats in a community. Each type
of indicator - qualitative and quantitative - expresses different, complementary, needed
dimensions about the situation of interest (modified from Aguilar, 2009).

Progress or results indicators convey whether tangible results are being achieved, and
process indicators indicate about the state of a process, such as stakeholder dialogue.
The difference between the two may be time dependent. For example, a training workshop
on environmental legislation and DRR in the short term may lead participants to attitude
changes among participants and a process toward new legislation may be undertaken.
Real progress resulting in new legislation and implementation mechanisms may take much
longer and is dependent on other factors although the impetus may have come from the
initial workshop.

Purpose and caveats of the suggested “Indicators for Ecosystem-based DRR”
We have developed these indicators to offer guidance on example areas to focus policy
and resources in order to make progress on achieving HFA priority 4, “Reduce underlying
risk factors” and in particular, “Sustainable ecosystems and environmental management”.
The indicators are both qualitative and quantitative, and mainly process-oriented.  Caveats

Flood in Shagarab, Eastern Sudan

Guidance indicators for sustainable environmental management related to disaster risk reduction and climate

change adaptation

Examples of indicators for use in ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction

Risk Identification Indicators

1.1  Systematic inventory of disasters and losses
1.2  Hazard monitoring and mapping
1.3  Vulnerability and risk assessment
1.4  Monitoring of ecosystem conditions, ecosystem services and threats to ecosystems

2. Policy indicators linking ecosystem-based management to DRR

2.1 National platforms for DRR, HFA focal point and other national disaster risk

institutions include environmental and planning ministries in decision-making and
implementation

2.2 Legislative mechanisms effectively incorporate sustainable land use planning into

DRR legislation

2.3 Zoning regulations take into account specific ecosystem considerations and

enforcement

2.4 Cross-sectoral mechanisms effectively incorporate sustainable land use planning

into DRR legislation

2.5 NAPAs and National Adaptation plans include DRR and sustainable environmental

management actions

2.6 National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans include DRR considerations.

© Intu 2007

Guidance indicators for sustainable environmental management related to disaster risk reduction and climate

change adaptation

2.7 National resources-related policies and environmental legislation (forestry plans,

integrated coastal zoning management plans etc) include and implement risk
assessments

2.8 National Sustainable Development Strategies include and implement risk assessments
2.9 Public and private infrastructure investments that include enforceable EIAs and

risk assessments

2.10 Financial incentives in the form of tax rebates, subsidies, and other monetary

and non-monetary rewards are for investments in ecosystem restoration and
sustainable environmental management that emphasize ecosystems as part of
disaster risk planning.

Ecosystem-based management and DRR

Risk assessments are integrated into:

3.1  Integrated Water Resources Management programmes
3.2  Integrated Coastal Zone Management programmes
3.3  Protected Areas management
3.4  Community Conservation Areas – these include local communities in ownership

of conservation projects

3.5  Community-managed Marine Protected areas
3.6  Forest management plans
3.7  Integrated Forest Fire Management
3.8   Forest landscape restoration areas
3.9   River  basin  organizations  for  improved  river  management  through  stakeholder

involvement

3.10  Livestock management – establishment of grazing practices
3.11  Fisheries management – establishment of quotas and regulations
3.12  Water management – equitable pricing and distribution schemes

4. Knowledge, participation and education

4.1 Public information and community participation are part of risk assessments
4.2 Non-state actors are involved in dialogue and implementation of DRR at the

national and local levels, including civic groups, environmental, humanitarian and
development agencies

4.3 Disaster practitioners and environmental managers are trained in integrated risk

assessment, which include ecosystem management

4.4 Primary school children are educated in disaster preparedness and environmental

stewardship

Environmental Guidance Note for Disaster Risk Reduction

Human Well-Being and human security: reducing exposure to disasters and
vulnerability:

Many excellent human well-being and human security indicators have already been
developed, including from the following sources:

U.N. Commission on Sustainable Development indicators;
Human Development Index;
Human Poverty Index;
Gender-related Development Index;
Governance Index (Kaufmann);
Prevalent Vulnerability Index (Inter-American Development Bank);

6. Ecosystem health indicators by ecosystem type:

6.1 General
6.1.1  Changes in native species richness
6.1.2  Abundance of selected key species
6.1.3  Change in threat status of species
6.1.4 Number and area of Protected areas
6.1.5  Invasive alien species
6.2 Agro-ecosystems/forests
6.2.1 Land use changes
6.2.2 Vegetation cover
6.2.3 Percent of land degradation
6.2.4 Arable and permanent cropland area
6.2.5 Reduced dependency on fertilizer and pesticide use
6.2.6 Proportion of land area covered by forest
6.2.7 Area under sustainable forest management
6.3 Wetlands/rivers
6.3.1 Percent of area maintained as wetlands
6.3.2  Riverbank vegetation maintained
6.3.3  Water quality and turbidity
6.4.4  River fragmentation
6.4 Water
6.4.1 Drinking water quality
6.4.2 Bathing water quality
6.4.3 Proportion of total water resources used
6.4.4 Water use intensity by economic activity
6.4.5 Wastewater treatment
6.5 Coastal/Marine
6.5.1 Area of healthy seagrass beds and marine algae
6.5.2 Proportion of marine area protected
6.5.3 Health of marine ecosystems, as measured by marine trophic index

6.5.4 Coverage of live coral reef ecosystems
6.5.5 Area of healthy mangroves as buffer zones as measured by area, density and

width

Threats to ecosystems are monitored

7.1  Climate change impacts
7.2   Conversion of ecosystems for urbanization and agriculture
7.3   Fragmentation of habitats
7.4   Slash and burn agriculture
7.5   Over harvesting of forest products
7.6   Desertification
7.7   Industrial logging/ illegal logging
7.8   Over grazing/ cattle ranching
7.9   Invasive Alien Species
7.10  Soil erosion
7.11  Eutrophication: overuse of fertilizers

Sources:
U.N. Commission on Sustainable Development (2007)
Cardona, Inter-American Development Bank, (2005)
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005)
Convention on Biological Diversity
Environmental Vulnerability Index (2004)

Environmental Guidance - Note for Disaster Risk Reduction

Conclusions and future perspectives

Increasing numbers of extreme events causing casualties and affecting populations
are weather and climate-related. However, climate change, although often cited as
the culprit of rising numbers of disasters, is one of several factors increasing disaster
vulnerability and environmental degradation.

The  risk  of  suffering  from  any  particular  disaster  depends  on  the  size  and  frequency
of  the  hazard  event  but  even  more  on  the  vulnerability  of  people,  often  linked  to
environmental degradation and governance issues. Disasters are not caused by extreme
events themselves, but occur when a society’s capacity to cope with an extreme event
is  overwhelmed  or  mismanaged.  For  these  reasons,  the  terms  “natural  disaster”  and
“natural  hazard”  have  increasingly  become  misnomers  (Hewitt,  1997;  Wisner  et  al.,
2004; Abramovitz et al., 2002).

Unfortunately, available economic statistics on disasters do not reflect lost agricultural land
and livelihoods in developing countries. The more common and chronic disasters - shallow
landslides, recurring flooding, rising seawaters, drought, and impacts of invasive
species - impose the greatest costs on poor populations, and yet are not mirrored in official
statistics on disasters. These small, cumulative disasters are most often those grounded
in land use and pressure on natural resources, and are therefore often the most avoidable
through appropriate ecosystem management.

Even if the number and frequency of extreme events increases, the magnitude of disasters
can  be  reduced  through  adopting  integrated  approaches  that  combine  development
processes, disaster risk reduction measures, and ecosystem management. Combining
ecosystem  restoration  in  degraded  areas  with  long-term  views  of  settlement  design
and planning includes investing in ecosystems as cost-effective, successful alternatives
and complements to physical engineering structures. We consider this guidance note
to be one contribution of practical ideas and indicators for how to shape an integrated
approach  to  disaster  risk  reduction.  The  “Environmental  Guidance  Note  for  Disaster
Risk  Reduction”  is  work  in  progress  that  will  evolve  with  new  experiences,  success
stories,  lessons  learned  and  good  practices.  However  we  are  convinced  that  rather
than controlling nature, which has all too often been the approach in the past, we have
learned  that  we  must  work  with  nature  if  we  are  to  keep  ourselves  safe  while  facing
increasingly hazardous times.

El Cangrecal river, Honduras

© C W

menbol 2007

Abramovitz, J., T. Banuri, P. Girot, B. Orlando, N. Schneider, E. Spanger-Siegfried , J. Switzer, and A. Hammill. 2002.
Adapting to Climate Change: Natural Resource Management and Vulnerability Reduction. Background Paper to the
Task Force on Climate Change. Adaptation and Vulnerable Communities. (IUCN, Worldwatch Institute. IISD, SEI-B).

Aguilar, L. 2009. In press. IUCN/UNISDR Gender Indicators

Cardona, O.D. 2005. Indicators of disaster risk and risk management: program for Latin America and the Caribbean:
summary report

DEWGA. 2008. Stocktaking paper: Linking Disaster Risk Reduction, Environmental Management and Development
Practices and Practitioners in Asia Pacific Region: A Review of Opportunities for Integration, Working Paper.
www.dewga.net/Data/Publication/Stocktaking%20Paper_Version%206%20080825.pdf

Emerton and Bos. 2004. Value: Counting Ecosystems and Water Infrastructure. Water and Nature Initiative, (IUCN:
Gland Switzerland)

Emerton, L. 2009. Investing in Natural Infrastructure: the Economic Value of Indonesia’s Marine Protected Areas. Coral
Triangle Center, The Nature Conservancy (TNC), Bali

Goldammer, J.G. 1988. Rural land-use and fires in the tropics. Agroforestry Systems 6, 235-252. www.fire.uni-freiburg.de

Hewitt, K., ed. 1983. Interpretations of Calamity, from the Viewpoint of Human Ecology. (Boston: Allen and Unwin)

IISD, IUCN, SEI, SDC and Intercooperation. 2003. Livelihoods and Climate Change, Combining disaster risk reduction,
natural resource management and climate change adaptation in a new approach to the reduction of vulnerability and
poverty, (IISD:Winnipeg)

IUCN Meso America (ORMA). 2005. Tropical Storm Stan in MesoAmerica, Synopsis of Actions Taken by IUCN in the region
www.iucn.org/mesoamerica

IUCN-UNEP (2007) Developing International Payments for Ecosystem Services: Towards a Greener World Economy. IPES
Brochure, available online at: http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/ipes_brochure_0607_1.pdf

Lewis, J. 1999. Development in Disaster-prone Places: Studies of Vulnerability. Intermediate
Technology Publications, London, UK.

Mainka, S, McNeely, J. and Xie, Y. Unpublished (2009) Ecosystem Considerations for Post-disaster recovery: Lessons
applied to the 2009 China earthquake

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being Synthesis (Island Press, Washington D.C)

Miththapala, S. 2008 Integrating Environmental Safeguards into Disaster Management, Vol. 1 and Vol. 2
(IUCN:Ecosystems and Livelihoods Group, Asia)

Neumayer, E. and T. Plumper. 2007. The Gendered Nature of Natural Disasters: The Impact of Catastrophic Events of
the Gender Gap in Life Expectancy, 1981-2002 (London School of Economics and Political Science, White paper)

OECD. 2004. OECD Key environmental indicators (OECD, Paris)

ProAct  Network.    2008.    Environmental  Management,
Multiple  disaster  risk  reduction  and  climate  change
adaptation benefits for vulnerably communities (ProAct;
Tannay, Switzerland) www.proactnetwork.org
Secretariat  of  the  Convention  on  Biological  Diversity
(2006) Global Biodiversity Outlook 2.Montreal

Shepherd, G. 2008. The Ecosystem Approach: Learning
from Experience (IUCN: Gland, Switzerland)
www.iucn.org/about/union/commissions/cem/cem_
resources/?1652/The-ecosystem-approach-learning-from-
experience

Stolten, S., N. Dudley, J. Randall. 2008. Natural Security,
Protected Areas and Hazard Mitigation. (WWF and
Equilibrium: Gland, Switzerland.)

Sudmeier-Rieux, K., H. Masundire, A. Rizvi and S. Rietbergen (Eds.) 2006. Ecosystems, Livelihoods and Disasters, An
integrated approach to disaster risk management, IUCN, Ecosystem management series, no. 4 (IUCN: Gland, Switzerland.)

Twigg. J. 2007. Characteristics of a Disaster-Resilient Community, A Guidance Note, Version 1 for field testing (DFID
DRR Interagency coordination group: UK)

United Nations Environment Programme – World Conservation and Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) 2006. In the Front
Line: Shoreline Protection and Other Ecosystems Services from Mangroves and Coral Reefs (UNEP: Cambridge, U.K.)

United Nations Environment Programme. 2009 Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction (UNEP:Geneva)

UN DESA (Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat). 2007.Indicators of
Sustainable Development, Guidelines and Methodologies, Third Edition (UN: New York)
www.un.org/esa/sustdev/natlinfo/indicators/guidelines.pdf

UN/International Strategy Disaster Reduction. 2004. Living with Risk: A global review of disaster reduction
initiatives, (UN/ISDR: Geneva, Switzerland)

UN/International Strategy Disaster Reduction and UNEP. 2007. Environment and Vulnerability, Emerging
Perspectives (UN/ISDR: Geneva, Switzerland)

Wisner, B., P. Blaikie, T. Cannon, and I. Davis. 2004. At Risk, Natural Hazards, People’s Vulnerability and Disasters
(Second Edition). London and New York: Routledge.

World Bank. 2004. “Natural Disasters: Counting the Cost” Press release, March 2, 2004.
www.worldbank.org

References and resouces

Women walking along the road to Bujumbura, Papua Indonesia

References and resources (not all cited)

© Intu 2008

Annex 1

International environmental frameworks, conventions and agreements relevant to
DRR Risk Management Indicators

UNESCO World Heritage Convention (Paris, 1972)

Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage
Established

by parties to protect cultural heritage and natural heritage, from

damage and destruction, including those caused by disasters.

Agenda 21 (1992)

Adopted by 168 countries in 1992, establishes sustainable development as a main
policy goal. Especially relevant to disaster risk reduction is Chapter 7: Promoting
Sustainable Human Settlement Development, which refers to developing a “

culture of

safety” in all countries, especially those that are disaster-prone (paragraph 7.60).

Convention on Biological Diversity (1992)
(COP 6, the Hague, the Netherlands, 2002)

The  Convention  on  Biological  Diversity  (CBD)  has  been  ratified  by  190  Parties.  In
decision  VI/26  (2002),  the  COP  adopted  the  Strategic  Plan  for  the  CBD.    This  so-
called 2010 Biodiversity Target was subsequently endorsed by the World Summit on
Sustainable Development and the United Nations General Assembly at the 2005 World
Summit. The Summit also highlighted the essential role of biodiversity in meeting the
Millennium  Development  Goals  (MDG),  and  the  2010  Biodiversity  Target  has  been
incorporated into the MDGs. Of relevance here is the focal area within the 2010 target
of:

maintaining ecosystem integrity, and the provision of goods and services

provided by biodiversity in ecosystems, in support of human well-being.

Convention to Combat Desertification (1994)

Relating specifically to drought, Part II of the Convention (on General provisions),
paragraph 2, states that: In pursuing the objective of this Convention, the Parties shall:
(d) promote cooperation among affected country Parties in the fields of

environmental

protection and the conservation of land and water resources, as they relate to
desertification and drought.

UNFCCC (1994) and Kyoto Protocol (1997)

The Convention notes that Parties should take what ever actions are necessary, i.e.
funding, insurance and the transfer of technology, to meet the specific needs and
concerns of developing countries who will have to cope with the adverse effects of
climate change

especially countries with areas prone to natural disasters (article 4:

Commitments, paragraph 8).

Hyogo Framework for Action (2005)

Since its adoption the “Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015: Building the resilience
of Nations and Communities to Disasters”, has led to many countries revising their

policies  to  put  disaster  risk  reduction  at  the  top  of  their  political  and  development
agendas.  The  Hyogo  Framework  includes  in  section  B  (Priorities  for  action),  section
(4)  on  reducing  underlying  risk  factors,  which  states:  (i)  Environmental  and  natural
resource  management  (b)  Implement  integrated  environmental  and  natural  resource
management approaches that incorporate disaster risk reduction, including structural
and non-structural measures, such as integrated flood management and

appropriate

management of fragile ecosystems.

Ramsar convention (COP 9, Kampala, Uganda, 2005)

The Convention on Wetlands, signed in Ramsar, Iran, in 1971, is an intergovernmental
treaty, which provides the framework for national action and international cooperation
for the conservation and wise use of wetlands and their resources.

Resolution IX.9: The role of the Ramsar Convention in the prevention and mitigation of
impacts associated with natural phenomena, including those induced or exacerbated
by human activities Para 14: “ENCOURAGES Contracting Parties and River Basin
Authorities to ensure that

wetland ecosystems are managed and restored, as part

of contingency planning, in order to mitigate the impacts of natural phenomena
such as floods, provide resilience against drought in arid and semi-arid areas, and
contribute to wider strategies aimed at mitigating climate change and desertification
and thus reduce the incidence or magnitude of natural phenomena induced or enhanced
by such change.

Annex 2

Selected tools and resources related to environment and DRR

Asian Disaster Preparedness Center (www.adpc.net/v2007)
•

Community based DRM tool

CARE International (www.care-international.org)

•

Community Vulnerability Capacity Assessment Tool

Center for International Climate and Environment Change – Oslo (www.cicero.uio.no)

Disasters and Environment Working Group for Asia (www.dewga.net)

Global Fire Management Center (www.fire.uni-freiburg.de)

International Institute for Rural Reconstruction (www.iirr.org)
•

Ecosystem-based Disaster Risk Reduction

International Institute for Sustainable Development/ Intercooperation/IUCN/SEI

•

CRiSTAL (Community Risk identification Screening Tool for Adaptation and
Livelihoods - www.cristaltool.org)

International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
(www.ifrc.org/what/disasters/resources/publications.asp)
•

Vulnerability and Capacity Analysis

International Union for Conservation of Nature
•

Tsunami guidelines (www.iucn.org/resources/tools)

•

Integrating Environmental Safeguards into Disaster Management, Vol. 1 and Vol.
2 and Training module

(http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/integrating_environmental_safeguards_into_
disaster__management__vol_1.pdf)
(http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/integrating_environmental__safeguards__into_
disaster_management_vol_2.pdf )
(http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/integrating_environmental_safeguards_into_
disaster_management_vol_3.pdf)

•

Ecosystems, Disasters and Livelihoods: An Integrated Approach to Disaster Risk
Reduction(www.iucn.org/about/union/commissions/cem/cem_resources/?340/
Ecosystems-Livelihoods-and-Disasters)

•

Strengthening Decision-Making Tools for Disaster Risk Reduction, a case study
from Northern Pakistan

(www.iucn.org/about/union/commissions/cem/cem_resources/?1663/Disaster-
Risk-Livelihoods-and-Natural-Barriers-Strengthening-Decision-Making-Tools-
for-Disaster-Risk-Reduction)

Island issues (www.islandvulnerability.org)

La Red (www.desenredando.org)

Pro Act Network (proactnetwork.org)

Provention Consortium (www.proventionconsortium.org)

Risk RED (www.riskred.org)

Stockholm Environment Institute (www.sei.se)

United Nations Environment Programme (www.unep.org/conflictsanddisasters)

United Nations University-Environment and Human Security (www.ehs.unu.edu)

United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (www.preventionweb.org)

World Wildlife Fund
(www.panda.org/what_we_do/how_we_work/conservation/forests/news/?uNewsID=133901)
•

Natural Security, Protected Areas and Hazard Mitigation, 2008

Indicators and indices

Characteristics of disaster resilient communities
(www.proventionconsortium.org/?pageid=90)

Convention on Biological Diversity (www.cbd.int)

Environmental Vulnerability Index, UNEP/SOPAC
(www.vulnerabilityindex.net/Files/EVI%20Descriptions%202005.pdf)

European Union Habitats Directive
(http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/habitatsdirective/index_en.htm)

Inter-American Development Bank
(http://idbdocs.iadb.org/wsdocs/getdocument.aspx?docnum=1481595)

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (www.millenniumassessment.org)
OECD Key Environmental Indicators
(www.oecd.org/dataoecd/32/20/31558547.pdf)

U.N Commission on Sustainable Development
(www.un.org/esa/sustdev/natlinfo/indicators/guidelines.pdf)