(Item 7 of the Agenda)
29. Mr MINAMIGUCHI made a presentation on quantitative risk assessment on behalf of Maxx DILLEY, International Research Institute for Climate Prediction. He outlined an approach to identify global natural disaster risk “hot spots” as an input for prioritization of disaster management efforts. He explained the methodology for systematically calculating relative risks on a global basis including vulnerability for various hazards on a global grid showing both mortality risk and economic loss risk in proportion to Gross Domestic Production (GDP). The implications of having a large portion of population or economic development in areas classified as “hotspots” were referred to in terms of likely high relief costs and requirements for emergency lending. It was pointed out that the total direct and indirect losses experienced through disaster exceeded sources of development assistance and re-investment, resulting in a net drain on development resources. He proposed and outlined specific projects for assisting countries with high levels of risk. The components comprised risk assessment, policy review and developing reconstruction standards and procedures. The analysis identified twenty “high priority” or “at risk” countries where the probability of relatively higher mortality and economic losses (as percent GDP) was highest.
30. Margarita FLORES, Chief, Food Security Analysis and Agricultural Projects Analysis Service, FAO, discussed the linkages between various threats to food security: weak economic performance, climate change, natural disasters, animal pest and diseases, and conflict and political instability. She pointed out that the effects of natural disasters needed to be examined within a wider context of economic development, poverty and food insecurity, and highlighted the cost of food insecurity, saying that the analysis should consider the interplay with other factors, particularly in relation to the institutional capacities that determined how people, communities, and countries were affected and how they coped with risk. She proposed a food security framework in four dimensions for analyzing the impact of natural disasters, and reminded the Meeting that methodologies like the one developed by the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), and adopted by the World Bank and others could estimate direct and indirect cost of natural disasters (damage to flow of good and services), often hidden in post disaster assessments. She noted that impact assessments of naturals disasters on food security should be performed at different levels: from global to national, sub-national, community and household levels; and that these assessments should provide information on the effects, the causes and ways to share responsibilities and distribute risks.
31. Ms Flores advised that vulnerability assessments at the community level were one tool for identifying how formal and informal institutions and practices could support risk management activities (examples from Bangladesh were presented); and that investments in information were crucial. She advocated the “twin track” approach to serve as a conceptual tool for combining immediate response with measures that reduce disaster risk and enhance food security in the medium and long run. She also suggested that prevention and mitigation could reduce economic and food security impacts. She believed that (i) potential interventions should range from costly projects to support to household coping strategies, using public, private and international funds; (ii) adaptation, diversification, sustainable agricultural practices, water management, coastline management, etc. need to be promoted; (iii) the measures that spread risk (such as insurance; safety nets) and rights-based approaches can contribute to reducing food security impacts of natural disasters, and (iv) national development plans and projects - in particular in hazard-prone countries/regions need to integrate risk reduction as an objective.
32. Sanjay K SRIVASTAVA, referring to the experience of crop insurance in India, described incentives that could be applied in disaster risk management to encourage preparedness and build resilience. He described the performance of risk financing and explained the world’s experience with crop insurance. He asserted that the success of crop insurance was necessary for risk reduction, especially for small and marginal farmers. He stressed the need to use knowledge based approaches to ensure the success of crop insurance; to strengthen the symbiotic link between risk and credit market; to encourage weather based crop insurance in bringing down the administrative cost; and to develop the understanding of high risk crops, low risk farming systems and their agro-ecological compatibility.
