United Nations University

Our World at Risk: A Look at WorldRiskReport 2012

Climate Change, Governance, Risk & Vulnerabilities

Article

• October 23, 2012

  Stephanie Dietrich

  

  UN Photo/Kibae Park

 

Disasters can be a country’s worst nightmare — death, destruction and exorbitant recovery costs devastate economies and citizens alike. Between 2002 and 2011, 4,130 disasters were recorded around the world, causing damages of more than US$1.19 trillion and killing more than a million people. Moreover, the frequency and intensity of disasters is on the rise.

Not all countries face the same level of disaster risk. What are the factors that determine a country’s level of risk, and how can this be expressed both qualitatively and quantitatively to better influence policy and preparedness? This is what the 2012 edition of the WorldRiskReport (WRR) seeks to answer.

The first edition of the WRR was launched in 2011 by Alliance Development Works in collaboration with the United Nations University Institute for Environment and Human Security (UNU-EHS) and the Nature Conservancy. Designed to highlight the complex nature of disaster risk, the report aims to provide tools for more effective disaster planning and coping strategies.

A recipe for disaster

The WRR is based on the key idea that it is not the strength of a natural hazard alone that determines the occurrence or extent of a disaster. Rather, it is the variable interaction of a hazard with socio-economic, political and environmental factors that determines the final result. In the words of the report, “disaster risk is seen as a function of exposure and vulnerability”.

While this is not a new idea, but the WRR contributes unique clarity to the growing body of work on this issue by quantifying risk and the factors that influence it, and presenting it in a comparative index. This enables policymakers to readily identify problem areas and more easily communicate the need for better disaster risk strategies.

Calculated risk

In order to evaluate the risk of a particular country, the centrepiece of the report, the WorldRiskIndex (WRI), considers four components:

1. Exposure to natural hazards such as earthquakes, cyclones, flooding, drought and sea level rise
2. Susceptibility of the society to harm; based on infrastructure, nutrition, housing situation and economic framework conditions
3. Coping capacities of a society in the aftermath of a hazard; based on governance, disaster preparedness and early warning capacity, medical services, social networks and material coverage
4. Adaptive capacities relating to forthcoming natural events, climate change and other challenges

Susceptibility, coping capacities and adaptive capacities are combined to indicate the vulnerability of a society. The vulnerability factor is then multiplied by the exposure factor to give a final overall disaster risk indicator.

WorldRiskIndex
Rank	Country	Risk (%)
1	Vanuatu	36.31
2	Tonga	28.62
3	Philippines	27.98
4	Guatemala	20.75
5	Bangladesh	20.22
6	Solomon Islands	18.15
7	Costa Rica	17.38
8	Cambodia	17.17
9	Timor-Leste	17.13
10	El Salvador	16.89
11	Brunei Darussalam	15.92
12	Papua New Guinea	15.81
13	Mauritius	15.39
14	Nicaragua	15.36
15	Fiji	13.69
159	Estonia	2.50
160	Israel	2.43
161	Egypt	2.33
162	Norway	2.31
163	Finland	2.24
164	Sweden	2.15
165	United Arab Emirates	2.07
166	Bahrain	1.81
167	Kiribati	1.78
168	Iceland	1.53
169	Grenada	1.46
170	Saudi Arabia	1.31
171	Barbados	1.15
172	Malta	0.61
173	Qatar	0.10

Using this formula, it becomes clear that it is possible for a very highly exposed country, such as Japan (ranked 4th in terms of exposure) or the Netherlands (ranked 12th in exposure), to achieve lower overall risk levels (Japan is ranked 16th; the Netherlands is ranked 51st), as the highly developed nature of these societies means that vulnerability is low. Conversely, countries with extreme social vulnerability, like Liberia, are still at significant risk from disasters (overall risk ranking of 60th) despite only minor levels of exposure (ranked 113th).
The most dangerous combination is, of course, where high exposure to hazards and climate change coincides with significant vulnerability within societies, pushing countries in this category to the top of the list. By evaluating individual countries this way, it is also possible to identify global disaster risk hotspots, such as in Oceania, Southeast Asia, the southern Sahel and Central America.

Each edition of the WRR focuses on a particular factor of disaster risk. While the 2011 inaugural report highlighted civil society and governance, the 2012 edition focuses on environmental degradation and disasters.

Environmental degradation and disasters

The environmental impact of disasters is often blatantly visible as hazard events such as hurricanes, earthquakes and floods devastate natural landscapes. Moreover, environmental degradation and climate change are increasingly being recognized as a key driver of natural hazards while also reducing a society’s capacity to cope.

The link between environmental degradation and the impact of disasters has been highlighted in both the United Nations Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) in 2005 and the United Nations Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR) in 2009.

It is this reciprocal relationship between disasters and damage to the environment that occupies the latter half of WRR 2012.
The idea that environmental damage is a driver of natural hazards has gained significant currency at the international level, yet it remains difficult to systematically establish the extent of this link on a global scale; more research and action in this area is required. There are a number of studies at local and regional levels, however, that demonstrate the negative effects of environmental degradation on disaster risk.
As the WRR 2012 points out, it has been well established that, for example, agribusiness increases soil erosion, and that the loss of mangroves and wetlands alongside rivers removes natural protection against flooding. The risk of landslides is also increased by heavy precipitation, deforestation and farming on steep slopes.

The environmental degradation caused by disasters is fairly obvious. For example, in 2005, Hurricane Katrina in the United States caused extensive damage to coastal ecosystems. As a result, Louisiana’s Chandeleur Islands lost about 85% of their surface area, depriving hundreds of thousands of migratory birds of essential nesting and feeding grounds. Furthermore, over 570 square kilometres of marshland and coastal forests were lost along the Gulf Coast.

But some disasters have environmental consequences that can take years or decades to assess. The immediate economic and social impacts of the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and resulting tsunami and nuclear accident have been widely publicized, but a year and a half later the full extent of ecosystem damage from radiation remains to be gauged.

Healthy ecosystems to the rescue

According to WRR 2012, intact and healthy ecosystems can significantly reduce disaster risk in four ways, corresponding to the four components of the WRI.

• Forests and riparian wetlands or coral ecosystems such as mangroves, coral reefs and sea-grass reduce exposure to natural hazards by acting as natural buffers and protective barriers that reduce the impacts of extreme natural events, such as landslides or tidal waves.
• When sustainably managed and in good condition, intact ecosystems such as grasslands, forests, rivers or coastal areas can reduce vulnerability and susceptibility. They contribute to nutrition, income and well-being. They can also provide medicine and building materials, or new sources of income, for example via nature-based tourism.
• Healthy ecosystems can enhance coping capacity in the event of a disaster. For example, if supply lines are severed, food and fresh water can be obtained from the immediate environment.
• Ecosystems can directly influence adaptive capacities. When the environment is in good condition, there is a greater diversity of planning options. It is much easier to reduce future risks when natural resources are viable and intact; your choices are simply greater.

WorldRiskIndex as the result of exposure and vulnerability

Reducing disaster risk through sustainable development

Given that disaster risk is about much more than simply exposure, reducing risk is not a short-term or reactionary process; rather, it involves development progress across the board. Vulnerability is high in countries that lack effective governance, education, medical services, and infrastructure, and where environmental management is poor. Efforts to combat poverty and improve socio-economic structures and institutions, therefore, are imperative, along with specific attention to disaster preparedness, early-warning systems and long-term resilience strategies incorporated into policy planning.

Because ecosystems are so important to disaster risk mitigation, countries need to make sure their drive towards socio-economic development does not come at the cost of fragile natural systems. Environmental management needs to be a top priority.

Socio-economic development, environmental degradation and climate change have been on the international agenda for a long time, but until recently discussions on these issues have mainly taken place in parallel to each other, rather than using an integrative approach.

Fortunately, recent shifts signal that international policymakers and citizens around the world are coming to realize the importance of healthy ecosystems and the dangers associated with environmental degradation and climate change, and of the broader links to development issues.
Rightfully, these issues are merging within the international debate, and the concept of “sustainable development” is being pushed to the forefront. Furthermore, the issue of disaster risk is also finding its way more and more into these discussions.

The United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20), held in June 2012, is a good example of this, with disaster risk reduction gaining ground as one of seven priority issues on the agenda. Despite much talk however, governments have yet to agree on substantial political and financial commitments.

Nonetheless, it was encouraging to see leaders of key international funding agencies, such as the World Bank, stress the importance of disaster risk management at the Sendai Dialogue event held in Japan in October 2012 as part of the 2012 IMF/World Bank annual meetings. The ensuing report gives examples of the World Bank’s continuing efforts to incorporate disaster risk reduction strategies into its funding projects.

The post-2015 era

The current political space provides many opportunities. Several key international frameworks and agreements are due to conclude in the next few years, such as the Millennium Development Goals (2015) and the Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015, the main international document in the area of disaster risk reduction. Furthermore, international negotiations are to take place in the wake of Rio+20 to discuss new “Sustainable Development Goals” as well as to negotiate a new climate agreement as part of commitments made at the Durban Platform in 2012.

The debates over the post-2015 international development agenda offer a chance for comprehensive disaster risk reduction strategies to be incorporated into sustainable development goals. The WRR and the WRI enable policymakers to identify the global hotspots and countries most at risk in order to best target support and funding.

As the WRR 2012 concludes, “in the following three years, it will be crucial to demonstrate the will professed again and again to overcome a sector-related ‘silo mentality’ and systematically interlink the various negotiation and discussion processes. The aim has to be to really turn disaster risk reduction into an integral element of the new development agenda”.

♦ ♦ ♦

All figures and references quoted in this article are from the WorldRiskReport 2012

5 Biblical Concepts Fundamentalists Just Don’t Understand

Belief  

AlterNet / By Sean McElwee

5 Biblical Concepts Fundamentalists Just Don’t Understand

Here are some verses liberal Christians wish they would get “fundamentalist” about.

Photo Credit: Shutterstock.com/Vlue

July 30, 2013  |  

 

 

Right-wing Evangelical Fundamentalism claims to “go back to roots of Christianity.” In fact, the “literal” (i.e. the earth was created in seven literal days) reading of the Bible was invented in the 19th century. Few fundamentalists care about the early church, the Gospels, the Catholic traditions, Augustine, Arian heresies, encyclicals and councils. Rather, they blend Southern Conservatism, bastardized Protestantism, some Pauline doctrine, gross nationalism and a heavy dose of naive anti-intellectualism for a peculiar American strain of bullshit. As Reverend Cornel West has noted, “the fundamentalist Christians want to be fundamental about everything, except ‘love thy neighbor.'”

Here are some verses we liberal Christians wish they would get “fundamentalist” about:

1. Immigration:

The verse:

When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God. - Leviticus 19:33-34.

Why Fundamentalists Hate This Verse:

Because fundamentalists are xenophobic: religious fundamentalism is a reaction to the multiculturalism of liberal democracy. Rather than seek a “brotherhood of man,” religious fundamentalism longs for a tribal community, without the necessary friction from those with foreign beliefs, cultures and customs. Here’s an open letter from the President of an organization called Christians for A Sustainable Economy (Or as I call it: Christians for an unsustainable environment):

We are called to discern among, “sojourners” (like Ruth and Rahab who intend to assimilate and bless) and “foreigners” (who do not intend to assimilate and bless) and to welcome the former with hospitality.

This is an odd spin, given that in Leviticus, the command is unambiguous, there is no aside about a distinction between those who intend to assimilate. The letter then addresses the immigration bill:

Its passage would allow 11 million illegal immigrants to become citizens in the short-term, with likely an additional 20 million family members as new citizens within about a decade. ... The net price tag of S. 744 will be in the trillions of dollars. ... Such escalation of debt is one way to destroy a nation.  It is immoral. It is theft from American seniors and children. It is unbiblical. It is unkind.

I could write a bunch of stuff about those numbers being crazily inaccurate, but let me allow the Lord to respond:

I will be a swift witness against… those who oppress the hired worker in his wages, the widow and the fatherless, against … those who thrust aside the sojourner, and do not fear me, says the Lord of hosts. Malachi 3:5.

2. Poverty

The Verses:

One of the most humorous aspects of modern-day, far-right Christianity is its reverence of capitalism. That’s because Christ could be considered almost “anti-capitalist.” Consider this verse:

Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God. - Matthew 19:24.

There is some version of the story of the rich man approaching Jesus that appears in every synoptic Gospel. In the Gospel of Mark, Jesus tells the rich man, “go, sell all that you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven.”

The story of Lazarus should similarly terrify modern day fundamentalists:

Lazarus is a beggar who waits outside of a rich man’s house and begs for scraps. When both Lazarus and the rich man die, Lazarus ends up in heaven, while the rich man ends up in hell. When the rich man begs for water, Abraham says, “Child, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner bad things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish.” Luke 19:25.

Why Fundamentalists Hate These Verses:

Because the only thing fundamentalists dislike more than immigrants is poor people. Seriously. Just this year, Tea Party congressman Stephen Fincher explained why he thought the government should cut food stamps entirely, “The role of citizens, of Christians, of humanity is to take care of each other, but not for Washington to steal from those in the country and give to others in the country.” Michelle Bachmann has also made a similar statement. The entire Tea Party movement is based on the idea that a huge portion of Americans are “takers” who suck the lifeblood out of the economy.

The Catholic Church actually has a long history of decrying the exploitation of the poor and supporting union movements(See Rerum Novarm).  G.K. Chesterton’s writing on the rich often hits Occupy Wall Street levels (“The rich man is bribed… that is why he is rich.”) But fundamentalists insist that poverty be explained in terms of a personal moral failure. They therefore hold that success should be described in terms of morality; this is the so-called Protestant ethic that Weber praised. But it is also, as Nietzsche noted, the “ethic of the hangman.” The poor are considered culpable so that they can be punished – like today’s cuts to food stamps or the public shaming of those on welfare.

3. The Environment

The Verse:

In Genesis, man is given stewardship of the Earth, God’s creation. [Stewardship, in the Christian tradition implies protection. Man should exist in harmony with the earth, not work against it.] As is noted in Colossians 1:16-17:

By him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Why Fundamentalists Hate The Verse:

Jesus Christ once told his followers:

No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money. - Luke 16:13.

Increasingly, the religious right is trying to do exactly that, intertwining Evangelical fundamentalism with unfettered capitalism — with disastrous results for the environment. Thus, American political life is increasingly dominated by Christians who reject the religious ethos, in favor of capitalist ethos.

One Conservative Evangelical publication, World Magazine, hypes the “We Get It” campaign, which seeks to discredit the threat of global warming. It also claims the threat of climate change is “alarmism” and fears that efforts to clamp down on emissions will hurt the poor (read: corporations). In reality, climate change will have its greatest effect on people living on less than a dollar a day who can not adapt to higher temperatures. Conservative Evangelicals are not concerned with dwindling biodiversity, the destruction of ecosystem, rampant pollution, global warming and the numerous other environmental challenges we face. Rather they, with the business community, are concerned with the bottom line. The future is irrelevant (unless we’re talking about government debt). Thus, the Biblical command to protect the environment is widely eschewed.

4. War

The Verse:

In two Gospels, Jesus tells his followers:

You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. - Matthew 5:38-42, Luke 27-30.

In another passage he says:

You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. - Matthew 5:43 – 45.

Why Fundamentalists Hate This Verse:

As a religious and political movement, fundamentalists have defined themselves as a party of opposition, rather than of love, grace and mercy.
In her fantastic essay, Onward Christian Liberals, Marilynne Robinson argues:

The excitement we are seeing now is called by some scholars a thirdgreat awakening, yet it is different from the other two... it is full of pious aversion toward the so-called culture... and toward those whose understanding of religion fails to meet its standards.

While past “Great Awakenings” have looked inward, seeing sin within the conflicted self, this new awakening looks outward, seeing sin in the wider culture. The culture, that which is secular is evil, while the church is sacred. This is why modern religious fundamentalism gravitates towards xenophobia, homophobia, sexism, etc. Fear and disgust are its motivating factors.

This fundamentalism inclines some religious people toward a pre-emptive “war of religion” and a strong disgust (that sometimes culminates in violence) toward Muslims. Oddly enough, the Christian tradition has developed a theory of “Just War” (developed by Aquinas) which condemns war except when all other options have been exhausted and there is just treatment of prisoners (with a specific condemnation of torture). If only one of the past two “Christian” presidents had listened.

5. Women

The Verse:

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. - Galatians 3:28

Why Fundamentalists Hate it:

Although the right often claims the Bible supports their absurd ideas about gender roles (just like the Bible supported anti-miscegenation) such claims have been thoroughly debunkedby theologians. Generally, when you’ll hear an explanation of why women belong in the home, it’ll rely on a misreading of one of Paul’s doctrines.

In contrast to Paul, Christ rarely concerned himself with sexual mores, he was far more concerned with fighting oppression. Fundamentalists want to keep women submissive and subservient, but Jesus won’t let them. In Luke, for instance, Jesus is blessed by a priestess named Anna. He praises a woman who stands up to a judge and demands justice. It’s worth noting that in a time when women could not testify in a court of law, all four resurrection stories have women arriving first to Jesus’ tomb (although it’s unclear which women). Jesus talks with a Samaritan woman at a well and praises Mary Magdalene for listening to his words (Luke 10:38-42).

Fundamentalism Obscures True Religion

 

These verses are powerful and I believe that they should be carefully considered.

I worry that Christianity and religion in general is represented by its most conservative, fundamentalists elements. Remember that Marx drew his the inspiration for his famous quote “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs” from the example of the early church (Acts 4:32-35).
I understand the fun that Sam Harris and Reddit have destroying fundamentalism, and I went to a Christian college and had jolly good time of it as well. “Haven’t you read your own book?” I would ask smugly. But once the gleeful potshots are finished, we all have to face the fundamental and aching deprivation of having been born. We can continue to have a fun time berating those who believe the Bible explains science and that there was a snake in the Garden of Eden, but it’s really a waste.

The Christian message doesn’t contradict science, and nor is it concerned with bourgeois politics. Ultimately Christianity (and many other religions) are about transcending politics and fighting for social justice. Think of Martin Luther King Jr., Desmond Tutu, Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Gandhi and Thich Quang Duc – all of whom were influenced by their religion to change the world. Jesus saw how oppression and oppressors consumed the world. He, as all great reformers have, sided with the oppressed. This kind of skewed fundamentalism is radically new and far removed from true Christianity. True Christianity offers us a far superior doctrine — one of social justice, love and equality.


Sean McElwee is a writer for The Moderate Voice and blogs at seanamcelwee.com. He has previously written for The Day and The Norwich Bulletin and on WashingtonMonthly.com and Reason.com.  He blogs at seanamcelwee.com. Follow him on Twitter @seanmcelwee.