A typology of marine and estuarine hazards and risks as vectors of change : a review for vulnerable coasts and their management

This paper illustrates a typology of 14 natural and anthropogenic hazards, the evidence for their causes and consequences for society and their role as vectors of change in estuaries, vulnerable coasts and marine areas. It uses hazard as the potential that there will be damage to the natural or human system and so is the product of an event which could occur and the probability of it occurring whereas the degree of risk then relates to the amount of assets, natural or societal, which may be affected. We give long- and short-term and large- and small-scale perspectives showing that the hazards leading to disasters for society will include flooding, erosion and tsunamis. Global examples include the effects of wetland loss and the exacerbation of problems by building on vulnerable coasts. Hence we emphasise the importance of considering hazard and risk on such coasts and consider the tools for assessing and managing the impacts of risk and hazard. These allow policy-makers to determine the consequences for natural and human systems. We separate locally-derived problems from large-scale effects (e.g. climate change, sea-level rise and isostatic rebound); we emphasise that the latter unmanaged exogenic pressures require a response to the consequences rather than the causes whereas within a management area there are endogenic managed pressures in which we address both to causes and consequences. The problems are put into context by assessing hazards and the conflicts between different uses and users and hence the management responses needed. We emphasise that integrated and sustainable management of the hazards and risk requires 10-tenets to be fulfilled

Comparative assessment of the vulnerability and resilience of 10 deltas : work document

Background information about: Nile delta (Egypt), Incomati delta (Mozambique), Ganges-Brahmaputra-Meghna (Bangladesh), Yangtze (China), Ciliwung (Indonesia), Mekong (Vietnam), Rhine-Meuse (The Netherlands), Danube (Romania), California Bay-Delta, Mississippi River Delta (USA

Comparitive assessment of the vulnerability and resilience of 10 deltas, synthesis report

The proposed framework for delta assessment and especially the scorecards are intended to enhance awareness raising, discussion and prioritization on most relevant delta issues, in each delta but also in comparison with other deltas. This should lead to more efficient and effective (multi-sectoral) policy formulation, management design and implementation, in concrete Delta plans, pilot-projects and (research) programmes. The target groups are all stakeholders who are involved in delta management at different levels and with different interests (government, private companies, NGOs, public), and who wish to contribute to the resilience of their own delta and other deltas worldwide

EFFECTIVE SEDIMENT CONTROL IN A RESERVOIR

Sedimentation in a reservoir cannot be avoided. The average rate of sedimentation on the storage volume reduction of a reservoir in the world is about 1 % per year (Yoon,1992), meanwhile, the storage volume reduction in several reservoir in Indonesia reaches 1,64% to 2,83% per year (Atmojo,2012). These sediment’s accumulations in the reservoir will continually reduce the storage volume, thus the intended functions of reservoirs for flood control (Atmojo, 2013), irrigation and water supply, electric generation, etc. will also reduced and not optimal. Some of sediment control measures have been practiced in reducing sediment accumulation in reservoirs around the world. In principle, there are two approaches i.e., reduce the sediment input to a reservoir by land conservation, construction of check dam, sand pocket, diversion channel, etc. and reduce the sedimentation in the reservoir by sluicing, turbidity current, dredging, and flushing (Morris and Fan, 1998; Emamgholizadeh et al., 2006). This paper presents the performance of sediment’s reduction from a reservoir by flushing, sluicing, and disturbing flushing based on some laboratories results (Atmojo,2012). It is expected that this paper can contribute to elicits some finding on the selection of which suitable method for sediment reduction from a reservoir

An investigation of the evidence of benefits from climate compatible development

Climate change is likely to have profound effects on developing countries both through the climate impacts experienced, but also through the policies, programmes and projects adopted to address climate change. Climate change mitigation (actions taken to reduce the extent of climate change), adaptation (actions taken to ameliorate the impacts), and on-going development are all critical to reduce current and future losses associated with climate change, and to harness gains. In the context of limited resources to invest in climate change, policies, programmes, or projects that deliver ‘triple wins’ (i.e. generating climate adaptation, mitigation and development benefits) – also known as climate compatible development – are increasingly discussed by bilateral and multilateral donors. Yet there remains an absence of empirical evidence of the benefits and costs of triple win policies. The purpose of this paper is therefore to assess evidence of ‘triple wins’ on the ground, and the feasibility of triple wins that do not generate negative impacts. We describe the theoretical linkages that exist between adaptation, mitigation and development, as well as the trade-offs and synergies that might exist between them. Using four developing country studies, we make a simple assessment of the extent of climate compatible development policy in practice through the lens of ‘no-regrets’, ‘low regrets’ and ‘with regrets’ decision making. The lack of evidence of either policy or practice of triple wins significantly limits the capacity of donors to identify, monitor or evaluate ‘triple wins at this point in time. We recommend a more strategic assessment of the distributional and financial implications of 'triple wins' policies

Soil and water bioengineering: practice and research needs for reconciling natural hazard control and ecological restoration

Soil and water bioengineering is a technology that encourages scientists and practitioners to combine their knowledge and skills in the management of ecosystems with a common goal to maximize benefits to both man and the natural environment. It involves techniques that use plants as living building materials, for: (i) natural hazard control (e.g., soil erosion, torrential floods and landslides) and (ii) ecological restoration or nature-based re-introduction of species on degraded lands, river embankments, and disturbed environments. For a bioengineering project to be successful, engineers are required to highlight all the potential benefits and ecosystem services by documenting the technical, ecological, economic and social values. The novel approaches used by bioengineers raise questions for researchers and necessitate innovation from practitioners to design bioengineering concepts and techniques. Our objective in this paper, therefore, is to highlight the practice and research needs in soil and water bioengineering for reconciling natural hazard control and ecological restoration. Firstly, we review the definition and development of bioengineering technology, while stressing issues concerning the design, implementation, and monitoring of bioengineering actions. Secondly, we highlight the need to reconcile natural hazard control and ecological restoration by posing novel practice and research questions

Making Sustainable Agriculture Real in CAP 2020: The Role of Conservation Agriculture

Europe is about to redefine its Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) for the near future. The question is whether this redefinition is more a fine-tuning of the existing CAP or whether thorough changes can be expected. Looking back to the last revision of CAP the most notable change is, undoubtedly, the concern about EU and global food security. The revival of the interest in agricultural production already became evident during the Health Check as a consequence of climbing commodity prices in 2007/08. It is therefore no surprise that “rising concerns regarding both EU and global food security” is the first topic to appear in the list of justifications for the need for a CAP reform. Other challenges mentioned in this list such as sustainable management of natural resources, climate change and its mitigation, improvement of competitiveness to withstand globalization and rising price volatility, etc., while not new are considered worthwhile enough to be maintained and reappraised

Integrating sciences to sustain urban ecosystem services

Effective water management within urban settings requires robust multidisciplinary understanding and an appreciation of the value added to urban spaces by providing multifunctional green-blue spaces. Multifunctional landscapes where ecosystem service provisions are ‘designed-in’ can help ‘transition’ cities to more sustainable environments which are more resilient to changing future conditions. With benefits ranging from the supply of water, habitat and energy to pollutant removal, amenity and opportunities for recreation, urban water bodies can provide a focal point for reconnecting humans and nature in otherwise densely built-up areas. Managing water within urban spaces is an essential infrastructure requirement but has historically been undertaken in isolation from other urban functions and spatial requirements. Increasingly, because of the limits of space and need to respond to new drivers (e.g. mitigation of diffuse pollution), more sustainable approaches to urban water management are being applied which can have multiple functions and benefits. This paper presents a review of ecosystem services associated with water, particularly those in urban environments, and uses the emerging language of ecosystem services to provide a framework for discussion. The range of supporting, provisioning, regulating and cultural ecosystem services associated with differing types of urban water bodies are identified. A matrix is then used to evaluate the results of a series of social, ecological and physical science studies co-located on a single stretch of a restored urban river. Findings identify the benefits of, but also barriers to, the implementation of a transdisciplinary research approach. For many, transdisciplinary research still appears to be on the edge of scientific respectability. In order to approach this challenge, it is imperative that we bring together discipline specific expertise to address fundamental and applied problems in a holistic way. The ecosystem services approach offers an exciting mechanism to support researchers in tackling research questions that require thinking beyond traditional scientific boundaries. The opportunity to fully exploit this approach to collaborative working should not be lost