|
Levels of risk and associated human vulnerability change over time. In
a resilient society, with appropriate interventions, recovery and mitigation
can bring vulnerability back to a previous (baseline) level or reduce
it to a lower level, but too fast a rate of change may exceed the capacity
of the society to adapt. The long-term nature of environmental change
may mean that potential future vulnerability is equally as important as
present vulnerability. The capacity to adapt may be more important in
determining human vulnerability in the long run than the ability to cope
with present critical situations.
The degree and extent of vulnerability appears to be increasing because
of a combination of such factors as the increasing impact of humans on
the environment, reductions in the efficient functioning of ecosystems,
the reduced ability of the environment to provide goods and services,
growing and more spatially concentrated populations, and increasing human
settlement in high risk areas. As human impact on the environment increases,
so people's options decrease. Human vulnerability to environmental change
thus increases, despite many instances of adequate coping capacity.
Assessments contribute to better-informed decisions on preparedness,
mitigation, relief and rehabilitation activities but there is a lag between
the time it takes to make such assessments and the optimal response time.
There is a growing gap between rapid rates of environmental degradation
and the slow pace of social response. This gap threatens to drain the
environment of assets and options for future generations and to increase
the costs of substitutes for missing resources (Kasperson and others 1999).
High priority should therefore be given to rapid assessments of vulnerability
and the design of initial protective responses, such as early warning
systems, while longer-term remedial measures are put in place. Environmental
restoration, with its potential to reduce vulnerability, will thus become
an increasingly important component of sustainable development.
The complexity of the change process makes assessing and measuring human
vulnerability to long-term or future environmental change highly speculative
and it is hard to determine the kinds of investment that would most effectively
deal with the threats in question. A better understanding of the interplay
of the social and physical factors that determine human vulnerability
needs to be developed to increase the ability to mitigate potentially
harmful impacts that arise from environmental change. Cause-and-effect
linkages need to be investigated. Systems modelling approaches and sensitivity
analysis may help to determine the nature and timing of the most costeffective
measures to anticipate threats where uncertainty and complex relationships
are important.
Delaying a response to an environmental threat often stems from uncertainty,
or a lack of knowledge. Improving the assessment process can help resolve
this although, even when the risks are known, action may not follow. Nevertheless,
regional studies suggest that the breakdown in response is more attributable
to narrow government policies aimed solely at economic growth, coupled
with a lack of political will, government willingness to tolerate damage
in marginal areas and among vulnerable peoples, and widespread political
corruption than to public apathy or lack of awareness (Kasperson and others
1999). These are all issues to be tackled.
In the recent past, responses to human vulnerability have progressed
from single measures to address a single issue (such as controlling floods
by building dykes) to the development of a mix of measures serving different
purposes (multipurpose dam projects, warning systems, insurance, land
use zoning, integrated river basin management). Today, issues are being
visualized in the even broader context of sustainable development (Mitchell
2000). To support these new kinds of policy making, approaches need to
be even further integrated to improve the chances of capturing all aspects
of human vulnerability.
| A framework for assessing risk |
|
In 1987, the World Commission on Environment and Development called
for the:
- identification of critical threats to the survival, security
or well-being of all or of a majority of people, globally and
regionally;
- assessment of the causes and likely human, economic and ecological
consequences of those threats, with regular and public reporting
of the findings;
- provision of authoritative advice on what must be done to avoid,
reduce, or adapt to these threats; and
- provision of an additional source of advice to governments and
intergovernmental organizations on policies and programmes to
address these threats.
Since the report of the Commission was published, IPCC has set
up a vulnerability task group, and the System for Analysis, Research
and Training (START) and the Project on Critical Environmental Zones
were initiated. These studies demonstrated that the coping capacity
of countries differs considerably. IPCC claims that vulnerability
and coping capacity are inversely related and socially differentiated.
|
| Sources: WCED 1987, IPCC 1996 |
In an increasing number of areas, environmental damage may be irreversible,
or restoration and the reduction in threat may require such a long time
that accommodation must accompany any remedial measures. Enabling people
to adapt to such situations, especially where change may accelerate in
the future, should accompany short-term disaster prevention and management
measures. Adaptation is vital where the impacts to which people are vulnerable
appear inevitable.
Stakeholder participation is important in responding to human vulnerability,
both to ensure a 'reality check' on coping capacity and to boost prospects
of success by involving as many stakeholders as possible in implementing
coping mechanisms (IFRC 1999). Stakeholders should review and strengthen
their capabilities in the areas of preparedness and mitigation to increase
coping capacities, and become involved in post-event examination of new
initiatives that might reduce losses in the future. Communities with effective
mitigation strategies could look into ways to help other populations at
risk from similar threats. In all cases, assessments of community conditions
should provide decision-makers with all the relevant information they
need to make strategic decisions to counter vulnerability.
This consideration of human vulnerability has demonstrated that the continuing
loss of environmental defences and accelerating global change are increasing
threats to human well-being and are putting sustainable development at
risk. The evidence suggests that many areas of the world are on trajectories
that will lead them into crisis and that little time is left for creating
effective responses if deteriorating situations are to be stabilized (Kasperson
and others 1999). People are less and less the helpless victims of 'acts
of God' and more and more the victims of 'acts of man'. But an increasing
understanding of environmental processes and a growing capacity for early
warning should help to identify threats and risks and react appropriately.
There are now also better means of preventing and reducing harm to people
and damage to economies and communities. An increased investment now in
sound environmental management, community preparedness and vulnerability
reduction will result in important savings in the future.
|
