CONTENTs

Editor’s Note 

Theme Articles 

Linking Discourses of DRR and Environmental 
Management: evolving example of “Resilience 
based approach” as an interfacing tool

How Sustainable Environmental Management 
is linked to disaster risk reduction

Need of the Hour: Disaster Risk Reduction and 
Environmental Management

From Theory to Practice

Building the Capacity of Coastal Zone 
Managers on protecting coastal ecosystems to 
reduce disaster risk

Rapid Disaster Risk Assessment of Coastal 
Communities: A Case Study of Mutiara Village, 
Banda Aceh, Indonesia

Disaster Environment Working Group for Asia 
(DEWGA)

Partnership for Environment and Disaster Risk 
Reduction

Special Article 

Online Dialogue on Early Warning

 

Linking Environmental Management

 

to Disaster Risk Reduction

Asian Disaster

 

Management

 

News

July-December 2009  Vol.15, Special Issue

INCLUDED:  ADPC Highlights in 2009,  ADPC Upcoming Events,  ADPC 2010 Training Courses

|

1

The 2000 Millennium Declaration, the Hyogo Framework for Action 
2005-2015, and the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment have come 
to the similar conclusion that environmental degradation, poverty 
and disaster risk share common causes as well as common conse-
quences for human security and well-being. They also make clear 
that environmental management is essential for maintaining sus-
tainable ecosystem services including ‘regulating services’ such as 
reduction of disaster risk.

The recently published 2009 Global Assessment Report on Disaster 
Risk Reduction: Risk and poverty in a changing climate, by the Unit-
‡† ƒ–‹‘•ǡ –‘‘ǡ ‹†‡–‹Ƥ‡• ‡…‘•›•–‡ †‡…Ž‹‡ ƒ• ‘‡ ‘ˆ –Š‡ —†‡”Ž›-
ing drivers of disaster-poverty nexus and hence emphasizes on the 
importance of environmental management. The report reiterates 
that resilient ecosystems are critical in that it provides for local com-
—‹–‹‡• ™‹–Š •—•–ƒ‹ƒ„Ž‡ Ž‹˜‡Ž‹Š‘‘†• „› •‡…—”‹‰ ƒ ”‡Ž‹ƒ„Ž‡ ƪ‘™ ‘ˆ
goods and services, and thereby reducing vulnerability to an increas-
ingly unpredictable climate. 

ADPC has been fully aware of the linkage between environmental 
sustainability and disaster risk reduction and has been continuously 
advocating the idea through its thematic area of work. Example in-

cludes the study undertaken in 2004 on ‘Environmental degradation 
and disaster risk’, the study conducted for ASEAN on establishment 
and operationalization of an ASEAN emergency response and stra-
tegic planning institute for environment disasters, development of 
the tool on ‘How Resilient is your coastal community?’ a guide for 
evaluating coastal community resilience to tsunamis and other haz-
ards, and the development of the regional training manual on ‘Dis-
aster Risk Reduction for Coastal Zone Managers’. With an objective 
to strengthen the working partnership with agencies working on is-
sues related to environmental management, ADPC is an active mem-
ber of the ‘Disaster Environment Working Group for Asia’ and the ‘ 
ISDR Partnership for Environment and Disaster Risk Reduction’. 

This special issue of ADPC Asian Disaster Management Newsletter 
in 2009 focuses on the linkages between disaster risk reduction and 
environmental management. There is a clear need to work further 
and together with partners in closing this gap between environmen-
tal management, disaster risk reduction and development and we 
are sincerely grateful to all the contributors to this special issue for 
sharing their views and experiences on the subject and how to link 
the theory to practice. 

It is clear that the environment and disasters are inherently linked.  As 2004 “Living with Risk: A 
Global Review of Disaster Reduction Initiatives” rightly pointed out, Environmental degradation 
ƒơ‡…–• ƒ–—”ƒŽ ’”‘…‡••‡•ǡ ƒŽ–‡”• Š—ƒ‹–›ǯ• ”‡•‘—”…‡ „ƒ•‡ ƒ† ‹…”‡ƒ•‡• ˜—Ž‡”ƒ„‹Ž‹–›Ǥ – ‡šƒ…‡”-
bates the impact of natural hazards, lessens overall resilience and challenges traditional coping 
strategies. 

 

Mr. Aloysius J. Rego

Editor in chief

Asian Disaster Management News

         July-December 2009

Editor’s note

The Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA), the Millennium Declaration 
ƒ† –Š‡  ‹ŽŽ‡‹— …‘•›•–‡ ••‡••‡– Šƒ˜‡ †‹ơ‡”‡– ’‘‹–•
of departure but come to the similar conclusion that environmental 
degradation, poverty and disaster risk share common causes as well 
as common consequences for human security and well-being. The 

links between DRR and environmental management are also clearly 
documented in the “Living with Risks” (UNISDR: 2004) which clearly 
outlines ways to integrate environmental management with disas-
ter risk strategies.

In the past decades, Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) and Environmental Management (both as two separate discourses and prac-
tices) remained inherently un-integrated to each other. But these two are not seen as disjuncture anymore. In recent times, the 
experiences of various mega disasters in critical ecological settings have called for an analytical look into the linkage vis-à-vis inte-
gration of these two discourses in a greater way. 

Linking Discourses of DRR and 
Environmental Management: 

evolving example of “Resilience based approach” 
as an interfacing tool

By Atiq Kainan Ahmed

Senior Social Scientist of ADPC. He is the ADPC focal point for Coastal Community Resilience (CCR) initiative. He can be reached at email: atiqka@adpc.net

2 

|

Asian Disaster Management News

         July-December 2009

There is growing evidence that environmental changes are 
increasing the frequency and intensity of natural hazards, 
and hence the level and patterns of often inter-related 
risks, exacerbating levels of vulnerability for people. Disas-
ter occurrences often enrooted into the exposure to the 
environmental drivers which aggravated the disaster  risk 
among the societies. On one hand,  environmental and cli-
matic changes increase the frequency and intensity of the 
various types of hazards, damage natural defenses (i.e. 
bio-shields, coastal vegetations) and increase the level of 
vulnerability of the people through environmental deg-
radation and weakening the resilience of the people and 
eco-systems. The environmental impacts, on the other 
hand, contribute to the drivers and lead towards disasters. 
Communities face the multiple pressures of environmental 
impacts in terms of damages of natural resource bases, 
physical and social losses and ends up with delayed and 
long-recovery process. Both type of environmental “driv-
ers” and “impacts” actually contributes towards creation 
of newer and recurring vulnerabilities. 

Incorporation of “Resilience” concept from 
Ecological discourses to DRR practices

The HFA has articulated uniquely the need to build national and 
community resilience for DRR in all the countries. This endorsement 
has initiated a new process of looking more carefully and analytically 
into the concept of “resilience” itself. The concept has its origin in 
the ecological and environmental science literatures but the major 
principles of resilience are found useful and needed for DRR prac-
tices. 

“Resilience” is a complex multi-interpretable concept.  CS Hollings 
(1973) introduced the concept into the ecological literature as a way 
to understand the non-linear dynamics of system changes. The “Re-
•‹Ž‹‡…‡ ŽŽ‹ƒ…‡dz ȋ͖͔͔͖Ȍ ‹†‡–‹Ƥ‡† –Š‡ –Š”‡‡ †‡Ƥ‹‰ …Šƒ”ƒ…–‡”‹•–‹…•
of the concept: a) the amount of change the system can undergo 
but still retain the same control on functions and structure, or still be 
in the same state, with in the same domain of attraction (i.e. absorb 
shock); b) the degree to which the system capable of reorganiza-
tion (i.e. bounce back); and c) the ability to build and increase the 
capacity for learning and adaptation. It is suggested that a resilient 
communities, like ecosystems, can better withstand “disturbance” 
(i.e. hazards, disasters) and adapt to change when needed. These 
†‡Ƥ‹‰ …Šƒ”ƒ…–‡”‹•–‹…• ‘ˆ ”‡•‹Ž‹‡…‡ ƒ”‡ ƒŽ•‘ ˆ‘—† ƒ’’Ž‹…ƒ„Ž‡ ‹ –Š‡
DRR contexts. With the HFA focus on resilience practitioners have 
started to incorporate the concept into various DRR practices and 
ƒ ƪ‘™ ‘ˆ ‘™Ž‡†‰‡ •–ƒ”–‡† –‘ Ž‘‘ ˆ‘” ™ƒ›• –‘ ƒ‡ Ž‹ƒ‰‡• „‡-
tween the environmental and DRR elements. 

Coastal Community Resilience (CCR) Initiative: 
a practical case of the linkage

In the post Indian Ocean Tsunami context, this was explored further 
and based on the major principles of  resilience the “Community Resil-

ience” framework was started to shape up as a standard of practice. 
ADPC, partnering with NOAA, UNESCAP, USAID and other regional 
stakeholders have developed the initiative as a practical based ex-
ample of linking “disaster related elements” with the “long term 
natural resource management and social elements”. This has un-
folded a practical based approach for building resilience with an 
“end-to-end” early warning system connectivity in the Indian Ocean 
Region.

The CCR framework builds around practical experiences of DRR 
and Natural Resource Management concepts incorporating lessons 
about how to address coastal hazards, reduce future risks, increase 
–Š‡ ‡ơ‡…–‹˜‡‡•• ‘ˆ ”‡…‘˜‡”›ǡ ƒ† ƒ†ƒ’– –‘ …Šƒ‰‡• ™‹–Š‹ –Š‡ …‘-
munity and the environment. A key lesson that CCR approach is build 
on is that single-sector DRR planning cannot solve the complexity of 
problems posed by natural hazards nor build resilience to them. It 
requires working across sectors such as environment, coastal man-
agement etc. and with a wide array of groups and organizations. 

The CCR initiative further through its implementation stages by 
ADPC in countries such as Indonesia, Maldives, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, 
Thailand and others have proved that resilience requires integrated 
and holistic risk reduction measures and actions which cannot be 
established from either DRR or environmental management actions 
but through interfacing both. In this manner, a linked approach 
helps unexpected changes to be absorbed more easily, so that dis-
aster scenarios can be avoided whenever possible.

++++++++++

Source: UNEP and ISDR

|

3

Asian Disaster Management News

         July-December 2009

The Challenge of Sustainable Environmental  
Management

 

The basic challenge of sustainable environmental management is to 
only take actions which do not exceed the threshold for harm to a 
local environment and which do not limit the use of environmental 
resources in the future. This requires a long-term approach to select-
ing actions as well as a clear understanding of the 
impacts of these actions. While the concept may 
be simple, the devil is in the details, particularly 
„‡…ƒ—•‡ ‹– ‹• †‹ƥ…—Ž– ˆ‘” ƒ ‹†‹˜‹†—ƒŽ –‘ ƒ••‡••
long-term outcomes of each action s/he takes. 

At the same time, where individual actions are 
aggregated to the level of a community or a soci-
ety it can be easier to assess and identify whether 
cumulative impacts cross a threshold to unsus-
tainable environmental management.  For exam-
ple, an individual may take sand from a river, as is 
done in many countries for construction, but this 
may not be seen as having an impact of future re-
source use and quality of life.  If, however, many 
individuals take sand from the same river to build 
a city – as has happened in Sri Lanka for the con-
•–”—…–‹‘ ‘ˆ ‘Ž‘„‘ Ȃ –Š‡ –Š‡”‡ ‹• ‹•—ƥ…‹‡–
sand coming from the rivers to replenish coastal 
beaches. The lack of sand for beaches impacts 
the quality of life of beach users such as tour-
‹•–•ǡ Ƥ•Š‡”ˆ‘Ž ƒ† ”‡•‹†‡–• Ž‹˜‹‰ ‡ƒ” „‡ƒ…Š‡•
and removes sand from future use as it has been 
turned into cement bricks and concrete.  The only 
way to get the sand back to the river and onto 
the beaches is to tear down buildings and return 
them to their basic components, something 
that is unlikely to happen. 

Because islands are often relatively closed natural systems, the chal-
lenge and impact of natural resource use is usually most evident and 
immediate, whether the island be as large as Sri Lanka or as small as 

an atoll in the Maldives. However, the same impact can occur on a 
…‘–‹‡–ƒŽ „ƒ•‹• ™‹–Š –Š‡ …‘•–”—…–‹‘ ‘ˆ Ž‡˜‡‡• –‘ ’”‡˜‡– ƪ‘‘†-
‹‰ǡ ™Š‹…Š •–‘’ ƒ ƒ–—”ƒŽ ”‡’Ž‡‹•Š‡– ‘ˆ —–”‹‡–• ‘ ƪ‘‘† Žƒ†•
and lead to changes in river dynamics and usability. 

One can argue that most human actions, when aggregated to the 
right scale, cannot be managed in a sustainable manner. Yet, as we 

gain more experience in living with larger populations needing more 
”‡•‘—”…‡• ™‡ ƒ”‡ ‰‡––‹‰ „‡––‡” ƒ– —†‡”•–ƒ†‹‰ ƒ† †‡Ƥ‹‰ –Š‡
cumulative impacts of human actions, and how these actions impact 
on current and future resource availability and quality of life. 

—•–ƒ‹ƒ„Ž‡ ‡˜‹”‘‡–ƒŽ ƒƒ‰‡‡– ‹• ƒ ”‡Žƒ–‹˜‡Ž› •‹’Ž‡ …‘…‡’–ǡ –Š‘—‰Š ™‹–Š ƒ •‹‰‹Ƥ…ƒ– ‹’ƒ…–ǡ –Š‡ ’”‡‹•‡ „‡‹‰ –Š‘•‡
actions taken today which have an impact on the environment – and most actions do impact on the environment – should not lead 
to a reduction in the availability of needed resources or desired quality of life in the future. How this concept is linked to disaster 
risk reduction is discussed further in the following sections. 

How Sustainable Environmental 
Management 

is linked to disaster 

risk reduction

C. Kelly, ProAct Network

ǡ ȋ†‹•ƒ•–‡”‡ŽŽ›̻›ƒŠ‘‘Ǥ…‘Ȍ ”Ǥ ‡ŽŽ› Šƒ• ‘˜‡” ͚͟ ›‡ƒ”• ‘ˆ Ƥ‡Ž† ‡š’‡”‹‡…‡ ‹ Š—ƒ‹–ƒ”‹ƒ ƒ••‹•–ƒ…‡ ’”‘‰”ƒ• †‡ƒŽ‹‰ ™‹–Š

…‘’‘—† †‹•ƒ•–‡”•ǡ †”‘—‰Š–•ǡ ˆ‘‘† ‹•‡…—”‹–›ǡ ‹•‡…– ‹ˆ‡•–ƒ–‹‘ǡ Š—””‹…ƒ‡•ǡ ‡’‹†‡‹…•ǡ ƪ‘‘†•ǡ ™ƒ” ƒ† ‘–Š‡” ‡‡”‰‡…‹‡• ‹ †‡˜‡Ž‘’‹‰ …‘—–”‹‡•Ǥ  ƒƥŽ‹ƒ–‡
‘ˆ –Š‡  ‡Ƥ‡Ž†   ƒœƒ”† ‡•‡ƒ”…Š ‡–”‡ǡ ”Ǥ ‡ŽŽ› ‹• ƒ ‡„‡” ‘ˆ –Š‡ –‡”ƒ–‹‘ƒŽ ‡•‡ƒ”…Š ‘‹––‡‡ ‘ ‹•ƒ•–‡”•ǡ –Š‡ ‘…‹‡–› ‘ˆ ‹• ƒŽ›•‹•ǡ Š‡ 
–‡”ƒ–‹‘ƒŽ ‡”‰‡…› ƒƒ‰‡‡– ‘…‹‡–› ƒ† ”‘ …– ‡–™‘”Ǥ ˜‡” –Š‹• …ƒ”‡‡” ”Ǥ ‡ŽŽ› Šƒ• ’‡”ˆ‘”‡† Ƥ‡Ž† ƒ† •‡‹‘” ƒƒ‰‡‡– –ƒ•• ‹ ‘˜‡”
͙͠ †‹•ƒ•–‡” ”‡•’‘•‡ ‘’‡”ƒ–‹‘•Ǥ ‡…‡– ’”‘ˆ‡••‹‘ƒŽ ™‘” Šƒ• ‹…Ž—†‡† ”‹• ƒ••‡••‡– ƒ† †‹•ƒ•–‡” ƒƒ‰‡‡– …ƒ’ƒ…‹–› „—‹Ž†‹‰ ‹ ƒŒ‹‹•–ƒǡ †‹•ƒ•–‡”
”‹• ”‡†—…–‹‘ ‹ –Š‡ ƒŠ‡Ž ƒ† ƒ••‡••‹‰ –Š‡ ‡˜‹”‘‡–ƒŽ ‹’ƒ…–• †—”‹‰ †‹•ƒ•–‡”• ȋŠ‡ ƒ’‹† ˜‹”‘‡–ƒŽ ’ƒ…– ••‡••‡– ”‘Œ‡…– ƒ† Š‡Ž–‡” ƒ† 

˜‹”‘‡– ‹••—‡• ˆ‘” –Š‡ Ž‘„ƒŽ Š‡Ž–‡” Ž—•–‡”ȌǤ ȋŠ‡ ˜‹‡™• ’”‡•‡–‡† ‹ –Š‹• ’ƒ’‡” †‘ ‘– ”‡’”‡•‡– –Š‘•‡ ‘ˆ ”‘ …– ‡–™‘”ǤȌ

‹‰—”‡ ͙Ǥ Dz‘‰ —›²ǡ  ‹ƒ‰ ”‘˜‹…‡ǡ ‹‡–ƒdz Ǧ



Ž‘‘† ƒƒ‰‡‡– ”‘Œ‡…– ̽



4 

|

Asian Disaster Management News

         July-December 2009

The Link between Disaster Risk  Reduction and 
Sustainable Environment Management 

…‡ –Š‡•‡ ‡Ž‡‡–• Šƒ˜‡ „‡‡ ‹†‡–‹Ƥ‡† ƒ†ǡ ‹†‡ƒŽŽ› “—ƒ–‹Ƥ‡†ǡ
those managing the development process can then incorporate 
measures to reduce unacceptable risks, through reducing the im-
pact of hazards, levels of vulnerability or, preferably, both. 

The risk assessment process is incorporated into participatory 
disaster risk assessment tools such as those developed by Asian 
Disaster Preparedness Center (http://www.adpc.net/pdr-sea/
publications/12Handbk.pdf). It is also a fundamental element in the 
environmental impact assessment process required in most coun-
tries for any major developmental undertaking. 

—””‡– ’”ƒ…–‹…‡ ‹• –‘ †‡Ƥ‡ ™Šƒ– ‹• ƒ……‡’–ƒ„Ž‡ ‹ –‡”• ‘ˆ ”‹• „ƒ•‡†

on the views of the individuals, community or society which will ex-
’‡”‹‡…‡ –Š‡ ”‹•ǡ ƒ† ™Š‹…Š ™‹ŽŽ ‰ƒ‹ ƒ› „‡‡Ƥ–• ˆ”‘ ƒ……‡’–‹‰
greater risk. Some societies willingly accept greater risks that oth-
ers, making it hard to generalize as to what is an acceptable level of 
risk for everyone in the world. 

Understanding local perceptions of risk is important in designing ef-
fective risk reduction actions. But also of importance is the equality 
of risk, that is whether some are more subject to a risk (e.g., those 
Ž‹˜‹‰ ‹ ƒ ƪ‘‘† œ‘‡Ȍ –Šƒ ‘–Š‡”•ǡ ƒ† ™Š‡–Š‡” –Š‘•‡ Ž‹˜‹‰ ‹ •—…Š
Šƒœƒ”† œ‘‡• ‰ƒ‹ „‡‡Ƥ–• ™Š‹…Š ƒ”‡ ‡“—ƒŽ –‘ –Š‡ ”‹• –Š‡› ‡š’‡”‹-
ence. 

What does risk assessment and perceptions of acceptable risk have 
to do with sustainable environmental management? One of the 
underlying challenges of risk management – the process of risk re-
duction – is to avoid transferring risk impacts into the future. For in-
•–ƒ…‡ǡ „—‹Ž†‹‰ ƪ‘‘† ’”‡˜‡–‹‘ ‡„ƒ‡–• ƒŽ‘‰ ƒ ”‹˜‡” ™Š‹…Š
carries a high sediment load will commonly cause the base level of 
the river to rise over time, eventually increasing the likelihood of 
‘˜‡”–‘’’‹‰ ‘ˆ –Š‡ ‡„ƒ‡–• ƒ† •‡˜‡”‡ ƪ‘‘†‹‰Ǥ • •—…Š ‡-
„ƒ‡–• ƒ”‡ ‡š’‡…–‡† –‘ ’”‡˜‡– ƪ‘‘†‹‰ ˆ‘” •‘‡ –‹‡ Ȃ ‹Ǥ‡Ǥǡ
move the risk impact into the future – the severity of the eventual 
ƪ‘‘† ƒ› „‡ ‰”‡ƒ–‡” –Šƒ ‹ˆ ƪ‘‘†‹‰ ‘……—””‡† ‡ƒ…Š ›‡ƒ”ǡ ƒ† ™ƒ•

an integral part of normal life. This type of problem has occurred in 
the Mississippi River in the United States, as well as in many rivers 
in Bangladesh. 

Š—•ǡ ”‹• ”‡†—…–‹‘ ‡ơ‘”–• ™Š‹…Š •Š‹ˆ– ”‹• ‹’ƒ…–• –‘ –Š‡ ˆ—–—”‡ ƒ…-
tually don’t reduce risk, but transfer the impact to those living in 
–Š‡ ˆ—–—”‡Ǥ Š‹• ƒ› „‡ Ƥ‡ ˆ‘” –Š‘•‡ ™Š‘ ƒ˜‘‹† ƪ‘‘†• –‘†ƒ›ǡ „—–
it leads to increased and unnecessary hardship and possibly deaths 
in the future. In short, risk reduction which just transfers risk to the 
ˆ—–—”‡ ‹• ‘– ”‡ƒŽŽ› ”‹• ”‡†—…–‹‘ ƒ† –Š‡•‡ ”‹• ”‡†—…–‹‘ ‡ơ‘”–• ƒ”‡
‘– •—•–ƒ‹ƒ„Ž‡Ǥ ˜‡–—ƒŽŽ› –Š‡ ”‹• ‹• ”‡ƒŽ‹œ‡† ƒ† ’‡‘’Ž‡ •—ơ‡”Ǥ
On the other hand, risk reduction which reduces current risk with-
out transferring risk to the future is sustainable, as people in the 
future will not be subject to increased risk. At the least, such risk 
reduction actions would not use natural resources at rates which 
have a negative impact on the future quality of life. At best, sustain-
able risk reduction actions can lead to an improvement to current 
and future quality of life. 

The idea of avoiding a future transfer of risk as a way to make disas-
ter risk reduction sustainable and a complement to sustainable en-
˜‹”‘‡–ƒŽ ƒƒ‰‡‡– ‹• ƒ ”‡Žƒ–‹˜‡Ž› ‡™ ‹†‡ƒ ‹ –Š‡ Ƥ‡Ž† ‘ˆ ”‹•
reduction. As experience is gained with linking disaster risk reduc-
tion and sustainable environmental management, and with antici-
pating the future impacts of present actions, we will be better able 
to reduce risk over the long-term and not just reduce risk today at 
the expense of the future. 

“

Š‡ …‘”‡ –‘ †‹•ƒ•–‡” ”‹• ”‡†—…–‹‘ ‹• ƒ †‡˜‡Ž‘’‡– ’”‘…‡• ™Š‹…Š

‹†‡–‹Ƥ‡• ƒ† ‹…‘”’‘”ƒ–‡• ’‘–‡–‹ƒŽ †‹•ƒ•–‡”• ‹–‘ ƒƒ‰‹‰ –Š‡ 
…Šƒ‰‡ ™Š‹…Š ‘……—”• –Š”‘—‰Š †‡˜‡Ž‘’‡–Ǥ Š‹• ’”‘…‡•• ‹˜‘Ž˜‡• 
identifying hazards, their frequencies and magnitudes and impact, as 
well as the social and physical vulnerabilities of populations at risk.

”

++++++++++

‹‰—”‡ ͚Ǥ Dz‘‰ —›²ǡ  ‹ƒ‰ ”‘˜‹…‡ǡ ‹‡–ƒdz Ǧ



Ž‘‘† ƒƒ‰‡‡– ”‘Œ‡…– ̽



‹‰—”‡ ͛Ǥ Dz‘‰ —›²ǡ  ‹ƒ‰ ”‘˜‹…‡ǡ ‹‡–ƒdz Ǧ  



Ž‘‘† ƒƒ‰‡‡– ”‘Œ‡…– ̽



Why do ecosystems matter?

Climate change and 
natural disasters such as 
Žƒ†•Ž‹†‡• ƒ† ƪ‘‘†• ƒ”‡
putting millions of people 
at risk, especially women 
and children. Their vulner-
ability is exacerbated by 
ongoing environmental 
degradation, more people 
living in exposed areas, 
increased frequency of ex-
treme weather events and 
by government policy.

Healthy ecosystems, such as wetlands, forests and coastal areas, 
‹…Ž—†‹‰ ƒ‰”‘˜‡• ƒ† •ƒ† †—‡•ǡ ’”‘˜‹†‡ „—ơ‡”• –‘ ‡š–”‡‡
events. They are especially critical to people who depend on natural 
resources for their livelihoods and physical security. Post-disaster re-
…‘˜‡”› ‡ơ‘”–• ‘ˆ–‡ …”‡ƒ–‡ ‘”‡ ‡˜‹”‘‡–ƒŽ ’”‘„Ž‡• –Šƒ –Š‡
event itself, for example, by locating refugee camps in ecologically-
sensitive areas or through inappropriate waste management. Disas-
ter prevention and climate change mitigation policies could become 
‘”‡ ‡ơ‡…–‹˜‡ „› ‹–‡‰”ƒ–‹‰ •—•–ƒ‹ƒ„Ž‡ ‡…‘•›•–‡ ƒƒ‰‡‡–
practices.

Five reasons why ecosystems matter to disaster 
risk reduction:

1. 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 ecosys-
tems and diverse livelihoods;
2. Ecosystems, such as wetlands, forests, and coasts can provide 
…‘•–Ǧ‡ơ‡…–‹˜‡ ƒ–—”ƒŽ „—ơ‡”• ƒ‰ƒ‹•– Šƒœƒ”† ‡˜‡–• ƒ† –Š‡ ‹’ƒ…–•
of climate change. According to the World Bank (2004), investments 
in preventive measures, including in maintaining healthy ecosys-
–‡•ǡ ‹• •‡˜‡Ǧˆ‘Ž† ‘”‡ …‘•– ‡ơ‡…–‹˜‡ –Šƒ –Š‡ …‘•–• ‹…—””‡† „›
disasters;
3. There are clear links between resource degradation and disaster 
”‹•Ǥ ‡‰”ƒ†‡† ‡…‘•›•–‡• ƒ”‡ —ƒ„Ž‡ –‘ ’”‘˜‹†‡ –Š‡ „‡‡Ƥ–• –Šƒ–
help communities to reduce their vulnerability to disasters. In addi-

tion, many disasters 
are caused by reoc-
…—””‹‰

…‘ƪ‹…–•ǡ

which are based 
on competition 
for scarce natural 
resources – and 
‘…‡ ƒ …‘ƪ‹…– Šƒ•
started it can also 
lead to additional 
environmental deg-
radation;
4. Healthy and diverse ecosystems are more robust to extreme 
™‡ƒ–Š‡” ‡˜‡–•Ǥ ‹•ƒ•–‡”• …ƒ ƒơ‡…– „‹‘†‹˜‡”•‹–› –Š”‘—‰Š –Š‡ •’”‡ƒ†
of invasive species, mass species mortality, loss of habitat and poor-
Ž› †‡•‹‰‡† ’‘•– †‹•ƒ•–‡” …Ž‡ƒǦ—’ ‡ơ‘”–•Ǥ Š‹• ƒ› Šƒ˜‡ ƒ ‡‰ƒ–‹˜‡
impact on progress toward achieving the objectives of the Conven-
tion on Biological Diversity and Millennium Development Goals; and
5. Ecosystem degradation reduces the ability of natural systems to 
sequester carbon, exacerbating climate change impacted disasters.

Ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction supports 
human security

IUCN is assessing and promoting ways of managing ecosystems 
that allow ecosystems and people to en¬hance their resilience 
and adapt to the impacts of climate change and disaster events.  

There is an increased understanding that ecosystem-based ap-
’”‘ƒ…Š‡• …ƒ „‡ ‡“—ƒŽŽ› ‘” ‘”‡ „‡‡Ƥ…‹ƒŽ –Šƒ ‹ˆ”ƒ•–”—…–—”‡ ‘”
–‡…Š‘Ž‘‰›Ǧ„ƒ•‡† •‘Ž—–‹‘•Ǥ ‡Ž‡˜ƒ–   ”‡‰‹‘ƒŽ ‘ƥ…‡• ƒ†
thematic programs have already been confronted with the urgent 
realities of post-disaster assessments and providing guidance to 
governments or IUCN members on community resilience, the role of 
ecosystems in disaster risk reduction and long-term recovery guid-
ance.

More reading sources:

Ecosystems and Disasters:  ǯ• ™‘” ‘ ‹•ƒ•–‡” ‹• ‡†—…–‹‘ ”‘…Š—”‡ǡ
June 2009, IUCN
Incorporating environmental safeguards into disaster risk management: 
ƒ –”ƒ‹‹‰ ‘†—Ž‡Ǥ ͚͘͘͠ǡ …‘•›•–‡• ƒ† ‹˜‡Ž‹Š‘‘†• ”‘—’ •‹ƒǡ  

|

5

Asian Disaster Management News

         July-December 2009

“

Investing in ecosystems to reduce the risk of hazards and support 

Ž‹˜‡Ž‹Š‘‘†• ‹• ‡› –‘ „—‹Ž†‹‰ ”‡•‹Ž‹‡– …‘—‹–‹‡•ǡdz •ƒ›• ‡ơ …-
‡‡Ž›ǡ  ǯ• Š‹‡ˆ …‹‡–‹•–Ǥ Dz ‹•ƒ•–‡”• ‹ŽŽ ’‡‘’Ž‡ „—– –Š‡› ƒŽ•‘ Šƒ˜‡
‹‡•‡ ‡˜‹”‘‡–ƒŽ ‹’ƒ…– ‘ ƒơ‡…–‡† ƒ”‡ƒ•Ǥ  ‘”†‡” –‘ ”‡†—…‡
biodiversity loss, we need healthy and diverse ecosystems, which are 
more robust to extreme climate events. 

”

++++++++++

 –Š‡ ’ƒ•– –™‘ †‡…ƒ†‡•ǡ ‘”‡ –Šƒ ͚͘͘ ‹ŽŽ‹‘ ’‡‘’Ž‡ Šƒ˜‡ „‡‡ ƒơ‡…–‡† ‡˜‡”› ›‡ƒ” „› †‹•ƒ•–‡”•ǡ ‘•– ‘ˆ –Š‡ ‘……—””‹‰ ‹ ’ƒ”–•
of the world where communities are less prepared to face them.

Healthy Ecosystems 

for human security

Michael Dougherty, IUCN Asia  

ȋ‹…Šƒ‡Ž̻‹—…–Ǥ‘”‰Ȍ ‹• ‡‰‹‘ƒŽ ‘—‹…ƒ–‹‘• ‘‘”†‹ƒ–‘” ƒ– •‹ƒ ‡‰‹‘ƒŽ ƥ…‡ ‘ˆ  Ǥ

“

Š‡ •–‡ƒ†› ”‹•‡ ‹ –Š‡ —„‡” ‘ˆ ƒ–—”ƒŽ †‹•ƒ•–‡”• ƒ† ‹ –Š‡

—„‡” ‘ˆ ’‡‘’Ž‡ǡ ™Š‘•‡ Ž‹˜‡• ƒ† ’”‘’‡”–› ƒ”‡ ƒơ‡…–‡† „› –Š‡ǡ ‹•
now increasingly recognized as a result of environmental degrada-
tion. And all of this is exacerbated by climate change,” says Nev-
‹ŽŽ‡ •Šǡ ‡ƒ† ‘ˆ  ǯ• …‘•›•–‡ ƒƒ‰‡‡– ”‘‰”ƒǤ DzŠƒ–
we need to do now is make sure the disaster risk community puts 
ecosystem-based management at the heart of all preventive and 
disaster-relief policies. 

”

ƒ”–Š“—ƒ‡ †ƒƒ‰‡ǡ ƒ‹•–ƒ ͚͘͘͝ ̽

Karl Schuler, IUCN

Ž‘‘†‡† …‹–›ǡ ƒ‰Žƒ†‡•Š ̽ 

6 

|

Asian Disaster Management News

         July-December 2009

The disasters cause serious impacts not only on human lives but also 
on the natural as well as built environment of the geographical re-
gion wherever the disaster strikes. The impact of Asian Tsunami on 
coastal ecosystems and of earth quakes in Pakistan and China pro-
˜‹†‡ ‡˜‹†‡…‡ –‘ –Š‹• ‡ơ‡…–Ǥ

The tools, techniques and modalities of undertaking above assess-
ments and actions are also established either by adopting existing 
tools and techniques or modifying them to suit the needs of the 
†‹•ƒ•–‡” ƒƒ‰‡‡–Ǥ ‘…—””‡–Ž›ǡ –Š‡”‡ ƒ”‡ ‡š–‡•‹˜‡ ‡ơ‘”–• –‘
invent new tools, techniques or institutional structures to integrate 
and “mainstream” disaster management with other disciplines.
 

The proceedings of the international, regional and even national 
conferences, seminars, workshops reveal that the above interven-
tions are already considered and even endorsed. 

Despite these achievements the discussions are continued with in-
creased interests on the same subject highlighting same issues and 
concerns.  This indicates that some thing is not right with us; i.e dis-
aster managers, environmental managers, development praction-
ers, and all the parties contributing to manage disasters.

What is not correct with us? It is the opin-
‹‘ ‘ˆ –Š‡ ™”‹–‡” –Šƒ– ‘•– •‹‰‹Ƥ…ƒ– ˆƒ…–‘”
contributing to this dilemma is the absence 
or lack of coordination among us. This is the 
present dilemma that many countries prone 
to disasters face today. Despite the scien-
–‹Ƥ… ‘™Ž‡†‰‡ ‘ ‹–‡”ǦŽ‹ƒ‰‡• „‡–™‡‡
environmental concerns and the disasters 
together with the lessons learned during 
various disasters that occurred in the recent 
past the development partners are still con-
…‡”‡† ™‹–Š ‹‡ơ‡…–‹˜‡ ƒ† ‹‡ƥ…‹‡– •›•-
tems in place for disaster management. The 
fundamental issue for this dilemma is the 

“Lack of coordination and collaboration” among the policy makers, 
planners, development practitioners and the other key stakeholders 
who are involved in managing disasters.
 
The partners who should implement a well coordinated action to 
recover from the disasters for instance, are acting either individually 
or in isolation. While the disaster managers are concerned with the 
aspects of emergency operations and recovery rest of the concerns 
are either ignored or not considered, the environmental managers 
are largely or mainly focusing on environmental protection and con-
•‡”˜ƒ–‹‘Ǥ Š‡•‡ –™‘ ‰”‘—’• ƒ”‡ ‘ˆ–‡ ‹ –™‘ †‹ơ‡”‡– …ƒ’• ƒ†
their meeting together and taking action in a coordinated manner 
is seldom designed. 

The experience of the disasters that occurred in the 21 century is full 
of evidence to this fact. For instance, Tokage Typhoon that hit Toyo-
oka city in the Hyogo Prefecture of Japan in October 2004 clearly 
…‘Ƥ”‡† –Š‡ ‡‡† –‘ ‹…‘”’‘”ƒ–‡ ‡˜‹”‘‡–ƒŽ ‹••—‡• ‹ †‹•ƒ•–‡”
management. The Disaster Management Plans very often do not 
concretely incorporate environmental issues. The Environmental is-
sues are handled by separate department which has few links or no 
links with disaster issues.

– ‹• ™‡ŽŽ ‡•–ƒ„Ž‹•Š‡† –Šƒ– –Š‡”‡ ‹• ƒ …›…Ž‹…ƒŽ ‹–‡”ǦŽ‹ƒ‰‡• „‡–™‡‡ ‡˜‹”‘‡–ƒŽ ƒƒ‰‡‡– ƒ† Ǥ Š‡ ‡˜‹”‘‡–ƒŽ 
degradation exacerbates the disaster impact and vice versa. Deforestation, forest management practices, unsustainable agricultural  
’”ƒ…–‹…‡•ǡ ‘˜‡”‡š’Ž‘‹–ƒ–‹‘ ‘ˆ …‘ƒ•–ƒŽ ƒ† ‘–Š‡” ‡…‘•›•–‡• …ƒ ‡šƒ…‡”„ƒ–‡ ‡‰ƒ–‹˜‡ ‹’ƒ…–• ‘ˆ †‹•ƒ•–‡”• Ž‡ƒ†‹‰ –‘ ƪ‘‘†‹‰ǡ 
Žƒ†•Ž‹†‡•ǡ —† •Ž‹†‡•ǡ •‹Ž–‹‰ǡ …‘–ƒ‹ƒ–‹‘ ‘ˆ ™ƒ–‡” „‘–Š ‰”‘—† ƒ• ™‡ŽŽ ƒ• •—”ˆƒ…‡ ™ƒ–‡” ƒơ‡…–‹‰ Š—ƒ Ž‹˜‡•Ǥ

Need of the Hour: 

Disaster Risk Reduction 

and Environmental 

Management 

By Manel Jayamanna 

(chitra_manel@yahoo.com) As a specialist in Disaster Management, Natural Resources and Environmental management, 

‘˜‡”–› ƒ† ‡˜‡Ž‘’‡– ’Žƒ‹‰ ƒ† ƒƒ‰‡‡–ǡ •Ǥ ƒ‡Ž ƒ›ƒƒƒ Šƒ• „‡‡ ™‘”‹‰ ‡š–‡•‹˜‡Ž› ‹ –Š‡ Ƥ‡Ž†Ǥ

 
The links between DRR and environmental management are comprehensively  
documented in the “Living with Risks ” published by the UNISDR in 2004. It clearly  
outlines ways to integrate environmental management with disaster risk strategies. 
These include the following:

Ȉ ••‡••‡– ‘ˆ ‡˜‹”‘‡–ƒŽ …ƒ—•‡• ‘ˆ Šƒœƒ”† ‘……—””‡…‡ ƒ† ˜—Ž‡”ƒ„‹Ž‹–›ǡ
Ȉ ••‡••‡– ‘ˆ ‡˜‹”‘‡–ƒŽ ƒ…–‹‘• –Šƒ– …ƒ ”‡†—…‡ ˜—Ž‡”ƒ„‹Ž‹–›ǡ
Ȉ ••‡••‡– ‘ˆ ‡˜‹”‘‡–ƒŽ …‘•‡“—‡…‡• ‘ˆ ǡ
Ȉ ‘•‹†‡”ƒ–‹‘ ‘ˆ ‡˜‹”‘‡–ƒŽ •‡”˜‹…‡• ‹ †‡…‹•‹‘ ƒ‹‰ ’”‘…‡••‡•ǡ
Ȉ ƒ”–‡”•Š‹’• ƒ† ”‡‰‹‘ƒŽ ƒ’’”‘ƒ…Š‡• –‘ Žƒ† —•‡ ƒ† ƒ–—”‡ …‘•‡”˜ƒ–‹‘ǡ
Ȉ ‡ƒ•‘ƒ„Ž‡ ƒŽ–‡”ƒ–‹˜‡• –‘ …‘ƪ‹…–• …‘…‡”‹‰ ƒŽ–‡”ƒ–‹˜‡ —•‡• ‘ˆ ”‡•‘—”…‡•ǡ
Ȉ †˜‹…‡ ƒ† ‹ˆ‘”ƒ–‹‘ –‘ ‹˜‘Ž˜‡ ƒ…–‘”• ‹ ‡Šƒ…‹‰ –Š‡ “—ƒŽ‹–› ‘ˆ –Š‡ ‡˜‹”‘‡–Ǥ

In  addition, the same document recommends the following areas  
of interventions that could bring positive results in managing  
disasters by harnessing the inherent links between DRR and  
environmental management:

Ȉ ’’Ž‹…ƒ–‹‘ ‘ˆ ƒ†‘’–‡† –‘‘Ž•ǡ
Ȉ š…Šƒ‰‡ ‘ˆ ‘™Ž‡†‰‡ ƒ† ’”ƒ…–‹…‡•ǡ
Ȉ †Œ—•–‡–• ‹ ’‘Ž‹…› ˆ”ƒ‡™‘”•ǡ
Ȉ ‘ŽŽƒ„‘”ƒ–‹‘• ƒ‘‰ –Š‡ ‹•–‹–—–‹‘• ™‘”‹‰ ‹  
  environmental science and development sector, and
Ȉ ‘—‹–› ’ƒ”–‹…‹’ƒ–‹‘Ǥ

The separation among the disciplines is a common phenomenon 
that is visible clearly among the practitioners of the same disciplines. 
One would attribute this distancing to the fact that each subject or 
thematic concern that comes up due to the issues and needs of the 
nations attempt to develop that theme in full scale and to have its 
own identity in the literature. The wide angle perspectives are con-
sidered by involving multi disciplinary experts but very often ‘hoarse 
eye’ approach is practiced. For instance the tools and techniques 
developed and practiced in the environmental sector are quite ad-
equate to incorporate DRR in not only in the environment sector 
but also in other disciplines. However there seems a reluctance on 
the part of environmental scientists to include Disaster Risk Assess-
ment for instance in the Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA). 
The emphasis of the EIAs was largely on the impacts on the natural 
resources. The human dimension in the interventions seems less im-
portant. This is mainly a problem of the attitudes than the discipline 
itself. The EIAs some time ago were the sole domain of the Natural 
Scientists and the role of the Social Scientists or Economists and any 
other discipline was limited. However this situation is slowly chang-
ing now with a tendency to include human dimension in the environ-
mental assessments.

Similarly the Disaster Managers were more concerned with the Human  
dimension that exposes people to vulnerability even to the extent  
of disregarding the broader social structures within which the 

 

humans do exist and are impacting with. 
 
The general opinion is that the environment issues in a disaster situ-
ation are largely a matter of “waste management” issue. The larger 
dimension of environmental issues that has direct relevance with 
disaster management such as land use management, forest man-
agement, river basin management, ecosystem management and so 
on are presently being managed by separate agencies other than 
the environmental agency. The coordination among these agencies 
‹• ‘ˆ ’ƒ”ƒ‘—– ‹’‘”–ƒ…‡ ˆ‘” ‡ơ‡…–‹˜‡ †‹•ƒ•–‡” ƒƒ‰‡‡–Ǥ

The lack of coordination is particularly highly visible in the recovery 
and preparedness stages of the Disaster Management process. The 
emergency phase may draw the attention of all relevant partners 
given the humanitarian concerns of the disaster. For instance dur-
ing the immediate aftermath of Asian Tsunami in December 2004 al-
most all agencies including the private sector and civil societies not 
only at the national level but also at the  international level came for-
ward with outpouring numbers to assist the humanitarian aspects 
‘ˆ –Š‡ †‹•ƒ•–‡”•Ǥ ‘™‡˜‡” –Š‹• ƪ‘‘† ‘ˆ ƒ••‹•–ƒ…‡ ‡†‡† —’ ‹ Š—‰‡
waste due to lack of coordination creating piles of unwanted relief 
material such a food, clothing, bottled water etc.

Lack of coordination that was evident and visible during the emer-
gency phase was further deteriorated gradually as the scenario 
moved towards recovery. The units or divisions within the same 

agency were seen as competing for resources and higher visibil-
‹–› –Šƒ– ”‡•—Ž–‡† ‹ ™ƒ•–‡ ‘ˆ ”‡•‘—”…‡•Ǥ Š‡ ƒơ‡…–‡† …‘—‹–‹‡•
were compelled to bear the additional cost of this competition as 
observed in Tsunami hit countries in Asia particularly in Sri Lanka. 

Š‡ •‘Ž—–‹‘ –Š‡”‡ˆ‘”‡ Ž‹‡• ‹ –Š‡ ˆƒ…– Š‘™ ‡ơ‡…–‹˜‡Ž› ƒ† ‡ƥ…‹‡–-
Ž› –Š‡ ‡ơ‘”–• ‘ˆ †‹•ƒ•–‡” ƒƒ‰‡‡– …‘—Ž† „‡ ‘‘”†‹ƒ–‡†Ǥ Š‹•
writer would like to advocate the principle and the philosophy of 
righteousness of the mind as the correct path to solve this issue 
of lack of coordination. It requires a change in the attitude of the 
stakeholders. The individual service providers should be prepared 
to go beyond the box and render their services to the humanity irre-
spective of the identities such as class, color, nationality, remunera-
–‹‘ ƒ† ƒ› †‹˜‹•‹‘ –Šƒ– Š—ƒ „‡‹‰• ƒ”‡ †‹˜‹†‡† ‹ –‘ †‹ơ‡”‡–
camps. Until and unless the human beings change their attitudes to 
serve themselves with positive and conducive attitudes, the lack of 
…‘‘”†‹ƒ–‹‘ ™‹ŽŽ ’‡”•‹•– ƒơ‡…–‹‰ –Š‡ Ž‹˜‡• ‘ˆ ƒŽŽ Š—ƒ• ’ƒ”–‹…—Žƒ”Ž›
the poor and less privileged groups of people in the society.    

References:

The Unexplored Nexus: Environmental Management and Emergency 

ƒƒ‰‡‡– ‹ ‘•–Ǧ ‹•ƒ•–‡” ‡…‘•–”—…–‹‘ǡ „› ‘Š Ǥƒ„ƒ†‹‡ǡ ‡ƒ––Ž‡

Public Utilities
Living with Risk, 2004, United Nations International Strategy for Disaster 
 Reduction (UNISDR)
Environmental Degradation and Disaster Risk, 2004 by Glen Dolecemasco, 
Asian Disaster Preparedness Center

|

7

Asian Disaster Management News

         July-December 2009

++++++++++

‘—‹–› „ƒ•‡† ‹‹–‹ƒ–‹‘ ‘ ƒ‹ ƒ–‡” ƒ”˜‡•–”›ǡ ƒ‡‘ ”‘˜‹…‡ǡ  

ƒ„‘†‹ƒ ̽



Š‹Ž†ǯ• ’ƒ‹–‹‰ ‘ ƪ‘‘†‹‰ ‹ ‹‡–ƒ ̽



8 

|

Asian Disaster Management News

         July-December 2009

Need for Environmental Management and  
Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)

The fourth assessment report (2007)  from the Intergovernmental 
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) highlights that climate change is ex-
pected to be accompanied by an increased frequency and intensity 
of extreme climate events in many parts of the world. As a result 
many communities around the world are becoming more vulner-
able against disasters, according to the recently published “Glo-
bal Assessment Report: Disaster Risk Reduction”  (2009) from the 
United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction 
(UNISDR). This article presents compelling new evidence of concen-
tration of risk rural and urban settings whereby climate change will 
aggravate many of the socio-economic factors that drive vulnerabil-
ity. As reviewed by UNISDR, disaster risk is growing as a result of 
unplanned urbanization, persistent poverty and ecosystem degra-
dation. These risk drivers are likely to be exacerbated due to climate 
change.

Over the last two decades (1988-2007), 76 percent of all disasters 
were hydrological, meteorological or climatologically in nature. 
These accounted for 45 percent of the deaths and 79 percent of 
the economic losses caused by natural hazards. Population growth 
combined with more people living in hazardous areas: for instance, 
vulnerable urban areas will also increase risk over time, including the 
number of fatalities and asset damage. The IPCC attributes increas-
ing drought and heavy precipitation in some regions, as well as ex-
treme temperatures across the globe to climate change, and these 
trends will continue in the future. Moreover, developing countries 
experience disproportionately more fatalities where ninety per cent 
of all deaths from disasters over the last 25 years occurred in these 
countries . Today the need is greater than ever to manage weather-
related risks in ways that support adaptation of the most vulnerable 
to a changing climate.

Activities of the International Environment and 
Disaster Management laboratory, Kyoto  
University

 

 –Š‡ ‡ơ‘”–• –‘ ‡Šƒ…‡ ‡˜‹”‘‡–ƒŽ •—•–ƒ‹ƒ„‹Ž‹–› ƒ† –Š‡”‡„›
reduce the impacts of disasters, the laboratory of International En-
vironment and Disaster Management (IEDM) has three independ-
ent and one cross-cutting research pillars: Climate Change Adapta-
tion, Environment Disaster Education, and Urban Risk. Community 
participation is considered as the cross-cutting research pillar for all 
the three above-mentioned pillars. With the broader boundary of 

community participation, research is conducted under the following 
topics: social capital, sustainable livelihood, sustainable community-
based disaster recovery, community-based forest management, and 
corporate community interface (beyond the traditional corporate 
social responsibility). All these issues are very much based on the 
common concept of community-based interventions and its sustain-
ability. In this write-up two cases of rural and urban risk reduction 
approaches are presented as illustrative examples of the above is-
sues.  

Case study from Vietnam

One of our researches focuses on Ninh Thuan province, Vietnam. 
Rated the 59th poorest province of Vietnam, Ninh Thuan is one of 
–Š‡ ‹‡ ’”‘˜‹…‡• –Šƒ– ƒ”‡ ‘•– ƒơ‡…–‡† „› †”‘—‰Š–Ǥ

—•–ƒ‹ƒ„Ž‡ ‡˜‹”‘‡–ƒŽ ƒƒ‰‡‡– ‹• ƒ ”‡Žƒ–‹˜‡Ž› •‹’Ž‡ …‘…‡’–ǡ –Š‘—‰Š ™‹–Š ƒ •‹‰‹Ƥ…ƒ– ‹’ƒ…–ǡ –Š‡ ’”‡‹•‡ „‡‹‰ –Š‘•‡
actions taken today which have an impact on the environment – and most actions do impact on the environment – should not lead 
to a reduction in the availability of needed resources or desired quality of life in the future. How this concept is linked to disaster 
risk reduction is discussed further in the following sections. 

From Theory 

to Practice   

Rajib Shaw

 is an associate professor of Kyoto University Graduate School of Global Environmental Studies, Kyoto University.  His interest is on climate 

…Šƒ‰‡ ƒ†ƒ’–ƒ–‹‘ǡ —”„ƒ ”‹• ”‡†—…–‹‘ ƒ† ‡˜‹”‘‡– ƒ† †‹•ƒ•–‡” ‡†—…ƒ–‹‘Ǥ ‡ Šƒ• ™”‹––‡ ‡š–‡•‹˜‡Ž› ‹ –Š‹• ”‡Žƒ–‡† Ƥ‡Ž†Ǥ •Šƒ™̻‰Ž‘„ƒŽǤ„‘šǤ‡†‹ƒǤ

kyoto-u.ac.jp 

Huy Nguyen

 is a PhD student of Graduate School of Global Environmental Studies, Kyoto University.  His interest is on climate change adaptation and 

drought risk management. His researches focus on the linkage between climate change and drought, the impacts of drought on livelihood security, and the 

policy for drought risk reduction in the context of climate change. For more details, please see: http://www.iedm.ges.kyoto-u.ac.jp/

Jonas Joerin

 is a PhD student at the Graduate School of Global Environmental Studies, Kyoto University.  His interest is on urban disaster risk. His research 

focuses on the resilience of urban areas (cities) with regards to climate-related disasters. For more details, please see: http://www.iedm.ges.kyoto-u.ac.jp/

Figure 1. Collecting water in a stream in the mountainous area

Figure 2. Digging a new well in the coastal area

|

9

Asian Disaster Management News

         July-December 2009

Š‡ ’”‘˜‹…‡ ™ƒ• •‡˜‡”‡Ž› ƒơ‡…–‡† „› †”‘—‰Š– ‹ —‰—•– ͖͔͔͘ ™‹–Š
reduction in rainfall by 50% of the normal. The drought has contin-
—‡† ‹ ͖͔͔͙ ƒ† ͖͔͔͚ ™‹–Š ’‘‘” ”ƒ‹ˆƒŽŽ †—”‹‰ –Š‡ Ƥ”•– –™‘ …”‘’-
’‹‰ •‡ƒ•‘•Ǥ ”‘Ž‘‰‡† †”› †ƒ›• Šƒ˜‡ …ƒ—•‡† •‹‰‹Ƥ…ƒ– †ƒƒ‰‡ –‘
agriculture and changed the salinity of groundwater thus damaging 
aquaculture. The increasing drought events in Ninh Thuan province 
is a major concern for both the governments and local communi-
ties.

The data indicates that in some severe drought years and the years 
after the severe drought years, the area and yield of almost crops 
were lower than the normal years. After the severe drought of 2004, 
almost all areas of Ninh Thuan province became dried and the year 
2005, the farmers could not cultivated in 75% area of paddy while 
some area have been shifting to maize and other crops.

Communities always seeking new ways to adapt, e.g., farmers 
change seeds and crops, applying traditional knowledge on weather 
forecasting, digging deeper wells, collecting water from the steams 
for multi-purposes of daily demands, etc. Some of these adaptation 
techniques are productive, but others carry a cost. Migration of 
young people increases the workload of the older people left be-
hind. 

The impacts of drought would be mitigated if the governments 
and organizations consider involving communities in the process of 

decision-making. Such measures could include enhancing weather 
forecasting; improving water storage and irrigation; soil conserva-
tion; micro-credit; animal rearing, improved seeds and new crops, 
etc… The community-based drought preparedness is suggested for 
applying in drought prone areas. The environment management in 
the drought areas is also needed to reduce the secondary impacts of 
drought to the human health.

Climate Disaster Resilience Index

• ‡–‹‘‡† ‹ –Š‡ Ƥ”•– ’ƒ”–ǡ —”„ƒ ƒ”‡ƒ• ƒ”‡ Š‹‰ŠŽ› ˜—Ž‡”ƒ„Ž‡

against climate-related hazards due to urbanization and high con-
centration of people in small areas. Thus, IEDM is researching on 
how to make urban areas or cities more resilient against such disas-
ters. At current, one project is trying to develop a Climate Disaster 
Resilience Index (CDRI) for a large number of cities in India, which 
Šƒ˜‡ †‹ơ‡”‡– …Šƒ”ƒ…–‡”‹•–‹…• ‹ –‡”• ‘ˆ –Š‡‹” ‡š’‘•—”‡ ȋ…‘ƒ•–ƒŽǡ ”‹˜-
er-based, mountainous, etc.) to the various kinds of natural hazards 
ȋƪ‘‘†•ǡ •–‘”•ǡ †”‘—‰Š– ‹ ˆ‘” ‘ˆ ™ƒ–‡” •…ƒ”…‹–›ǡ ”ƒ‹ˆƒŽŽ ‹†—…‡†
landslides, etc.). The aim is to provide a detailed assessment show-
‹‰ ƒ …‹–›ǯ• ”‡•‹Ž‹‡…‡ ƒ‰ƒ‹•– •—…Š Šƒœƒ”†• ƒ……‘”†‹‰ –‘ Ƥ˜‡ †‹‡-
sions, which are: physical, social, economic, institutional, and natu-
ral. This ongoing study is followed after a pilot study (2008-2009) 
which examined 15 cities in several countries in Asia. Figure 4 shows 
how the end product of a CDRI looks like. This map in form of a spi-
der highlights the resilience from Mumbai. It shows that the city is 
less vulnerable to physical aspects than to natural or institutional. 

ˆ–‡” Šƒ˜‹‰ ƒ••‡••‡† –Š‡ …‹–›ǯ• ”‡•‹Ž‹‡…‡ –Š‹• ‘—–’—– ȋƤ‰—”‡ ͘Ȍ

should help city governments to take the appropriate measure 
(sound measures) to reduce the risk of disasters, like in developing 
or land-use plans, but also to build and increase the capacities of the 
citizens to be more resilient against natural hazards.

Conclusion

The previous examples show how IEDM is recognizing the conse-
quences from climate change and is pushing for sustainable solu-
–‹‘• ‹ †‹ơ‡”‡– Ƥ‡Ž†• ƒŽŽ ƒ‹‹‰ –‘ ‹’”‘˜‡ –Š‡ •‡…—”‹–› ‘ˆ Š—ƒ
beings. The challenges are numerous and require a participatory ap-
’”‘ƒ…Š ‹˜‘Ž˜‹‰ ƒŽŽ ƒ…–‘”• ƒ† •–ƒ‡Š‘Ž†‡”• ™Š‘ ƒ”‡ ƒơ‡…–‡† ƒ†
responsible to take action for improvement. Linking environmental 
management and DRR is crucial to provide a holistic approach to 
deal with all these issues explained above. 

++++++++++

Healthy ecosystems play a vital role in reducing the risk in coastal areas which are often impacted by natural hazards, thus leaving vast popu-
lation in the coastal area particularly vulnerable. This risk is only expected to increase with the increasing impact of climate change. Thus it is 
essential to build the capacity of the coastal zone managers responsible for development activities along the coast, on measures and proc-
esses for protecting the coastal ecosystems and in return the wide range of services they provide including protection of natural shoreline. 
At the same time, it is very important to work with disaster risk reduction practitioners, to enhance their understanding of the services and 
„‡‡Ƥ–• Š‡ƒŽ–Š› ‡…‘•›•–‡• …ƒ ’”‘˜‹†‡ǡ ‹…Ž—†‹‰ †‹•ƒ•–‡” ”‹• ”‡†—…–‹‘Ǥ

Š‹• ƒ”–‹…Ž‡ †‡•…”‹„‡• ƒ ‹‹–‹ƒ–‹˜‡ —†‡”–ƒ‡ „› –Š‡ •‹ƒ ‹•ƒ•–‡” ”‡’ƒ”‡†‡•• ‡–‡” ȋ

 Ȍ ‹ ’ƒ”–‡”•Š‹’ ™‹–Š –Š‡ ‹–‡† 

Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and with support from United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UN-
ISDR) and European Commission AIDCO Program on developing training modules on disaster risk reduction for coastal zone man-
agers in Asian countries.

Building the Capacity

 

of Coastal 

Zone Managers

 on protecting coastal 

ecosystems to reduce disaster risk  

10 

|

Asian Disaster Management News

         July-December 2009

Healthy ecosystems play a vital role in reducing the risk in coastal 
areas which are often impacted by natural hazards, thus leaving vast 
population in the coastal area particularly vulnerable. This risk is only 
expected to increase with the increasing impact of climate change. 
Thus it is essential to build the capacity of the coastal zone manag-
ers responsible for development activities along the coast, on meas-
ures and processes for protecting the coastal ecosystems and in re-
turn the wide range of services they provide including protection of 
natural shoreline. At the same time, it is very important to work with 
disaster risk reduction practitioners, to enhance their understanding 
‘ˆ –Š‡ •‡”˜‹…‡• ƒ† „‡‡Ƥ–• Š‡ƒŽ–Š› ‡…‘•›•–‡• …ƒ ’”‘˜‹†‡ǡ ‹…Ž—†-
ing disaster risk reduction.

This regional training course has been developed aiming at build-
ing capacity of coastal zone managers to design and implement 
coastal development projects that enhance protection of lives and 
livelihoods while improving environmental quality and protecting 
ecosystem services. It is also aimed at enhancing the awareness of 
disaster risk reduction practitioners on the role healthy coastal eco-
systems can play in disaster mitigation and prevention, emphasising 
the importance of adopting integrated coastal development plan-
ning (a combination of structural and non structural measures) for 
reducing risk. At the end of the training course, it is expected that 
the participants would be able to:

Ȉ †‡–‹ˆ› ”‹•• ˆ”‘ ƒ–—”ƒŽ Šƒœƒ”†•ǡ ‹…Ž—†‹‰ –Š‘•‡ ‹…”‡ƒ•‡† „›  
  climate change, which impact coastal development projects and      
  also improper coastal development processes which might lead  
  to accumulation of risk in coastal areas;
Ȉ †‡”•–ƒ† –Š‡ …‘…‡’–—ƒŽ ˆ”ƒ‡™‘” ‘ˆ ”‹• ”‡†—…–‹‘Ǣ
Ȉ ‡…‘‰‹œ‡ ˜ƒ”‹‘—• ‡ƒ•—”‡•Ǣ •–”—…–—”ƒŽ ƒ† ‘ •–”—…–—”ƒŽǡ ˆ‘”  
  risk reduction in coastal areas;
Ȉ ’’Ž› –Š‡ –Š‡‘”› ƒ† —•‡ ’”ƒ…–‹…ƒŽ –‘‘Ž• ‹ ‹–‡‰”ƒ–‹‰ †‹•ƒ•–‡”  
  risk reduction in coastal zone management plans and programs;  
  and 

Ȉ ‡˜‡Ž‘’ ƒ Ž‹•– ‘ˆ ƒ…–‹‘• ™Š‹…Š …ƒ „‡ —†‡”–ƒ‡ „› –Š‡ …‘ƒ•–ƒŽ  
  zone managers in their daily work program in order to reduce  
  the risk in coastal areas.

The course is structured in eight modules as outline in the adjacent 
„‘šǤ Š‡ ‹‹–‹ƒŽ –™‘ ‘†—Ž‡• ‘ˆ –Š‡ …‘—”•‡ ‹–”‘†—…‡• –Š‡ †‡Ƥ‹–‹‘•
and concepts in regard to coast and coastal zone management, 
highlight the importance of the coastline for the economy and the 
services the coastal ecosystem provides and which are at high risk 
from natural hazards and impacts of climate change.

In the following modules, the course attempts to introduce the 
framework for disaster risk reduction; Hyogo Framework for Action 
ȋ

Ȍ ƒ† ‹–• Ƥ˜‡ ’”‹‘”‹–‹‡• ˆ‘” ƒ…–‹‘ ƒ† –Š‡ ‹’‘”–ƒ…‡ ‘ˆ ‡˜‹”‘-

mental management for achieving the goals of the HFA. Tools and 
techniques related to undertaking risk assessment in coastal areas 
are explained. Further the course introduces the various measures 
that could be adopted to reduce risk in coastal areas, like structural 
man made, structural ecosystem based and non-structural meas-
—”‡• ƒ† Š‘™ –‘ Ž‹ ƒŽŽ –Š‡•‡ ‹ ƒ ‹–‡‰”ƒ–‡† ƒ‡”Ǥ Š‡ ƤƒŽ –™‘
modules help to identify entry points for integrating disaster risk re-
duction in coastal zone management policies, plans, programs and 
’”‘Œ‡…–•ǡ –Š—• ƒ‹‹‰ ƒ– ‹ƪ—‡…‹‰ –Š‡ ™ƒ› …‘ƒ•–ƒŽ †‡˜‡Ž‘’‡–
projects are planned, designed and implemented with a strong 
component on hazard resilient development.  The course also aims 
to work with the participants in drawing up a list of actions, which 
should be undertaken in their respective organizations to make sure 
the initiatives they undertake in coastal areas are hazard resilient 
and do not add to the risk. Some of these actions the participants 
could directly initiate where as for some they could only advocate 
for and raise awareness among their peers. A visit to a nearby coast-
al area as means of connecting to the ground realities and familiar-
izing with the local agencies and communities and their existing sys-
–‡• ƒ† ’Žƒ•ǡ ˆ‘”• ƒ ’ƒ”– ‘ˆ –Š‡ ‘†—Ž‡ ‘ Ƥ‡Ž† ˜‹•‹–Ǥ

The training course has been developed in close consultation with 
national agencies and technical organizations engaged in coastal 
zone management and disaster management in India, Indonesia 
ƒ† ”‹ ƒƒ ƒ† Šƒ• „‡‡Ƥ––‡† ‰”‡ƒ–Ž› ˆ”‘ ‹’—–• ”‡…‡‹˜‡† ˆ”‘
the participants of the regional training course organized by the 
Mangrove for Future (MFF) Program in Semarang in October 2008 
as well as the MFF national coordinating bodies in the above men-
tioned countries and the participants of the Learning Opportunity 
event on ‘Ecosystem services, disaster risk reduction and coastal 
community resilience’ organized by the ADPC, UNEP and UNISDR at 
the IUCN World Congress in Barcelona, October 2008. Currently the 
training is planned for delivery at a regional level by ADPC in partner-
ship with UNEP and other technical agencies/ initiatives (e.g. MFF) 
working in the area of ecosystems and environmental management 
and/ or disaster risk reduction in Asia. 

For more information please contact

Ms. Serena Fortuna from UNEP (serena.fortuna@unep.org)
Mr. Arghya Sinha Roy from ADPC (arghya@adpc.net)

 

Course structure

Ȉ ‘†—Ž‡ ͙ǣ Introduction to the Course
Ȉ ‘†—Ž‡ ͚ǣ Knowing the coast better with a DRR perspective
Ȉ ‘†—Ž‡ ͛ǣ Introducing DRR and its linkages with Climate 
                       Change Adaptation
Ȉ ‘†—Ž‡ ͜ǣ Assessing the Coastal Risk from natural hazards
Ȉ ‘†—Ž‡ ͝ǣ Measures for DRR in Coastal area
Ȉ ‘†—Ž‡ ͞ǣ Understanding the ground realities: Field Exercise
Ȉ ‘†—Ž‡ ͟ǣ Integrating DRR in CZM; from Policy to Action 
Ȉ ‘†—Ž‡ ͠ǣ Taking it back home; where to start from

++++++++++

|

11

Asian Disaster Management News

         July-December 2009

Background

On Sunday, 26 December 2004, the greatest earthquake in 40 years 
™‹–Š ͝Ǥ͗ ƒ‰‹–—†‡• ‘……—””‡† ƒ„‘—– ͕͙͔ ‹Ž‘‡–‡”• ‘ơ –Š‡ ™‡•–
coast of northern Sumatra Island in Indonesia. The earthquake gen-
erated a disastrous tsunami that caused destruction in 18 countries 
bordering the Indian Ocean. The massive tsunami waves up to 30 
meters high resulted in the losses of properties estimated at US 
$ 9.9 billion (Oyola-Yemaiel 2006), and human causalities of more 
than 300,000. The highest number of deaths oc-
curred in Indonesia followed by Sri Lanka, India 
and Thailand. More than half a million people 
™‡”‡ †‹”‡…–Ž› ƒơ‡…–‡† „› –Š‡ †‹•ƒ•–‡” ‹ †‘‡-
sia alone. (Table 1)

After the tsunami event, the Canadian Red Cross 
(CRC), along with a number of international 
organizations including UN agencies, IFRC, Na-
tional Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies and 
Non-Governmental Organizations, launched im-
mediate response and recovery operations. CRC 
‹‹–‹ƒ–‡† ‹–‡”˜‡–‹‘• ‹ Ƥ˜‡ ‡› ƒ”‡ƒ•ǣ •Š‡Ž–‡”ǡ
water and sanitation, livelihoods, health and dis-
aster preparedness. This study has been carried 
out to assess the severity of the future tsunami 
and other major disasters on the prospective 
community in Mutiara sub-village of the CRC 
shelter program area.

The purpose of this rapid assessment was 
–™‘ˆ‘Ž†ǣ Ƥ”•–ǡ –‘ ‹†‡–‹ˆ› ƒŒ‘” Šƒœƒ”†•ǡ ƒ••‡•• ˜—Ž‡”ƒ„‹Ž‹–‹‡• ƒ†
analyze risks of future disasters; and second, to recommend key 
mitigating measures to make prospective communities resilient to 
disasters.

Mutiara community, a village situated in the coastal area of Indian 
Ocean and surrounded by a river in the north and the ocean in the 
west, is prone to a number of major hazards such as  earthquakes, 
Ž‘…ƒŽ ƒ† ”‡‰‹‘ƒŽ –•—ƒ‹•ǡ ƪ‘‘†‹‰ǡ ˜‘Ž…ƒ‘‡•ǡ ‹—†ƒ–‹‘ǡ ”‹˜‡”
cutting, sea level rise due to climate change, epidemics, tropical cy-
clones and water and land pollution.  In particular, since the village is 
too close to the coastline, the village is highly vulnerable to tsunami 
disaster.

Recurrence Period

†‘‡•‹ƒ ‹• •—””‘—†‡† „› ˆ‘—” ƒŒ‘” –‡…–‘‹… ’Žƒ–‡•ǡ –Š‡ ’ƒ…‹Ƥ…ǡ
the Eurasian, the Australian and the Philippines plates. All these ma-
jor tectonic plates and their sub plates are presently active. Major 
earthquakes and tsunamis can be expected in the semi-enclosed 
seas and along the Indian Ocean side of Indonesia. Major earth-
quakes in the semi-enclosed seas can generate destructive local tsu-
namis in the Sulu, Banda and Java seas. 

Poor house quality, community dependence on coastal resources 
for their livelihoods, lack of community awareness on local hazards 
and disaster risks, depletion of coastal and aquatic resources, lack of 
‹•–‹–—–‹‘ƒŽ‹œ‡† ‡ơ‘”–• ˆ‘” ‡˜‹”‘‡–ƒŽ …‘•‡”˜ƒ–‹‘ ‘ˆ …‘ƒ•–ƒŽ
areas were the major vulnerabilities in the study area. Majority of the 
respondents expressed their opinion that the depletion of coastal 
resources has limited the livelihoods options and exacerbated the 
‹’ƒ…– ‘ˆ ƪ‘‘†‹‰ǡ ‡ƒ”–Š“—ƒ‡ ƒ† ‘–Š‡” ƒ–—”ƒŽ Šƒœƒ”†•Ǥ Š‡ •–—†›
also showed a clear link between natural hazards and environmen-
tal degradation. (Table 2)
 

A rapid disaster risk assessment was carried out to identify major hazards, assess vulnerabilities and analyze risks of future disas-
–‡”• ƒ† ”‡…‘‡† ‡› ‹–‹‰ƒ–‹‰ ‡ƒ•—”‡• –‘ ƒ‡ ’”‘•’‡…–‹˜‡ …‘—‹–‹‡• ‹ —–‹ƒ”ƒ ˜‹ŽŽƒ‰‡ ”‡•‹Ž‹‡– –‘ †‹•ƒ•–‡”•Ǥ Š‹• ƒ”–‹-
cle is prepared based on a rapid reconnaissance survey of the area where Canadian Red Cross (CRC) was planning to build houses 
ˆ‘” ‡…‡„‡” ͚͘͘͜ –•—ƒ‹Ǧƒơ‡…–‡† ’‡‘’Ž‡Ǥ ƒ–ƒ ™‡”‡ …‘ŽŽ‡…–‡† „‘–Š ˆ”‘ ’”‹ƒ”› •‘—”…‡• ‹ …‘•—Ž–ƒ–‹‘ ™‹–Š –Š‡ ’‡‘’Ž‡
residing nearby resettlement area and local leaders, and secondary sources. For the analysis of the hazard and vulnerability of the 
prospective communities, the crunch and release models were used. Risk analysis was done using risk matrix. 

Rapid Disaster Risk Assessment 
of Coastal Communities: 

A Case Study of Mutiara Village, 
Banda Aceh, Indonesia 

Š‡•Š ƒ–ƒ ƒƪ‡

 is Disaster Risk Reduction Program Manager at the Indonesia Mission of Canadian Red Cross in Banda Aceh, Indonesia. He is currently 

„ƒ•‡† ‹ ‡’ƒŽ ƒ† …ƒ „‡ ”‡ƒ…Š‡† ‘—– –Š”‘—‰Š ‡ƒ‹Žǡ •ƒƪ‡̻Š‘–ƒ‹ŽǤ…‘

Figure 1. Alluvial soil- good ecological environment for mangroves, but too close to build the houses

Key hazards in the 
study area

Potential environmental impacts

Exacerbating environmental factors

Flood, High tide, 
tsunami

Ȉ •‡™ƒ‰‡ ‘˜‡”ƪ‘™
Ȉ …Š‡‹…ƒŽ ”‡Ž‡ƒ•‡ ˆ”‘ ˆƒ”ǡ ˆƒ…–‘”‹‡• ƒ† ”‘ƒ†•
Ȉ Šƒœƒ”†‘—• †‡„”‹•
Ȉ ™ƒ–‡”Ǧ†ƒƒ‰‡† Š‘—•‡Š‘Ž†• …Š‡‹…ƒŽ• ȋ’ƒ‹–ǡ  
    pesticides, solvents etc)
Ȉ Ž‘•• ‘ˆ –‘’ •‘‹Ž ƒ† ”— ‘ơ
Ȉ ‰”‘—† ƒ† •—”ˆƒ…‡ ™ƒ–‡” …‘–ƒ‹ƒ–‹‘

Ȉ Šƒ„‹–ƒ– ƒ† ‡…‘•›•–‡ †‡•–”—…–‹‘ ȋ…‘”ƒŽ ”‡‡ˆǡ  

ƪ‘”ƒ ƒ† ˆƒ—ƒȌ

Ȉ ™ƒ–‡” •‹Ž–ƒ–‹‘ǡ †‡ˆ‘”‡•–ƒ–‹‘
Ȉ ƒ† —•‡ ƒ† Žƒ† …‘˜‡” …Šƒ‰‡•

Earthquake

Ȉ ƒ–—”ƒŽ ‰ƒ• Ž‡ƒ•ǡ Š‘—•‡Š‘Ž† ƒ† …Š‡‹…ƒŽ ”‡Ž‡ƒ•‡ ˆ”‘  
    damaged containers
Ȉ „—‹Ž†‹‰ ™ƒ•–‡ †‡„”‹• ƒ† ’‘–‡–‹ƒŽ ‹š ‘ˆ Šƒœƒ”†‘—•  
    materials 
Ȉ Žƒ† †‡•–ƒ„‹Ž‹œƒ–‹‘

Ȉ –‘’‘‰”ƒ’Š› ƒ† Žƒ† …‘˜‡”
Ȉ „—‹Ž†‹‰ …‘†‡• ƒ† —”„ƒ ’Žƒ‹‰ ƒ†  
    urbanization processes

12 

|

Asian Disaster Management News

         July-December 2009

Risk Analysis and Evaluation

‡‘’Ž‡ Ž‹˜‹‰ ‹ –Š‡ ‡ƒ”„› ƒ”‡ƒ• ’‡”…‡‹˜‡ –Š‡ Ž‹˜‡Ž‹Š‘‘† ƒ• ‘”‡ ”‹• –Šƒ –Š‡ ”‹•• ˆ”‘ –•—ƒ‹ǡ …›…Ž‘‡ ƒ† ƪ‘‘†‹‰Ǥ Š‡› †‘ ‘– ™ƒ–
to migrate from the area to safer areas because of the fear of livelihood alternatives in the new areas. Instead, they would like to be aware 
of the disaster events and adopt mitigating measures. The risk analysis using risk ranking (Table 4, Table 5) suggests that there is very high 
disaster risk in the locality.

 

ƒ„Ž‡ ͙Ǥ ‹•–‘”› ‘ˆ •—ƒ‹ ‹ …‡Š ƒ† ‡•–‡” ‘ƒ•– ‘ˆ —ƒ–”ƒǡ †‘‡•‹ƒ

ƒ„Ž‡ ͚Ǥ ˜‹”‘‡– ƒ† †‹•ƒ•–‡” Ž‹ƒ‰‡• ‹ –Š‡ •–—†› ƒ”‡ƒ

ƒ„Ž‡ ͛Ǥ —Ž‡”ƒ„‹Ž‹–› ƒƒŽ›•‹• —•‹‰ …”—…Š ‘†‡Ž

‡•—Ž–• ‘ˆ ˜—Ž‡”ƒ„‹Ž‹–› ƒ••‡••‡– —•‹‰ …”—…Š ‘†‡Ž ƒ”‡ •Š‘™ ‹ ƒ„Ž‡ ͛ „‡Ž‘™ǣ

Location

Date

Magnitude

Damage/Loss

Central part of Western Sumatra

10 February 1797

8

More than 300 fatalities

South western Sumatra

24 November 1833

8.8-9.2

Flooded all the southern part of west Sumatra

Central Sumatra and Nias

5 January 1843

7.2

Many fatalities

Western coast of Sumatra

16 February 1861

8.2

Several thousands fatalities

Krakatau

27 August 1883

Volcano-caused

Over 36000 deaths

Banda Aceh

1941

-

-

Aceh and Nias island  
(Indian ocean tsunami)

26 December 2004

9-9.3

More than 270,000 (in Indonesia, India, Sri Lanka, Thai-
land, Maldives etc)

Hazard type

Elements at risk
(Disaster)

Unsafe conditions

Dynamic pressures

Root causes

Tsunami, Earthquake, 
Flooding, Inundation

Ȉ Ž†‡”Ž›ǡ …Š‹Ž†”‡ǡ  
    women, sick people
Ȉ ”‘’• †ƒƒ‰‡
Ȉ ‘’Ž‡–‡ †ƒƒ‰‡  
    of buildings,  
    infrastructures, critical  
    facilities such as  

Š‘•’‹–ƒŽ•ǡ ’‘Ž‹…‡ ‘ƥ…‡ǡ  

    schools and mosques
Ȉ ‘ƒ•–ƒŽ ‡…‘•›•–‡  
    damaged

Ȉ •–ƒ„Ž‡ Ž‹˜‡Ž‹Š‘‘†•
Ȉ ƒƒ‰‡ ‘ˆ …”‹–‹…ƒŽ  
    facilities, buildings,  
    infrastructures, and  
    development assets
Ȉ ƒƒ‰‡ ‘ˆ…‘ƒ•–ƒŽ  
    resources such as  
    mangroves/ palms and  
    coral reefs
Ȉ ƒ† †‡‰”ƒ†ƒ–‹‘ǡ ‘™  
    agriculture productivity,  
    Disruption of societal  
    cohesiveness

Ȉ ‘ •‡…—”‡ Žƒ† ”‹‰Š–•  
    for marginalized  
    people
Ȉ ‘ƒ•–ƒŽ ‡…‘•›•–‡  
    under pressure
Ȉ ‹•”—’–‹‘ ‘ˆ •‘…‹‡–ƒŽ  
    values and system

Ȉ ƒ… ‘ˆ ’”‘’‡” Žƒ†Ǧ—•‡  
    planning
Ȉ ‘˜‡”–›
Ȉ ‡“—ƒŽ †‹•–”‹„—–‹‘ ‘ˆ  
    resources and services;  
    marginalized people  
    compelled to live in  
    coastal region for their  
    livelihoods

|

13

Asian Disaster Management News

         July-December 2009

ƒ„Ž‡ ͜Ǥ ‹• ”ƒ‹‰

ƒ„Ž‡ ͝Ǥ ‹• ”ƒ–‹‰

Disaster Risk Reduction Measures

A number of risk mitigating measures have been proposed to reduce 
the future risk from tsunami, tidal waves and tropical cyclones. It is 
strongly advised to carry out these activities along with the other 
resettlement schemes. 

1. Plant or enrich tree plantation (e.g. Mangroves, Palms,  
    Casuarinas and bamboos etc) for the environmental  
    conservation. 
2. Higher design and construction standards needed; elevate  

Š‘—•‡• –Šƒ– …ƒ Š‡Ž’ ”‡†—…‡ –Š‡ ƪ‘‘† ƒ† –•—ƒ‹ †‹•ƒ•–‡”  

    losses. 
3. Provision of escape routes (hills, safe structures- schools and 
    public buildings; but not hospitals). (Safer places should be  
    within a distance of half an hour walk/vehicle). The essential  
    feature of an escape route (evacuation route) is that it will get  
    people to high ground as quickly as possible. Sites with a  
    moderate upward slope should be chosen, where people can  

™ƒŽ ™‹–Š‘—– —…Š †‹ƥ…—Ž–›Ǥ •…ƒ’‡ ”‘—–‡• ‡‡† –‘ „‡ ’‡”’‡ 

    dicular to the contour lines to gain elevation. 
4. Road realignment to avoid inundation: Avoid damage and  
    reconstruction, available for disaster relief, provide escape route  
    for coastal villages (Standard width of the road, possible critical  
    points, electricity poles etc).
5. Make communities aware of the escape routes and safer places.
6. Encourage households and communities to prepare contingency  
     plan and land use planning and follow accordingly.
7. Launch livelihood programs, if not this might further make them  
    vulnerable. 
8. There is highly unlikely to strike another Earthquake-triggered  
    tsunami in Aceh Province in near future, but Volcano, landslides  
    and meteorite-triggered Tsunamis can occur at any time in the  
    region. People living in coastal areas within 500m of sea coast  

…ƒ „‡ ƒơ‡…–‡† „› –Š‡ –”‘’‹…ƒŽ …›…Ž‘‡• ƒ• ™‡ŽŽǤ ƒ—…Š  

    community awareness program from the very beginning of the  
    settlement.

9. Reinforced cement concrete and brick buildings with  
    foundations protected against erosion and walls parallel to the  

†‹”‡…–‹‘ –Š‡ ™ƒ˜‡• ƒ”‡ –”ƒ˜‡Ž‹‰ǡ ™Š‹…Š ‘ơ‡” –Š‡ •ƒŽŽ‡•–  

    possible front to hydraulic pressure, can resist tsunamis well. 

Conclusions

ƒ”–Š“—ƒ‡ ƒ† ˜‘Ž…ƒ‘‡•Ǧ–”‹‰‰‡”‡† –•—ƒ‹• ƒ† ƪ‘‘†‹‰ ƒ”‡ –™‘

biggest natural hazards with high damage potential in Mutiara sub-
village. High tide, inundation and epidemics are also prevalent in the 
area.  From all the aspects of vulnerability, i.e. social, physical, eco-
nomic and environmental, this village is highly vulnerable to the fu-
ture disasters risks. However, since the decade old livelihood pattern 
of the local community relies on the coastal ecosystem, the people 
in this community do not want to move elsewhere. Instead, they 
are eager to adopt the mitigating measures and cope with disasters 
themselves.  Therefore, a number of risk mitigating measures have 
been proposed based on the local socio-economic circumstances. 
Permanent shelter program is recommended together with the 
proposed disaster risk mitigation measures. Besides, Disaster Risk 
Reduction concerns should be integrated into Environmental Risk 
Assessments (EIA).

References

ƒƪ‡ǡ Š‡•Š ƒ–ƒ ƒ† —„ƒ‹” —”•Š‡† 2006. Community-Based Disaster 
‹• ƒƒ‰‡‡– ˆ‘” ‘…ƒŽ —–Š‘”‹–‹‡•ǡ

 Ȁ 

Ȁ 

ǡ ƒ‰‘ǡ

Šƒ‹Žƒ†Ǥ
Oyola-Yemaiel, Arhtur. ͚͘͘͞Ǥ †‹ƒ ƒ† ”‹ ƒƒǯ• ‡•’‘•‡ –‘ ƒ•• ƒ–ƒŽ‹–‹‡•

‘ŽŽ‘™‹‰ –Š‡ ͚͘͘͜ •—ƒ‹ ǣ ƒŽ–‡” Ǥ ƒǡ ‘”†ƒŠƒƒ ƒ‹‰ǡ Š”‹•–‹‡

Huovinen and Martina Stocker (Eds.). Proceedings of the International Disas-
ter Reduction conference, IDRC, Davos, Switzerland. August 27-September 1, 
2006. 
Wilkinson, Frank, ͚͘͘͝Ǥ ‡•– …‡Š ƒˆ–‡” –Š‡ •—ƒ‹ǣ ‘ƒ•–ƒŽ ‡•‹‰ ƒ†
•—ƒ‹ ‹–‹‰ƒ–‹‘ ˆ‘” Š‡Ž–‡”Ȁ‘—•‡ ‡…‘•–”—…–‹‘Ǥ ‡† —•–”ƒŽ‹ƒǤ

Since it is not possible to mitigate Tsunami hazard, immediate attention should be given to enhance the capacity and reduce vulnerability 
thereby reducing disaster impacts. 

++++++++++

Exposure

Probability

Consequence

Risk rating

Unlikely (1)

Unlikely to occur (1)

•‹‰‹Ƥ…ƒ– ȋ͕Ȍ

3

Occasionally (2)

Some chance (2)

Minor property damage (2)

6

Often (3)

Could occur (3)

‘•– –‹‡ǡ ‹Œ—”› ‘” •‹‰‹Ƥ…ƒ– ’”‘’‡”Ž› †ƒƒ‰‡ ȋ͗Ȍ

9

Frequent (4)

High chance (4)

Severe injury and property damage (4)

12

Continuous (5)

Will occur if not attended to (5)

‹‰‹Ƥ…ƒ– Š—ƒ Žƒ† ’”‘’‡”–› †ƒƒ‰‡Ȁ Ž‘•• ȋ͙Ȍ

15

Total score

Status

Recommendations

Mutiara case

3-5

Low

Requires monitoring

Since Mutiara receives 14 scores and falls in the serious status, 
therefore it requires immediate attention

6-10

Moderate

Requires attention

11-15

Serious

Requires immediate attention

14 

|

Asian Disaster Management News

         July-December 2009

Goals and objectives

ƒ‹‰ ƒ…–‹‘ ‘ †‹•ƒ•–‡” ”‹• ”‡†—…–‹‘ ȋ†‹•ƒ•–‡” ”‹• ”‡†—…–‹‘Ȍ ƒ† ‡˜‹”‘‡– ‹

•‹ƒǦƒ…‹Ƥ… ‹• Ž‹‹–‡† „› –Š‡ Žƒ… ‘ˆ ƒ …Ž‡ƒ” ƒ† 

comprehensive picture of existing plans, ongoing and completed projects in the region is lacking. Also missing is full comprehension of strategic  
entry points and platforms for integrating environment and risk reduction dimensions. In order to create a multidisciplinary community of 
’”ƒ…–‹–‹‘‡”• ‹ –Š‹• ”‡‰‹‘ –Šƒ– ‹• …‘…‡”‡† ™‹–Š …Ž‘•‹‰ –Š‡ ‰ƒ’ ƒ‘‰ •‡…–‘”• ™‹–Š ƒ ˜‹‡™ –‘ ‹…”‡ƒ•‹‰ ‡ơ‡…–‹˜‡‡•• ‘ˆ ”‹• ”‡†—…–‹‘ǡ
–Š‹• •–—†› –”‹‡• –‘ ‹†‡–‹ˆ› ƒ˜ƒ‹Žƒ„Ž‡ ”‡•‘—”…‡• –Šƒ– Ž‹ ‡˜‹”‘‡–ƒŽ ƒƒ‰‡‡– ™‹–Š †‹•ƒ•–‡”• ƒ† ”‹• ”‡†—…–‹‘ ‡ơ‘”–•Ǥ Š‡ •–—†› Šƒ•
–Š‡ ˆ‘ŽŽ‘™‹‰ •’‡…‹Ƥ… ‘„Œ‡…–‹˜‡•ǣ

ǽ ‘’‹Ž‡ ƒ Ž‹•– ‘ˆ ƒ˜ƒ‹Žƒ„Ž‡ ”‡•‘—”…‡• –Šƒ– Ž‹ ‡˜‹”‘‡–ƒŽ ‹••—‡• ƒ† ƒƒ‰‡‡– ™‹–Š †‹•ƒ•–‡”• ƒ† ”‹• ”‡†—…–‹‘ ‡ơ‘”–• ‹ –Š‡ •‹ƒǦ 

ƒ…‹Ƥ… ”‡‰‹‘Ǣ

» Build a body of knowledge and expertise on mainstreaming (synthesize knowledge);
» Raise awareness of the intersections of environment, disasters and development and thereby provide a practical and common basis for  
   practitioners from various sectors to discuss and agree on concrete plans and activities to advance mainstreaming;
» Recommend strategic entry points and platforms for mainstreaming at the regional level; and
» Build on relevant outcomes of the UNISDR Global Platform on Disaster Risk Reduction, in the regional context, e.g. agreed next steps

Scope of the study

Executive Summary of Working Paper of Disaster Environment Working Group for Asia (DEWGA) 

January 2009

Linking Disaster Risk Reduction, 

Environment Management 

and Development Practices and 

”ƒ…–‹–‹‘‡”• ‹ •‹ƒ ƒ…‹Ƥ… ‡‰‹‘ǣ

A Review of Opportunities for Integration 

 
 
 
 

Environment-development  
convergence

Disaster-development convergence

Environment-disaster convergence

Economic opportunities for the poor

Disaster and environment considerations in 
economic and infrastructural development 

Access to, and viability of, communal 
resources and biodiversity (including forest 
products)

Processing and marketing of local products

Health and education

The role of local knowledge in economic 
development 

Adaptation livelihood strategies to Climate 
Change 

ntegration of disaster risk reduction into 
government department activities 

Land use planning and infrastructure  
planning 

Integration between ‘traditional’ and  
‘modern’ agricultural and aquaculture  
technologies and management systems 

Linkages between local ‘informal’  
institutions and authorities 

Diversity of crops, agro-biodiversity 

Seed and input distribution, in particular 
local seed varieties and inputs

Local research on crops, livestock and 
economic development that are adapted to 
the local climate 

Early warning systems 

Local disaster risk reduction strategies 
(national and local institution) 

National resources management based 
protection (mangroves, water catchments, 
forests)

Disaster risk information and capacities of 
national/ local institutions 

National adaptation plans and vulnerability 
assessments to climate change 

Coastal zone management 

Urban drainage and water supply,  
hydroelectricity, solid waste management 

ƒ„Ž‡ ͙ǣ –”ƒ–‡‰‹… ‡–”› ƒ”‡ƒ• ˆ‘” ‹–‡‰”ƒ–‹‘

|

15

Asian Disaster Management News

         July-December 2009

Rece– –”‡†• ‘ˆ ‹–‡‰”ƒ–‹‘ ‹ •‹ƒǦƒ…‹Ƥ…

» The storm protection and provisioning role of ecosystems is being    

‹…”‡ƒ•‹‰Ž› ”‡…‘‰‹œ‡† ‹ •‹ƒǦƒ…‹Ƥ…ǡ ’ƒ”–‹…—Žƒ”Ž› ƒˆ–‡” –Š‡ ͖͔͔͘  

   Indian Ocean tsunami.
ǽ Š‡”‡ ƒ”‡ ƒ› ‡ơ‘”–• –‘ ‹–‡‰”ƒ–‡ ‡˜‹”‘‡–ƒŽ ‹••—‡• ‹–‘ –Š‡  
   disaster risk reduction process, particularly the recovery process in     

–Š‡ ͖͔͔͘ –•—ƒ‹Ǧƒơ‡…–‡† …‘—–”‹‡•Ǥ

» There are many tools for mainstreaming disaster risk reduction into  
   development and environment.
» There are some initiatives to mainstream environment and disaster  
   concerns into development such as the RCC initiative for  
   mainstreaming disaster risk reduction and environmental  
   management, National Adaptation Programs of Action (NAPA)  
   under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
» Climate change and its potential impacts are not explicitly mentioned  
   in sectoral or thematic strategies for disaster risk reduction,  
   environmental management and development.

T

he curr

e

nt L

e

v

el of I

n

t
e

g

r
ation in the A

sia P

acific Reg

ion

Disaster Risk

Management

Goal: Save lives and

protect livelihoods

Environmental
Management

Goal: Resilent ecosystems 
that support livelihoods

Development
Management

Goal: Enchancing human
well being

Focus Area

Focus Area

Entry Points

Figure 1: Scope of the study

‡› Ƥ†‹‰•

» The environment, disaster and development linkages have been recognized. However, the zone of convergence among three  
   sectors for integration is negligible.
ǽ Š‹• •–—†› Ƥ†• –Šƒ– –Š‡”‡ ƒ”‡ ‘– ƒ› ’”‘Œ‡…–•Ȁ’”‘‰”ƒ• ‡š’Ž‹…‹–Ž› ƒ††”‡••‹‰ –Š‡ Ž‹ƒ‰‡• –‘ ‹…‘”’‘”ƒ–‡ ‹–‘ –Š‡‹” ƒ…–‹‘ ’Žƒ•Ǥ
» There are many potential entry points.

Tools for disaster-environment integration

» National Adaptation Programs of Action (NAPA)
» Integrating disaster risk reduction concerns into environmental assessments for new developing projects
» Environmental risk assessment, and environmental assessment strategies
» Rapid environmental impact assessment

Tools for disaster-development integration

» Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs)
» Country programming framework
» Sectoral integration
» UN Development Assistance Frameworks (UNDAFs)
» National Adaptation Programs of Action (NAPA)
» Program and project appraisal guidelines
» Early warning and information systems
» Risk transfer mechanisms
» International initiatives and policy forums

’‡…‹Ƥ… •–”ƒ–‡‰‹… ‡–”› ’‘‹–• ˆ‘” •‹ƒǦƒ…‹Ƥ…

ǽ Ž‹ƒ–‡ …Šƒ‰‡ ƒ†ƒ’–ƒ–‹‘ •–”ƒ–‡‰‹‡• ȋ’ƒ”–‹…—Žƒ”Ž› ˆ‘” Š›†”‘Ǧ‡–‡‘”‘Ž‘‰› ”‡Žƒ–‡† †‹•ƒ•–‡”• •—…Š ƒ• ƪ‘‘†•ǡ –›’Š‘‘ǡ †”‘—‰Š–Ȍ
ǽ ƒ† —•‡ ’Žƒ‹‰ ȋ’ƒ”–‹…—Žƒ”Ž› ˆ‘” Žƒ†•Ž‹†‡ǡ ƪ‘‘†ǡ –›’Š‘‘ǡ ƒ† †”‘—‰Š–Ȍ
ǽ ‘•– †‹•ƒ•–‡” •ƒ‹–ƒ–‹‘ ƒ† •ƒˆ‡ ™ƒ–‡” ȋ’ƒ”–‹…—Žƒ”Ž› ˆ‘” ƪ‘‘†ǡ –›’Š‘‘ǡ ƒ† –•—ƒ‹Ȍ
» Livelihood management (entry point for all types of disasters)
ǽ ‘ƒ•–ƒŽ ‘‡ ƒƒ‰‡‡– ȋ’ƒ”–‹…—Žƒ”Ž› ˆ‘” –•—ƒ‹ǡ •–‘” •—”‰‡ǡ ƪ‘‘†ǡ „‡ƒ…Š ‡”‘•‹‘Ȍ
ǽ ”„ƒ ’Žƒ‹‰ ȋ’ƒ”–‹…—Žƒ”Ž› ˆ‘” ƪ‘‘†ǡ •–‘”Ȍ

16 

|

Asian Disaster Management News

         July-December 2009

Disaster Environment Working Group for Asia 
(DEWGA)

Recognizing that Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) and Environmen-
tal Management (EM) are closely linked and that it is essential to 
systematically integrate environmental management into disaster 
risk reduction framework and vice-versa, the Disaster Environ-
ment Working Group for Asia (DEWGA) consists of six founding 
institutions from the Asia region namely, ADPC, CARE, Laboratory 
of International Environment and Disaster Management (IEDM) 
at Kyoto University, the International Union for Conservation of 
Nature (IUCN), Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) and World 
Wildlife Fund (WWF) committed to increase the synergy between 
–Š‡ –™‘ •‡…–‘”• ƒ† ’”‘‘–‡ ‡ơ‡…–‹˜‡ ‹–‡‰”ƒ–‹‘ ‘ˆ ‡˜‹”‘‡-
tal management concerns into disaster risk reduction programs 
and vice versa. Established in 2007, DEWGA acts as a small, semi-
formal, open-ended, regional, action-oriented, cross-sectoral part-
nership to explore avenues through which the partners can work 
with each other to minimize long term environmental impacts and 
degradation, as a key disaster risk reduction measure.

The aim of DEWGA is to create a multi-disciplinary community of 
’”ƒ…–‹–‹‘‡”• ‹ –Š‡ •‹ƒ ƒ…‹Ƥ… ”‡‰‹‘ –Šƒ– ‹• …‘…‡”‡† ™‹–Š …Ž‘•-
‹‰ –Š‡ ‰ƒ’ ƒ‘‰ •‡…–‘”• ™‹–Š ƒ ˜‹‡™ –‘ ‹…”‡ƒ•‹‰ ‡ơ‡…–‹˜‡‡••
of risk reduction – presuming that environmental sustainability is a 
‡› •—……‡•• ˆƒ…–‘” Ȃ ™Š‡–Š‡” •’‡…‹Ƥ… ‹–‡”˜‡–‹‘• ‘ –Š‡ ‰”‘—†
or long-term strategies. It is envisaged that this will be achieved 
through the following objectives:

Ȉ ‡”˜‡ ƒ• ƒ …‘ŽŽ‡…–‹˜‡ „‘†› –‘ ƒ†˜‘…ƒ–‡ ƒ† ’”‘‘–‡ Ž‹ƒ‰‡•  
  between disaster risk reduction and environmental  
  management;
Ȉ ”‡ƒ–‡ ƒ •’ƒ…‡ ‹ ™Š‹…Š –Š‡ ’ƒ”–‡”• …ƒ ‹†‡–‹ˆ› ƒ† —†‡” 
  take bilateral or joint programs of work;
Ȉ š…Šƒ‰‡ ‹ˆ‘”ƒ–‹‘ ‘ ‡™ ƒ† —’…‘‹‰ ‹‹–‹ƒ–‹˜‡• ȋ‡Ǥ‰Ǥ  
  events, programs, research and publications) that provide  
  structured opportunities to strengthen these linkages;
Ȉ …–‹˜‡Ž› ’”‘‘–‡ ‹–‡‰”ƒ–‹‘ ‘ˆ †‹•ƒ•–‡” ”‹• ”‡†—…–‹‘ ƒ†  
  environmental sustainability into respective work programs.

To promote collaboration and avoid unnecessary duplication in 
a number of disaster reduction partnerships in the region, the 
Group has joined the ISDR-Asia Partnership and of the UNEP-led 
ISDR Partnership for Environment and Disaster Risk Reduction as 
a regional partner in 2008.  This ensures that the initiative is bet-
ter linked and integrates its activities along the lines of the Hyogo 
Framework for Action.

‹…‡ ͖͔͔͛ǡ

 Šƒ• „‡‡ ‡‡–‹‰ ’‡”‹‘†‹…ƒŽŽ›Ǥ • ƒ Ƥ”•– •–‡’

towards working together it has developed the Working Paper; 
Linking disaster risk reduction, environmental management and 
†‡˜‡Ž‘’‡– ’”ƒ…–‹…‡• ƒ† ’”ƒ…–‹–‹‘‡”• ‹ •‹ƒ ƒ† ƒ…‹Ƥ… ”‡‰‹‘ǣ
A review of opportunities for integration. The Working Group 
has also led session and made presentations on linking DRR and 
Environmental Management at regional conferences such as the 
recently held Disaster Management Practitioner’s Workshop in 

Phuket in September 2009 and the 2nd Session of the Global Plat-
form on Disaster Risk Reduction in Geneva in June 2009. 

The member organization takes up the secretariat function of the 
Working Group on a rotating basis. The current secretariat is IUCN. 
For more information on DEWGA please visit www.dewga.net or 
contact the focal person from the member organizations.

Focal Points

ADPC, Aloysius J. Rego (Loy) (ajrego@adpc.net)
CARE, Natalie Hicks (nhicks@care.org) 
IEDM, Kyoto University, Rajib Shaw 
(shaw@global.mbox.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp)
IUCN, Anshuman Saikia (anshuman@iucnt.org)
SEI, Kai Kim Chiang (kaikim.chiang@sei.se)
 ǡ ‡‘ơ”‡› Žƒ–‡ (gblate@wwfgreatermekong.org)

Partnership for Environment and Disaster Risk 
Reduction

Partnership for Environment and Disaster Risk Reduction 
(PEDRR) is a global partnership comprised of UN agencies, in-
ternational and regional NGOs as well as specialist institutes that 
…‘ŽŽ‡…–‹˜‡Ž› ƒ‹ –‘ ‹ƪ—‡…‡ ’‘Ž‹…› ƒ† –‘ •…ƒŽ‡Ǧ—’ ƒ† „‡––‡”
…‘‘”†‹ƒ–‡ ‡˜‹”‘‡–ƒŽ ‡ơ‘”–• ‹ ’—”•—‹– ‘ˆ †‹•ƒ•–‡” ”‹• ”‡-
duction, climate change adaptation and sustainable livelihoods. 
It promotes ecosystems management as means to reduce dis-
aster risk, increase local resilience and adapt to a changing cli-
mate. PEDRR is currently chaired by UNEP (this is a bi-annual 
rotating position). 

PEDRR includes: PEDRR includes the Asian Disaster Prepared-
ness Center (ADPC); Global Fire Monitoring Center (GFMC): 
International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN); 

ProAct Network; Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI); UN 
International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (ISDR); United Na-
tions University Institute for Environment and Human Security 
(UNU-EHS); United Nations Development Program/ Bureau of 
Crisis Prevention and Recovery (UNDP/BCPR); and World Wide 
Fund for Nature (WWF). ADPC, IUCN, UNDP/BCPR and ProAct 
have established programs focusing on environment-DRR-CCA 
Ž‹ƒ‰‡•ǡ ™‹–Š ‡š–‡•‹˜‡ Ž‘…ƒŽ ‡–™‘”• ‹ •’‡…‹Ƥ… ”‡‰‹‘• ƒ†
at country level. 

For 2010-2011, PEDRR intends to compile case studies document-
‹‰ Ƥ‡Ž†ǦŽ‡˜‡Ž ‡š’‡”‹‡…‡• –Šƒ– †‡‘•–”ƒ–‡ ‡…‘•›•–‡•Ǧ„ƒ•‡†
approaches in disaster risk reduction and climate change adap-
–ƒ–‹‘Ǥ Š‹• ‡ơ‘”– •‡‡• –‘ ’”‘˜‹†‡ †‡‘•–”ƒ„Ž‡ ‡˜‹†‡…‡ Ž‹-
ing ecosystem services for risk reduction and will feed into the 
Global Assessment Report in 2011. A policy paper and workshop 
on environment and DRR are also envisioned. 

++++++++++

|

17

Asian Disaster Management News

         July-December 2009

Special Article: 

Online Dialogue on 
Early Warning 

  

Atiq Kainan Ahmed

, Asian Disaster Preparedness Center (ADPC)

Bruce Ravesloot

ǡ ƒ• Šƒ‹ ‘—†ƒ–‹‘ ȋ

 Ȍ

Delia Paul

, Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI)

Frank Thomalla

, Department of Environment and Geography, Macquarie University

The purpose of the online dialogue was to share insights from SEI’s 
stakeholder consultations in Thailand, Sri Lanka and Indonesia with 
a wider audience, and to provide an easily accessible platform that 
enabled a wide range of actors engaged in disaster risk reduction 
in the region and globally, to jointly explore recent lessons learnt in 
strengthening disaster preparedness and to develop tsunami early 
™ƒ”‹‰ •›•–‡• ‹ –Š‡ …‘—–”‹‡• ƒơ‡…–‡† „› –Š‡ ͖͔͔͘ –•—ƒ‹Ǥ

Participants were directly invited through targeted personal email 
invitations or alerted through postings on various disaster prepar-
edness websites, including PreventionWeb, CabNet., RedR (http://
www.redr.org) and UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduc-
–‹‘ ȋ ȌǤ Š‡ †‹•…—••‹‘• ™‡”‡ ‘†‡”ƒ–‡† „› •–ƒơ ‘ˆ –Š‡
host organizations and structured according to the key elements of 
’‡‘’Ž‡Ǧ…‡–‡”‡† ‡ƒ”Ž› ™ƒ”‹‰ •›•–‡• ƒ• †‡Ƥ‡† „› –Š‡  
Platform for the Promotion of Early Warning (PPEW): risk knowl-
edge; monitoring and warning services; dissemination and commu-
nications; and response capability. The dialogue raised many issues. 
Rather than attempting to include all of the points made, this sum-
mary aims to provide some highlights of the discussions. 

1. Discussion on ‘Risk Knowledge’

The discussion on risk knowledge focused on the consideration of 
local perceptions, contexts, information needs and capacities; sys-
tems that address multiple hazards; and the importance of high-level 
political will and leadership. One of the issues explored was whether 

 ƒ”‡ •–”‘‰Ž› „‹ƒ•‡† –‘™ƒ”†• –‡…Š‘Ž‘‰› Ƥ”•– ƒ† ’‡‘’Ž‡ Žƒ–‡”Ǥ

In this context, there was considerable discussion about the notion 
of the ‘last mile’. The term originated in the communications sector 
and has, in the context of EWS, been criticized by some because in 
their opinion it refers to an approach in which the delivery of warn-
ings to the people at risk is the last step in a top-down approach to 
EWS development. In their view, EWS should be developed using 
a bottom-up approach that prioritizes the needs of the communi-

ties/users and engages them more actively in the development of 
the system. In this approach the interface of the community with 
–Š‡  ‹• –Š‡”‡ˆ‘”‡ •‡‡ ƒ• –Š‡ ǮƤ”•– ‹Ž‡Ǥǯ –Š‡”• ”‡‰ƒ”† –Š‹• †‹•-
tinction as semantics or a misconception. To emphasize the need to 
equally address all aspects of early warning, some actors refer to in-
tegrated end-to-end EWS that include hazard detection, warning and 
community-level response. Social inclusion, empowerment, equal 
participation, ownership, and decision-making were mentioned as 
crucial components of people-centered EWS. Another issue raised 
was whether vulnerabilities to hazards and the underlying causes 
‘ˆ –Š‡•‡ ˜—Ž‡”ƒ„‹Ž‹–‹‡• ™‡”‡ •—ƥ…‹‡–Ž› …‘•‹†‡”‡† ‹  †‡˜‡Ž‘’-
ment. Factors contributing to social hazard vulnerability mentioned 
by participants include gender, poverty and social class (e.g., caste). 

”‡ –Š‡•‡ ƒ•’‡…–• •—ƥ…‹‡–Ž› ƒ††”‡••‡†ǫ – ™ƒ• •—‰‰‡•–‡† –Šƒ– ƒ

better understanding of the multiple vulnerabilities of individuals 
and communities face is essential to the development of any multi-
hazard early warning system. However, one participant noted that 
aspects of vulnerability are usually neglected, sidelined, or bypassed 
‹ ˆƒ˜‘” ‘ˆ •—’‡”Ƥ…‹ƒŽ ƒ’’”‘ƒ…Š‡• –‘ ˜—Ž‡”ƒ„‹Ž‹–› ‘” ˆ‘…—•‹‰ ‘ –Š‡
hazard.

2. Discussion on ‘Dissemination and  
     Communication of Early Warnings’

This focused on people’s lack of trust in government actors; best 
ways to disseminate early warnings; the usefulness of standard 
methods and tools for improving community preparedness; and the 
polarization between government agencies and NGOs in the ways 
that each are working. Several participants noted that lack of trust 
is an issue when establishing EWS. This is especially the case in set-
tings where governments are perceived as not being accountable 
and transparent. Also, there are many links in the ‘trust chain’ as 
messages are relayed from source to recipients. Early warning sys-
tems therefore rely not only on their internal structures to be

Between 13 May and 30 June 2009, the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) in cooperation with the Asian Disaster Preparedness Centre 
ȋ

 Ȍǡ ƒ…“—ƒ”‹‡ ‹˜‡”•‹–› ƒ† –Š‡ ƒ• Šƒ‹ ‘—†ƒ–‹‘ ȋ

 Šƒ‹Žƒ†Ȍ Š‘•–‡† ƒ ‘Ž‹‡ †‹ƒŽ‘‰—‡ ‘ Ǯ–”‡‰–Š‡‹‰ –Š‡ Žƒ•– ‹Ž‡ ‘ˆ –•—ƒ-

‹ ƒ”Ž› ƒ”‹‰ ›•–‡• ‹ –Š‡ †‹ƒ …‡ƒǤǯ Š‡ †‹ƒŽ‘‰—‡ ™ƒ• …‘†—…–‡† ƒ• ’ƒ”– ‘ˆ –Š‡ ’”‘Œ‡…– Ǯ ƒ”Ž› ƒ”‹‰ ƒ† ‘—‹–› ”‡’ƒ”‡†‡••ǣ
–”‡‰–Š‡‹‰ –Š‡ ‡…Š‘Ž‘‰› Ȃ ‘—‹–› –‡”ˆƒ…‡ǯ —†‡”–ƒ‡ „›   ƒ† ‹–• ”‡‰‹‘ƒŽ ’ƒ”–‡”• —†‡”  ǯ• ”‘‰”ƒ Ǯ—•–ƒ‹ƒ„Ž‡ ‡…‘˜‡”›
ƒ† ‡•‹Ž‹‡…‡ —‹Ž†‹‰ ‹ –Š‡ •—ƒ‹ ơ‡…–‡† ‡‰‹‘ǯǤ Š‡ ’”‘‰”ƒ ™ƒ• —†‡”–ƒ‡ „‡–™‡‡ ͚͘͘͝ ƒ† ͚͘͘͡ ™‹–Š Ƥƒ…‹ƒŽ •—’’‘”– ˆ”‘ –Š‡
Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA).  

18

|

Asian Disaster Management News

         July-December 2009

‡ơ‡…–‹˜‡ǡ „—– ƒŽ•‘ ‘ –Š‡ •—””‘—†‹‰ ‰‘˜‡”ƒ…‡ …‘–‡š–Ǥ ơ‡…–‹˜‡
messages are coherent with their cultural setting. It was suggested 
that further community awareness-raising is needed to understand 
ƒ† ”‡•’‘† ƒ’’”‘’”‹ƒ–‡Ž› –‘ –Š‡ †‹ơ‡”‡…‡• „‡–™‡‡ ƒŽ‡”–•ǡ ™ƒ”-
ings and evacuation messages.

͛Ǥ ‹•…—••‹‘ ‘ Ǯ‘‹–‘”‹‰ ƒ†
     Warning Services’ 

The third discussion dealt with issues relating to the technical com-
ponents of EWS; prospects for funding and long-term sustainabil-
ity of early warning activities; and guidance to improve policies and 
Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs). One particular challenge 
‡–‹‘‡† ‹• –Š‡ …‘’ƒ–‹„‹Ž‹–› ‘ˆ †‹ơ‡”‡– ƒŽ‡”– •›•–‡•Ǥ ‡ ’ƒ”–‹…-
ipant observed that after the 2004 tsunami a large number of organ-
izations developed alert systems independently without ensuring 
compatibility, integration and adherence to government standards 
ƒ† ”‡‰—Žƒ–‹‘•Ǥ  ‘”†‡” –‘ ‡•—”‡ –Šƒ–  ‡ơ‘”–• „‡…‘‡ ‘”‡
integrated and sustainable, disaster management authorities need 
to map and test all of these systems to identify where additional 
programs are needed, and decisions need to be made as to which 
data will be shared and how. Another issue discussed was the es-
tablishment of institutional mechanisms, and the experiences in 
developing standardized processes, roles and responsibilities, and 
protocols (SOPs). One participant asked how the ‘top-down desire 
for standardization can be balanced with the demonstrated need 
to contextualize processes at the local level relevant to the users of 
EWS’. This triggered a discussion on the applicability and transfer-
ƒ„‹Ž‹–› ‘ˆ ‘‘ Ž‡”–‹‰ ”‘–‘…‘Ž• ƒ…”‘•• †‹ơ‡”‡– …‘–‡š–• ƒ†
situations. 

4. Discussion on ‘Response Capability’ 

In the discussion topic response capability issues discussed included 
capacity building through awareness raising, education and train-
‹‰ ‡ơ‘”–• –Šƒ– •–ƒ”– ƒ– ’”‹ƒ”› ‡†—…ƒ–‹‘ Ž‡˜‡ŽǢ ‹•’‹”‹‰ ’‡‘’Ž‡
to help themselves through community-led disaster preparedness 
and response teams; and developing protocols that enable rapid 
ƒ† ‡ơ‡…–‹˜‡ ”‡•’‘•‡• ‘ –Š‡ –‡”• ‘ˆ –Š‡ ’‡‘’Ž‡ ™Š‘ —†‡”–ƒ‡
the responses. An important point made was that to be successful, 
government-led and community-led initiatives must occur together 
in order to assist and support each other. Participants referred to 
a number of sources that provide examples of demonstrated suc-
cesses and failures from around the world that serve as a valuable 

”‡•‘—”…‡ ˆ‘” Ž‡ƒ”‹‰ ƒ† ‹’”‘˜‹‰ …—””‡– ‡ơ‘”–• –‘ •–”‡‰–Š‡
disaster preparedness and early warning. One criticism was that 
much of the material available is in English only and that there is 
hence a need to develop networks and support materials in the lo-
cal languages. 

The dialogue drew a response of 154 registrations from 41 countries 
(see Figure 1 above).  More than half of the registered participants 
”‡’”‡•‡–‡† …‘—–”‹‡• ƒơ‡…–‡† „› –Š‡ ͖͔͔͘ –•—ƒ‹Ǥ

Ž‘•– ͙͛Ψ

were from Southeast Asia and South Asia. The remaining 25% were 
from a very diverse range of countries, including Ethiopia, Nigeria, 
Madagascar, Tajikistan, Iceland and American Samoa, among oth-
ers, indicating there was strong interest in early warning systems 
as a tool to address multiple-hazard risks beyond tsunami events.  A 

wide range of organizations were represented, with the majority of 
’ƒ”–‹…‹’ƒ–• „‡‹‰ ƒƥŽ‹ƒ–‡† ™‹–Š ‘Ǧ‰‘˜‡”‡– ‘”‰ƒ‹œƒ–‹‘•ǡ ”‡-
search and educational organizations, and government authorities 
(see Figure 2 above).  

The forum was successful in bringing together people from across 
the region, and in enabling interaction between policymakers, prac-
titioners, researchers and community groups.  Several participants 
shared web links to key documents, case studies, networks, data-
bases and websites relevant to this forum and these were collected 
and compiled on a resource page accessible on the site. An evalu-
ation survey, sent to all registered participants, showed that 20% 
of registered participants had posted comments to the dialogue. 
Overall, most respondents (95%) said they had found the dialogue 
‘very useful’ or ‘useful’ for their own learning. These lessons can be 
valuable in planning and implementing similar online forums in the 
future.

We would like to thank everyone who has participated in the online 
dialogue for early warning. A summary report of the overall project 
will be posted shortly on www.adpc.net/odew and the home pages 
of the host organizations.

For more information please contact

Frank Thomalla, Department of Environment and Geography, Macquarie 
University
Atiq Kainan Ahmed, Asian Disaster Preparedness Center (ADPC)
Delia Paul, Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI)
Bruce Ravesloot, ƒ• Šƒ‹ ‘—†ƒ–‹‘ ȋ

 Ȍ

++++++++++

Participants by region

*Western Asia includes  
  those countries which are 
  considered transcontinental  
  across Eurasia.

Europe

Africa

America

Southeast Asia

South Asia

Oceania

Central Asia

East Asia

West Asia

‘—–”‹‡• ‘– ƒơ‡…–‡†

„› –Š‡ ͖͔͔͘ †‹ƒ

…‡ƒ –•—ƒ‹

ƒŽ†‹˜‡•

Malaysia

‘—–Š ˆ”‹…ƒ

›ƒƒ”

Sri Lanka

ƒ‰Žƒ†‡•Š

ƒ”–‹…‹’ƒ–• ˆ”‘ …‘—–”‹‡• ƒơ‡…–‡†

„› –Š‡ ͖͔͔͘ †‹ƒ …‡ƒ •—ƒ‹

†‹ƒ

Šƒ‹Žƒ†

†‘‡•‹ƒ

BD

The Proportion of Registrants Representing

–Š‡ ‹ơ‡”‡– ›’‡• ‘ˆ ”‰ƒ‹•ƒ–‹‘•

Non

Government

Government

Media

Business

Individual

Other

Research/ 

Education

|

19

Asian Disaster Management News

         July-December 2009

ADPC

Highlights in 2009

FEALAC Symposium

     

 
ADPC, in cooperation with MFA of Thailand and with funding support from 
Thailand International Development Cooperation Agency (TICA), hosted the 
Ƥ”•–



›’‘•‹— ‘ ƒǦ…‡ƒ‹… ‘‘’‡”ƒ–‹‘ ˆ‘” ‹•ƒ•–‡” ‹• ‡†—…-

tion during 9 – 12 November 2009 in Bangkok and Phuket, Thailand. The Sym-
posium was attended by delegates from 16 Asian and Latin American countries including Argentina, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, 
Guatemala, Indonesia, Laos PRD, Malaysia, Myanmar, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, Thailand and Vietnam, as well as 

scientists, experts and specialists on disaster risk reduction (DRR) from Asian Dis-
aster Preparedness Center (ADPC), World Health Organization (WHO), Pan Amer-
ica Health Organization (PAHO), International Federation of Red Cross and Red 
Crescent Societies (IFRC), Emergency and Disaster Management and Administra-
tion - Bogota, International Research Center on El Niño (CIIFEN), Center for the 
Cooperation of National Disasters Prevention in Central America (CEPREDENAC), 
Andean Committee for Disaster Prevention and Assistance (CAPRADE) and Thai 
Governments’ specialists.  

The Meeting provided an opportunity 
for FEALAC member countries to dis-
cuss ways and means to strengthen 
the cooperation on sharing adapta-
tion strategies and methodologies 
among the countries, discussing adap-
tation challenges, and creating a net-

work of technical support and information sharing from the FEALAC member countries from 
„‘–Š •‹†‡• ‘ˆ –Š‡ ƒ…‹Ƥ… …‡ƒǤ
   
FEALAC Symposium web page: http://www.adpc.net/fealac/index.htm 

RECLAIM Regional Workshop 

ADPC organized a meeting “Regional Meeting for discussion and promotion of Early Warning Mechanisms for Landslides in Asian Region” 
during 25 – 27 November 2009 in Bangkok, Thailand. Throughout the three-day meeting, all government representatives together with ADPC 
and Norwegian Geotechnical Institute (NGI) focused on three main topics: Mechanisms of rainfall induced landslides, Landslide monitoring 
techniques and Early warning systems (EWS). 

ADPC, with funding support from the Royal Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Af-
fairs and with technical assistance from NGI, has been working on Asian Program 
for Regional Capacity Enhancement for Landslide Impact Mitigation (RECLAIM) 
since 2004. The main objective of the RECLAIM program is to enhance the ca-
pacity of professionals involved in landslide risk management by promoting a 
dialogue  between  decision  makers  and  professionals  about  the  theoretical  as 
well as practical aspects and issues and challenges related to landslide risk man-
agement.

During the phase I & II for the last four years, the RECLAIM program was imple-
mented in seven target countries including Bhutan, India, Indonesia, Nepal, the 
Philippines, Sri Lanka and Thailand. At the RECLAIM phase III, three new coun-
tries have been added, namely Bangladesh, People’s Republic of China and Viet-
nam. The phase III will put more emphasis on the use of early warning systems 
for landslide prone areas, which have advanced fairly rapidly over the last years. 

FEALAC Symposium on Pan-Oceanic Cooperation for Disaster Risk Reduction

Automatic wireless rain gauge system with GPRS, Patong City, 
Š—‡–ǡ Šƒ‹Žƒ†

20 

|

Asian Disaster Management News

         July-December 2009

˜‡”› ›‡ƒ”ǡ •‹ƒ ƒ……‘—–• ˆ‘” –Š‡ Š‹‰Š‡•– —„‡” ‘ˆ †‹•ƒ•–‡” ‡˜‡–• ƒ† –Š‡ Š‹‰Š‡•– —„‡” ‘ˆ ˆƒ–ƒŽ‹–‹‡• ƒ† ƒơ‡…–‡† ˜‹…–‹• ‹ –Š‡ ™‘”Ž†Ǥ

However, little attention has been paid for natural disasters with isolated occurrences and low death rate like landslides. In fact, however, 
the cumulative fatal impacts of landslides on human lives, properties, socio-economic dimensions and the environment are greater than 
…›…Ž‘‡• ƒ† Š—””‹…ƒ‡•Ǥ ‘™‡˜‡”ǡ Ž‹––Ž‡ ‡ơ‘”–• Šƒ˜‡ „‡‡ ƒ†‡ „› –Š‡ •–ƒ‡Š‘Ž†‡” ‹•–‹–—–‹‘• –‘ —†‡”•–ƒ† –Š‡ •‘…‹ƒŽ ƒ† –‡…Š‹…ƒŽ †‹-
‡•‹‘• ‘ˆ –Š‹• •‡”‹‘—• ‹••—‡ ƒ† –Š‡”‡„› –‘ †‡˜‡Ž‘’ …‘•– ‡ơ‡…–‹˜‡ Žƒ†•Ž‹†‡ ‹–‹‰ƒ–‹‘ •‘Ž—–‹‘•Ǥ

RECLAIM web page: Š––’ǣȀȀ™™™Ǥƒ†’…Ǥ‡–Ȁ˜͚͘͘͟Ȁ”‘‰”ƒ•Ȁ Ȁ ά͚͘Ƭά͚͘

Ȁ

 Ȁ ‡ˆƒ—Ž–Ǧ

 Ǥƒ•’

Chinese Delegates Visits 

   
As requested by Jiangxi Provincial Government, People’s Re-
public of China, ADPC organized a study visit for a group of 

Š‹‡•‡ †‡Ž‡‰ƒ–‹‘•Ǥ Š‡ †‡Ž‡‰ƒ–‹‘ …‘•‹•–‡† ‘ˆ Ƥ˜‡ ‰‘˜‡”-

‡– ‘ƥ…‹ƒŽ• ˆ”‘ –Š‡ ƥ…‡ ‘ˆ –Š‡ ‘—–ƒ‹Ǧ‹˜‡”Ǧƒ‡

‡-

velopment Committee (MRLDO), Meteorological Bureau and 
Agricultural Department of Jiangxi Province led by Mr. Zhang 
Qihai, Deputy Director-General of MRLDO. The study visit on 
Community Based Disaster Risk Management and Climate Risk 
Management was held on 17 - 28 November in Thailand (Bang-
kok and Phuket), Indonesia (Jakarta and Indramayu) and the 
Philippines (Manila and Dumangas). Ms. LingLing Jiang, the 
project manager of China and East Asia, accompanied the del-
egation to visit Indonesia and the Philippines after conducting 
activities in Thailand. 

Understanding the link 

between economic impacts 

of natural disaster and developmental planning 

ADPC held a regional consultative meeting on ‘Devel-
opment of Pre-Disaster Natural Hazard Loss Estimation 
Strategy’ during 14 – 15 December 2009 in Bangkok, 
Thailand. With support of the Ministry of Foreign Af-
fairs of the Royal Norwegian Government, the two-day 
meeting brought disaster management professionals, 
specialists in national planning departments and min-
istries, as well as sector based development planning 
specialists together from Bangladesh, China, Philip-
pines, Sri Lanka and Vietnam which are prone to natural 
hazards. The consultative meeting aimed at identify-
ing the national needs and challenges and building the 
country ownership on a course curriculum develop-
ment about pre-disaster natural hazard loss estimation. 
Participants of the meeting included Director General 

of Disaster Management Bureau, Bangla-
desh, Director General of National Disaster 
Reduction Center of China (NDRCC), China, 
‡…”‡–ƒ”› ‘ˆ ‹‹•–”› ‘ˆ ‘‡

ơƒ‹”•ǡ ‡-

pal, Chief Economic Development Specialist 
of National Economic and development Au-
thority (NEDA), Philippines, Director General 
of National Building Research Organization 
(NBRO), Sri Lanka, and Director General of 
Department of Dyke Management Flood 
and Storm Control, Vietnam. The meeting 
also invited stakeholders from international 
organizations such as World Bank, UNDP, 
UNESCAP and UNISDR. 

|

21

Asian Disaster Management News

         July-December 2009

Strengthening early warning institutional mechanism
through stakeholder forum in the region

Towards enhancing the institutional linkages between the national early warning agencies and its user agencies, ADPC in collabora-
tion with the National Meteorological Services (NMS) of Sri Lanka and Indonesia organized National Monsoon Forum on 26th to 30th  
November 2009 respectively. The objectives of the National Monsoon Forum are: 

1. Ensure that weather, extreme events and climate forecast  
    products, including their uncertainties and limitations, are  
    understood by and communicated to users on a regular basis

2. Provide a platform for inter-agency coordination of policies  
    and programs for dealing with potential impacts of climate- 
    related hazards on seasonal basis

3. Encourage forecast applications for mitigating risks in various  
    climate-sensitive sectors; 

4. Provide a platform for understanding risks posed by/ 
    opportunities brought about by past, current, and future  
    climate

5. Provide a platform to foster a regular dialogue between early  
    warning agencies and its users and to facilitate strengthening of  
    end-to-end multi-hazard early warning systems in the country.

Department of Meteorology (DOM), Sri Lanka, convened the 2nd 
National Monsoon Forum in Colombo on 26th November 2009.  
A total of 43 participants from the 24 user agencies participated 
in the forum. In Indonesia, National Agency for Meteorological,  
Climatological, and Geophysical Agency (BMKG) convened the 
3rd National Monsoon Forum in Jakarta on 30th November 2009, 
which was attended by 67 participants from 19 agencies. 

Monsoon Forum a.k.a Early Warning Forum /Seasonal Climate 

 

Forum is a multi-stakeholder institutional mechanism anchored around the monsoon season in the country and held twice a year (before 
and after the monsoon). The forum aims to foster a constant dialogue between early warning agencies (information providers) and the 
users of its forecast products and services. Monsoon forum activity is supported under the regional project “Facilitating the Integration of 
Tsunami Warning by Strengthening Multi-Hazard Early Warning Systems in Sri Lanka, Viet Nam, Indonesia and the Philippines” funded by 
the American Red Cross.

Contact persons: 

Mr. A.R. Subbiah, Director of Climate Risk Management (subbiah@adpc.net) 
Mr. Jaiganesh Murugesan, Disaster Reduction Specialist (jaiganeshm@adpc.net) 
 

Zoonotic Disease Project:  

One Day Workshop 

ADPC, with support of the Rockefeller Foundation, conducted a one-
day workshop to identify the scope for a comprehensive curriculum 
on zoonotic disease in 8 December 2009. The workshop was intended 
to identify which subject areas are already well documented and have 
available content, and which subject areas represent gaps that need 
further development. 

Š‡ ƤƒŽ …—””‹…—Ž— ™‹ŽŽ „‡ •‡‰‡–‡† ‹–‘ †‹•–‹…– ‘†—Ž‡• –Šƒ– …‘—Ž†
be taught individually or together as the entire course. The module 
content will be modeled after the Harmonized Training Materials Pack-
age (HTP) developed by the Global Nutrition Cluster in collaboration 
with Nutrition Works. That curriculum, as in the case of the zoonotic 
disease curriculum, covered a broad range of subject areas which were 
”‡“—‹”‡† –‘ ‡‡– –Š‡ †‹ơ‡”‹‰ ‡‡†• ‘ˆ ‰‘˜‡”‡–• ƒ† ‹–‡”ƒ–‹‘ƒŽ
ƒ‰‡…‹‡• ‹ †‹ơ‡”‡– …‘–‡š–•Ǥ

++++++++++++++++++++

Upcoming

ADPC Events

 

ADPC Regional Training

Schedule for 

2010 

22 

|

Asian Disaster Management News

         July-December 2009

͚͞ Ȃ ͚͡ ƒ—ƒ”› ͚͙͘͘ǣ

 ADPC is holding a workshop on Psychosocial Response to Disasters with a focus on 

Children in Asia. The three and a half day workshop will bring mental health and educational professionals who 
are working with children and teenagers together. The overall goal of the Workshop is to strengthen and sustain 
the national capacity in the management of psychosocial aspects of disasters and emergencies on children in Asia. 

 

For more info, please visit Š––’ǣȀȀ™™™Ǥƒ†’…Ǥ‡–Ȁ˜͚͘͘͟Ȁ”‘‰”ƒ•Ȁ Ȁ Ȁ   Ȁ ‡ˆƒ—Ž–Ǥƒ•’

͙͟ Ȃ ͙͠ ‡„”—ƒ”› ͚͙͘͘ǣ

  ADPC is co-organizing a Regional Conference on ‘Climate Change and Extreme Cyclones: Disaster Risk 

Reduction and Emergency Response in a Rapidly Changing World’ with Bangladesh Disaster Preparedness Center in Dhaka, 

 

Bangladesh.  The conference will provide a venue where stakeholders can share experiences, and bridge the gaps between 
extreme cyclone event and the rapidity to cope with such disasters and reduce its harmful impacts. For more information,  
please check the conference brochure at http://www.adpc.net/v2007/Downloads/2010/Feb/Conference%20Brochure_17-18Feb2010.pdf

Š‡ ͠–Š ‡‡–‹‰ ‘ˆ –Š‡ ‡‰‹‘ƒŽ ‘•—Ž–ƒ–‹˜‡ ‘‹––‡‡ ˆ‘” ‹•ƒ•–‡” ƒƒ‰‡‡– ȋ

͠Ȍ

  

will be held during 22 – 24 February 2010 in Manila, Philippines 

Š‡ ͜–Š 

‡‡–‹‰ ‹• „‡‹‰ …‘ǦŠ‘•–‡† „› –Š‡ ƥ…‡ ‘ˆ –Š‡ ‹˜‹Ž ‡ˆ‡…‡ǡ ƒ–‹‘ƒŽ ‹•ƒ•–‡” ‘‘”†‹ƒ–‹‰ ‘—…‹Ž ‘ˆ –Š‡ Š‹Ž‹’’‹‡•

and the Asian Disaster Preparedness Center, with support from the Government of Australia. The special theme of the 8th RCC Meet-
ing will be on Implementing National Programs on Community based disaster risk reduction in High Risk Communities.

ADPC Regional Consultative Committee on Disaster Management has been established since 2000. The Committee comprises mem-
bers of the ADPC Board of Trustees/ Advisory Council who are Heads of National Disaster Management systems of countries of the 
Asian region. The role of the Consultative Committee is to provide an informal consultative mechanism for development of action 
strategies for disaster reduction in the region and promotion of cooperative programs on a regional and sub-regional basis; so as to 
guide ADPC’s work. To date, annual meetings have been held in 2000 and 2001 in Thailand, 2002 in India, 2004 in Bangladesh, 2005 
in Vietnam, 2006 in China, and the 7th RCC meeting will be held in Sri Lanka in February 2008. Meetings are convened by ADPC and 
co-organized by the Government of the host country and have been attended by participants from over 30 countries. Deliberations 
have been focused on identifying priority needs of member countries for disaster reduction and on learning lessons from experience.  

 ͚͘͘͝Ǧ͚͘͘͠ …–‹˜‹–› ‡’‘”– ™‹ŽŽ „‡ …‘‹‰ ‘—– •‘‘Ǥ

4th Mainstreaming Disaster Risk Reduction into Local  
Governance (MDRRG-4)

25 – 29 January 2010 (1 week) Manila, Philippines 
Fee: 1500 US$

‹•ƒ•–‡” ƒƒ‰‡‡– ‘—”•‡ ȋ  Ǧ͛͡Ȍ

1-19 February 2010 (3 week) Bangkok, Thailand
Fee: 2700 US$

9th Earthquake Vulnerability Reduction Course (EVRC-9)

1-12 March 2010 (2 weeks) Bangkok, Thailand
Fee: 2000 US$

͟–Š –‡”ƒ–‹‘ƒŽ ‘—”•‡ ‘ ‘•’‹–ƒŽ ‡”‰‡…›  
”‡’ƒ”‡†‡•• ƒ† ‡•’‘•‡ ȋ Ǧ͟Ȍ

8-12 March 2010 
Fee: 1500 US$

10th Inter-regional Course on Public Health in  

‡”‰‡…› ƒƒ‰‡‡– ‹ •‹ƒ ƒ† –Š‡ ƒ…‹Ƥ…  

(PHEMAP-10)

17-28 May 2010 (2 weeks) Bangkok, Thailand 
Fee: 2500 US$ (by invitation for WHO/MOH participants)

͝–Š  ˆ‘” ‹•ƒ•–‡” ‹• ƒƒ‰‡‡– Ȃ ‹–”‘†—…–‘”›
course (GIS 4 DM-5)

31 May – 11 June 2010 Bangkok, Thailand 
Fee: 2000 US$

Climate Risk Management: Science, Institutions, and Soci-
ety (CRM-4)

June 2010 (to be announced) Bangkok, Thailand 
Fee: 2500 US$

19th Regional Learning Workshop on Community Based 
Disaster Risk Reduction (CBDRR-19)

19-30 July 2010 (12 days) Bangkok, Thailand

9th Training Course on Public Heath in Complex  
Emergencies (PHCE-9)

12-24 July 2010 Bangkok, Thailand 
Fee: 2400 US$

†Ǧ–‘Ǧ † —Ž–‹Ǧƒœƒ”† ƒ”Ž› ƒ”‹‰ ›•–‡• ȋ Ǧ͛Ȍ

To be announced 
Fee: 2500 US$

Please follow ADPC on Twitter!                          &  ADPC Facebook group 

Asian Disaster 

Management News

January-December 2009  Vol.15, Special Issue

The Asian Disaster Management News is published by the Asian Disaster 
Preparedness Center, to serve as a channel of communication and source 
of information for disaster risk management practitioners and development 
™‘”‡”• ‹ •‹ƒ ƒ† –Š‡ ƒ…‹Ƥ…Ǥ
Online versions are available at: 

http://www.adpc.net

To receive a copy of the Newsletter, please contact:

Information & Communication Coordinator 

Asian Disaster Preparedness Center 

979/66-70, 24th Floor  SM Tower, Paholyothin Road, Samsen Nai, Phayathai
Bangkok, 10400 Thailand
Tel:  (66-2) 298 0681-92  (ext. 256) Fax: (66-2) 298 0012-13
E-mail: hykim@adpc.net

Executive 

Editorial Team

Dr. Bhichit Rattakul (Chair)
Mr. Aloysius J. Rego
Mr. A.R. Subbiah, 
Mr. N.M.S.I. Arambepola
Mr. Boon-Tiong Tay  
Mr. Bradford Philips

Editor-in-chief: Mr. Aloysius J. Rego
Editor:  Ms.Hye Young (Hailey) Kim
Cover Photo credit:  
Front Ǧ ‡‘‰ ‡Ž–ƒ ‹ ‹–ƒ ̽ •Ǥ ƒǢ
Back Ǧ Ž‘‘†‹‰ ‹ ƒ„‘†‹ƒ ̽



Design & Layout: Mr. Manit Poomkumarn

Safer communities and sustainable development though disaster risk  reduction