The Costs and Benefits of Reducing Risk from Natural Hazards to Residential Structures in Developing Countries

This paper examines the benefits and costs of improving or retrofitting residential structures in highly exposed low- and middle-income developing countries such that they are less vulnerable to hazards during their lifetime. Since it is misleading to assess the benefits of prevention using deterministic models, the challenges for cost benefit analyses are to express avoided losses in probabilistic terms, evaluate and assess risk, monetize direct and indirect benefits and include dynamic drivers such as changing population, land use and climate. In detail, we examine structures exposed to three different hazards in four countries, including hurricane risk in St. Lucia, flood risk in Jakarta, earthquake risk in Istanbul and flood risk within the Rohini River basin in Uttar Pradesh (India). The purpose in undertaking these analyses is to shed light on the benefits and costs over time, recognizing the bounds of the analysis, and to demonstrate a systematic probabilistic approach for evaluating alternative risk reducing measures

Brief communication: Sendai framework for disaster risk reduction – success or warning sign for Paris?

In March 2015, a new international blueprint for disaster risk reduction (DRR) was adopted in Sendai, Japan, at the end of the Third UN World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction (WCDRR, 14–18 March 2015). We review and discuss the agreed commitments and targets, as well as the negotiation leading the Sendai Framework for DRR (SFDRR) and discuss briefly its implication for the later UN-led negotiations on sustainable development goals and climate change

Scenarios as the basis for assessment of mitigation and adaptation

The possibilities and need for adaptation and mitigation depends on uncertain future developments with respect to socio-economic factors and the climate system. Scenarios are used to explore the impacts of different strategies under uncertainty. In this chapter, some scenarios are presented that are used in the ADAM project for this purpose. One scenario explores developments with no mitigation, and thus with high temperature increase and high reliance on adaptation (leading to 4oC increase by 2100 compared to pre-industrial levels). A second scenario explores an ambitious mitigation strategy (leading to 2oC increase by 2100 compared to pre-industrial levels). In the latter scenario, stringent mitigation strategies effectively reduces the risks of climate change, but based on uncertainties in the climate system a temperature increase of 3oC or more cannot be excluded. The analysis shows that, in many cases, adaptation and mitigation are not trade-offs but supplements. For example, the number of people exposed to increased water resource stress due to climate change can be substantially reduced in the mitigation scenario, but even then adaptation will be required for the remaining large numbers of people exposed to increased stress. Another example is sea level rise, for which adaptation is more cost-effective than mitigation, but mitigation can help reduce damages and the cost of adaptation. For agriculture, finally, only the scenario based on a combination of adaptation and mitigation is able to avoid serious climate change impacts

Making Communities More Flood Resilient: The Role of Cost Benefit Analysis and Other Decision-support Tools in Disaster Risk Reduction

Given the series of large-scale flood disasters that have occurred in recent years, there is a growing recognition among community leaders, businesses, insurers, governments and international donors of the need to invest in risk reduction measures before such events happen. Due to the costs of risk reduction measures, these actions need to be justified and as a result there is an increasing need to utilize decision-support tools, which can help to make the case for action to reduce disaster risks and build flood resilience when faced with limited resources. Across stakeholders, the specific objectives from the use of decision-support tools include (i) demonstrating the efficiency of the action ex-ante (before the flood); (ii) aiding in the selection of a particular intervention in enhancing community flood resilience from a suite of possible options; (iii) helping communities make the right choice when faced with limited investments; (iv) demonstrating the benefits of donor funding of community flood resilience projects; and (v) monitoring the successes and weaknesses of past interventions to generate lessons learned for future work. Typically, discussion on decision-support for disaster risk reduction (DRR) in floods (as well as for other hazards) has focused on cost-benefit analysis (CBA), however there are a number of other tools available to support decision-making. These include cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), multi-criteria analysis (MCA) and robust-decision-making approaches (RDMA), which have been applied to similar problems, and can also be used to aid decision-making regarding flooding. This white paper provides an overview of the opportunities and challenges of applying these different tools, and guides the reader to select among them. Selection depends on the desired objective, circumstances, data available, timeframe to perform analyses, level of detail, and other considerations. We first focus on the CBA decision-tool, as this has been the mainstay of research and implementation. We then go beyond CBA to consider the other techniques for prioritising DRR investments. While our analysis is specific to flood DRR actions, the conclusion are also applicable to other hazards. The key findings arising from this white paper with relevance to research, policy and implementation of flood DRR decision-support tools, are: (1) Following a comprehensive review of the quantitative CBA flood DRR evidence, we find that flood DRR investments largely pay off, with an average of five dollars saved for every dollar spent through avoided and reduced losses; (2) Using CBA for flood risk reduction assessment should properly account for low-frequency, high-impact flood events, and also tackle key challenges such as intangible impacts; (3) Decision-making can be improved by using various decision support tools tailored to the desired outcomes and contexts. This white paper is the foundation upon which the Zurich flood resilience alliance work on integration of a decision toolbox will proceed "on the ground," with established community-based risk assessment tools, in particular Vulnerability Capacity Assessments (VCA) or Participatory Capacity and Vulnerability Assessments (PCVA). Based on these findings we propose a way forward over the next several years on informing risk-based decision making as part of the alliance program

Ubiquitin, a central component of selective cytoplasmic proteolysis, is linked to proteins residing at the locus of non-selective proteolysis, the vacuole

Ubiquitin, an evolutionary highly conserved protein, is known to be involved in selective proteolysis in the cytoplasm. Here we show that ubiquitin-protein conjugates are also found in the yeast vacuole. Mutants defective in the major vacuolar endopeptidases, proteinase yscA and yscB, lead to accumulation of ubiquitin-protein conjugates in this cellular organelle.

Adaptation to Climate Change: Why is it Needed and How Can it be Implemented?

This is the 3rd study to be published in the CEPS Policy Brief series from ongoing research being carried out for the EU-funded ADAM project (ADaptation And Mitigation strategies: supporting European climate policy). Following an introduction to the aims and objectives of the ADAM project, section 2 sets out the rationales for public policy related to adaptation to the impacts of climatic change in the EU. Section 3 provides evidence from a number of stakeholders and sketches the perception of various actors towards the role of European adaptation policies and climate proofing of sectoral policies. Section 4 on the economics of adaptation argues that the economic impacts of climate change will mainly be reduced by private and autonomous response, while principal challenges are with adaptation needs that require collective action and public engagement, including public finance. Section 5 assesses monetary and socioeconomic risks from extreme weather events in Europe and points to the evidence of rising losses due to weather extremes whilst important knowledge gaps remain to project future risks. And the final section (6) deals with different concepts of uncertainties surrounding climate change and climate variability, and argues for adaptive measures to be sufficiently flexible to allow recalibration as uncertainties are reduced with time

Operationalizing Resilience Against Natural Disaster Risk: Opportunities, Barriers, and a Way Forward

The risks from floods have been rising globally due to increasing population, urbanization and economic development in hazard prone areas. The number of flood disasters throughout the world nearly doubled in the decade from 2000-2009 compared to the previous decade. There have been more flood disasters in the last four years (2010-2013) than in the whole decade of the 1980's. Evidence indicates that climate change-induced sea level rise, storm surge and more intense flooding will reinforce this trend unless risk management measures are undertaken immediately to well manage future losses and make communities more resilient to flooding. It is widely recognized that there is a mutually reinforcing relationship between disaster risk and development: disasters impact development and development impacts disasters. Evidence shows that repeated disasters undermine long-term socio-economic objectives. This is particularly evident in low income countries where disasters can impede the development process. The extensive time required to recover from damage, loss of capacity with which to rebuild and systemic risk negatively affect livelihoods in these countries, in the extreme case trapping people in poverty. In developed countries, recent floods triggered massive economic losses and undermined long-term competitiveness. The impact of disasters is felt most acutely by households and communities. In both developing and developed countries alike, local level studies strongly indicate that the poor suffer disproportionately due to the lack of financial and social safety nets, and institutional representation. Development can affect disaster risk via three main channels: by (1) increasing the physical assets and people exposed to the risk, (2) increasing the capacity to reduce the risk, respond to the risk and recover from the risk and (3) increasing or decreasing the vulnerability based on specific development strategies chosen. We identify this interaction as a key research gap; taking account of and balancing development opportunities with disaster risk will require a paradigm shift in the way we think about and do both development and disaster risk management

Integrated assessment of short-term direct and indirect economic flood impacts including uncertainty quantification

Understanding and quantifying total economic impacts of flood events is essential for flood risk management and adaptation planning. Yet, detailed estimations of joint direct and indirect flood-induced economic impacts are rare. In this study an innovative modeling procedure for the joint assessment of short-term direct and indirect economic flood impacts is introduced. The procedure is applied to 19 economic sectors in eight federal states of Germany after the flood events in 2013. The assessment of the direct economic impacts is object-based and considers uncertainties associated with the hazard, the exposed objects and their vulnerability. The direct economic impacts are then coupled to a supply-side Input-Output-Model to estimate the indirect economic impacts. The procedure provides distributions of direct and indirect economic impacts which capture the associated uncertainties. The distributions of the direct economic impacts in the federal states are plausible when compared to reported values. The ratio between indirect and direct economic impacts shows that the sectors Manufacturing, Financial and Insurance activities suffered the most from indirect economic impacts. These ratios also indicate that indirect economic impacts can be almost as high as direct economic impacts. They differ strongly between the economic sectors indicating that the application of a single factor as a proxy for the indirect impacts of all economic sectors is not appropriate