hello,

I think ecosystem services can effectively contribute to DRR practices but it is not sufficiently addressed and hope the attached book is helpful... regards

Many thanks Joseph for sharing this resource! Really appreciate it! 

Regards 

Ecosystems are viewed as integrated human-ecological systems that work together to provide the range of goods and other benefits necessary to support life, livelihoods and human well-being. People derive indispensable benefits from nature, which referred to as ecosystem services. like provisioning services, such as food, fuel and water; regulating services such as natural hazard mitigation, erosion control and water purification; supporting services such as soil formation and nutrient cycling; and cultural services such as recreational and other nonmaterial benefits. Thus environment, development and disasters are linked, however it is argued that ecosystems contribute to reducing disaster risk in two important ways. First, ecosystems, such as wetlands, forests and coastal systems, can reduce physical exposure to natural hazards by serving as natural protective barriers or buffers and thus mitigating hazard impacts. Well-managed ecosystems can provide natural protection against common natural hazards, such as landslides, flooding, avalanches, storm surges, wildfires and drought. These all arguments are best written in many articles and research papers, but in actual on ground DRR part is mostly over looked . the major reason behind it, according to me

Relief centric approach: we act only after any disaster and just focus to compensations Part. If you will check the District disaster Management Plan you will find that the entire disaster management plan seems to proceed with a "relief driven approach" in a disaster administration exercises instead of a "pro active action, relief, and preparedness approach"

Poor EIA and Total Impacts of Projects are overlooked: While singular ventures are considered on the premise of the confirmation that the venture won't dirty past "passable limits", the total effect of activities in a valley or a district is neither contemplated nor requested by the evaluation procedure. In fact the present procedure does not have an instrument to know whether there are different activities in the area that will unfavourably influence nature. In the case of Uttarakhand, the impromptu advancement is nullifying the nature of the mountains. In spite of the number of Environmental Impact evaluation reports and natural laws, none of the laws is actualized in such delicate territories of Uttarakhand and the advancement is going unabated. The entire river basin in Uttarakhand has been converted into “engineer’s playground”

Please find attached “The Role of Ecosystems Management for Disaster Risk Reduction”. I hope, you will find it useful.

Dear K Sagar!

Many thanks for your nice comments with a useful reference. Your comment on many DRR and disaster management practices are quite correct. However, I am thinking- whether the role of ecological and environmental research/projects/convesions are sufficient? Why couldn't they reach to the communities and policy makers! Are those confined to the papers only!! May we avoid our responsibilities blaming policy buddies? 

 I know IUCN has also been doing some very good work in this area under the lead of Dr. Karen Sudmeier-Rieux ([email protected]). We have done an assessment for the Eastern and Southern Africa region: https://www.iucn.org/sites/dev/files/content/documents/eastern_and_southern_africa_regional_assessment.pdf 

Dear Niekerk, many thanks for this resource. I agree with the comment in it's executive summary that- it is easy to state in the abstract/article, but difficult to implement.. means to convince policy makers and leaders for taking initiatives. However, I do not agree with a Eco-DRR approach denoted here as a suitable alternative of CBDRR!! They can both be integrated.

In fact, these are some champion terminologies! Rather, ecosystems, habitats, communities and civilizations are closely interlinked. Therefore, an integrated system approach is important, where different components of ecological and environmental systems should be taken into account and have to relate with the notion of sustainability. Easy to say but difficult to do. However, it is important, and thus all parties should seat together to make a way out....

Infact multi-hazards assessment should include ecosystem based approaches for assessing the impacts. It is not only ecology and ES. The issue is how to achieve the result of such a voluminous, intricate and dynamic issues.

Ecosystem based approach of disaster would be a better approach to reducing the disaster risk.

Regards

Risk management often refers to situational response and tactical thinking. And the ecological approach assumes continuous monitoring and strategic thinking. They should be used in combination, as in reality is done in most countries (although this is not obvious from official documents). But they can not be interchangeable, each is needed in its own way.

They are not sufficiently addressed in DRR and I think this is because the geography graduates which generally 'do' ecosystem services have little to no exposure to DRR. On the other hand DRR can easily integrate almost anything and ES could clearly be there (but it usually isn't because its complex and the results aren't that great, unless you throw a lot of money at it).   

Thank you very much for giving information

Good question and informative responses. Thanks!

There is a background paper for the Global Assessment Report (GAR) 2009 that focuses on these interlinks, and that could be interesting for your question: http://www.preventionweb.net/english/hyogo/gar/background-papers/documents/Chap4/Ecosystems-and-DRR-Working-Draft.doc

Best

Vicente

https://www.usp.ac.fj/index.php?id=22667

I think that this depends on the local / regional application of DRR as well as the nature of the hazard. If we e.g. take disaster early warning as a crucial aspect of DRR then, of course, the nature of hazard plays an important role. An earthquake has an entirely different profile and requirement regarding early warning than a cyclone. A cyclone is different from sea level rise. In all examples mention perspectives concerning ecology and ecosystem services differ considerably.

I also recommend the reference Vicente has highlighted. A very useful piece of work....