Transcript Drought

Applications of the
ECLAC methodology in
Latin America and Asia
Review of the progress and adaptations in
light of recent experiences
Ricardo Zapata, Focal Point for Disaster Evaluation
ECLAC
The CEPAL/ ECLAC experience

First a thank you note:





To bilateral cooperation: Italy, the Netherlands, individually
affected countries
IFIS (World Bank and IDB) and UNDP
Experts and UN agencies (PAHO, ILO, FAO, UNEP, UNFPA, etc.)
Researchers and consultants (ADPC for example)
Secondly: Where we are at present: the data and the
research




Increasingly complex assessments
Examples of adaptation: Mexico, Gujarat, case by case
emphasis, ESCAP/UNDP/ECLAC project
Collaboration in identifying disaster risk indicators
Link disaster’s impact to development processes, climate
change and MDGs
UN - ECLAC
R. Zapata - Focal Point on Disaster
Evaluation
2
Discussions points: Present
achievements


A longstanding methodology for assessing the (direct) losses and
(indirect) damages that compile the impact of a major natural disaster
Developed by the Economic Commission for Latin America and the
Caribbean (ECLAC), seen as both a fund raising instrument to present
to the donor community and a planning tool for recovery

is increasingly systematically applied by the World Bank and regional
development banks to provide the basis and / or justification for
multilateral loans for reconstruction
 accepted by governments, donors, the IFIs and the UN system and
capacities have been developed at all levels for its application following
disasters.
 A cross-cutting, multisectoral, inteinstitutional tool
A major drawback: it is demand driven, so depends on whether
governments see the need to use it or not. Does not allow for a
systematic, ongoing data gathering process
UN - ECLAC
R. Zapata - Focal Point on Disaster
Evaluation
3
Future requirements: the road
not taken




Have a systematic comparable data base over time and geographically
comparable
Currently different organizations and agencies collect data
independently at different periods and at different scales, duplicating
efforts and hampering data integration.
Little synergy between the data collection efforts during the emergency
phase either by UN system, NGOs, IFRC and government agencies, and
data collected during IFI assessment missions.
Lack of explicit difference between perception of needs:



By donors to define humanitarian and recovery interventions
By UN agencies to fund projects
By IFIS to provide emergency / recovery / regular loans or to reprogramme,
reorient existing loans
There is an undeniable turf battle over disaster management, response and
recovery and not enough concern about mitigation, effective
preventgion, and adaptation (a.k.a. reinforcement and resilience)
UN - ECLAC
R. Zapata - Focal Point on Disaster
Evaluation
4
Discussion points: Gaps or perceived needs
towards a standardized methodology






Define what is it for
Determine differenced between damage /losses assessments from
needs assessments
See successive assessments as complementary not competitive tools
Not to overwhelm governments in time of crisis with repetitive
questions and assessment missions
Governments give an uneven response to these initiatives and local or
national capacities have not been developed in high risk countries.
There is a lack of consensus as to how to fill the gap:



Within the UN system, or
amongst a cadre of experts
The questions remains: how to apply such a methodology in practice

Need to standardize criteria / definitions
 Reinforce pre-disaster base line data collection
 Train relevant national officials / institutions
UN - ECLAC
R. Zapata - Focal Point on Disaster
Evaluation
5
IMPACT OF DISASTERS IN LATIN AMERICA
AND THE CARIBBEAN – 1972-2005
(based on ECLAC assessments)
PERIOD
AFFECTED
POPULATION
Deaths
Directly
affected
population
1972-2005
115,176
35,463,890
YEARLY
AVERAGE
3,490
1,074,663
TOTAL IMPACT (CONSTANT 2004 VALUE)
TOTAL
DAMAGE
(to assets)
LOSSES
(in flows)
External
impact
232,259.4
150,335.0
80,424.3
77,221.0
7,038.2
4,555.6
2,437.1
2,340.0
(on the basis of
ECLAC assessed
disasters in Latin
America and the
Caribbean)
UN - ECLAC
R. Zapata - Focal Point on Disaster
Evaluation
6
HUMAN
-Health
-Education
NATURAL
SOCIAL
-Social networks (security and
solidarity)
-Clean water
-Family ties and extended family
-Biodiversity and
ecosystem
(microclimate)
-Clean air
-Violence and security
FINANCIAL
PHYSICAL
-Type and quality of
settlement and
housing
UN - ECLAC
-Access to credit
-Land tenure and ownership
R. Zapata - Focal Point on Disaster
Evaluation
8
HUMAN
100
10
PHYSICAL
SOCIAL
1
FINANCIAL
Past
UN - ECLAC
NATURAL
Current
Mid-term
R. Zapata - Focal Point on Disaster
Evaluation
Long term
9
Macroeconomic effect: decreased national
growth rates caused by Mitch
0
-2
-0.3
-0.3
-0.9
-1.4
%
-4
-6
-8
-9.0
-10
GDP decrease in 1998-9
Costa Rica
UN - ECLAC
El Salvador
Guatemala
Honduras
R. Zapata - Focal Point on Disaster
Evaluation
Nicaragua
12
Global dynamic effects


Growth rate and level of GDP
Performance of the external
sector (imports, exports,
transfers and investment)
 Performance of public finances
 Price variations and inflation
GDP GROWTH RATE
7
6
5
4
Year rate
Macroeconomic effects
 Repercussions are felt in the
national, local or regional
economy as a consequence of
the disaster (natural event)
 It may last for several years
after the disaster, depending on
the characteristics of the event,
its magnitude and the sectors /
activities affected
 Are measurable as
3
2
1
0
-1
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
-2
-3
]Before disaster
UN - ECLAC
6
R. Zapata - Focal Point on Disaster
Evaluation
After disaster
13
10
Disasters Impact on El Salvador´s
GDP
5.0
4.5
MITCH
4.0
3.5
STAN
3.0
DROUGHT
2.5
2.0
EARTHQUAKE
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Growth without disasters
Growth with Mitch, earthquakes, drought and hurricane Stan
UN - ECLAC
R. Zapata - Focal Point on Disaster
Evaluation
17
Gujarat (INDIA): Total Damage from disasters and Calamity fund budgeted
resources (Crores of Rupees)
3500.00
3000.00
2500.00
2000.00
1500.00
1000.00
500.00
0.00
90-91 91-92 92-93 1993- 1994- 1995- 97-98 1998 1999 99- 2000- 2001- 2002- 2004 2005
94
95
96
2000
01
02
03
Total Damage (Crores)
Calamity Relief Fund (from Finance Commision, Delhi)
Amount spent on calamity relief and rehabilitation buy State Govt.
UN - ECLAC
R. Zapata - Focal Point on Disaster
Evaluation
20
Impact of disasters on GDP: State of
Gujarat, India
25
20
15
10
5
0
1993-94
1994-95
1995-96
1996-97
1997-98
1998-99
1999-00
2000-01
2001-02
2002-03
-5
UN - ECLAC
SGDP with disasters
Potential growth without disastrs
Logarítmica (Potential growth without disastrs)
Logarítmica (SGDP with disasters)
R. Zapata - Focal Point on Disaster
Evaluation
21
KEY VULNERABILITIES

Size, level of development and
development path matters:
 Impact
to GDP ratio: co-relation to size
 Diversification of economic activities:
alternative response mechanisms
 Economic and natural cycles interact
UN - ECLAC
R. Zapata - Focal Point on Disaster
Evaluation
22
Summary of 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, by
country
Country
Damage
Losses
Total Impact
Magnitude,
Impact/GDP
India
575
649
1,224
0.2
2,920
1,531
4,451
2.0
Maldives
450
153
603
83.6
Sri Lanka
1,144
310
1,454
7.6
508
1,690
2,198
1.4
5,597
4,367
9,963
1.0
Indonesia
Thailand
Total Region
UN - ECLAC
R. Zapata - Focal Point on Disaster
Evaluation
23
Breakdown of 2004 Tsunami impact
Infrastructure
18%
Social
29%
Productive
53%
UN - ECLAC
R. Zapata - Focal Point on Disaster
Evaluation
24
Absolute and relative impact of 2004 Indian
Ocean tsunami on main affected countries
12,000
90.0
83.6
80.0
10,000
70.0
8,000
60.0
50.0
6,000
40.0
4,000
30.0
20.0
2,000
10.0
7.6
0
0.2
India
UN - ECLAC
2.0
1.4
1.0 0.0
Indonesia Maldives Sri Lanka Thailand
Total
Region
Total Impact
Magnitude, Impact/GDP
R. Zapata - Focal Point on Disaster
Evaluation
25
Impacts, development and adaptation:
reduce risk by managing vulnerability and
assessing adaptation needs and costs
PROCESSES
(DRIVERS)
VULNERABILITIES
(RESPONSES)
CLIMATE AND OTHER
NATURAL STRESSORS
Globalization, poverty,
urbanization,
demographic
movements (aging,
migration, etc.)
Built infrastructure,
settlements, economic
and other human
activities, habitats and
ecosystems
Scientific information
and modelling: from
past data to
forecasting
COPING CAPACITY:
awareness,
cost/benefit, market
and non-market
instruments
SENSITIVITY:
resources and capital
(human, social,
economic)
EXPOSURES: multihazard and change
over time
UN - ECLAC
R. Zapata - Focal Point on Disaster
Evaluation
28
Hurricane Stan in Guatemala:
Breakdown of damage and losses
Sector and sub sector
Social
Housing
Education
Health
Productive
Agriculture
Industry
Commerce
Tourism
Infrastructure
Water and sanitation
Electricity
Transport
Environment
Emergency and relief
TOTAL
UN - ECLAC
Damage,
Losses,
Millions of Quetzales
Millions Quetzales
629.9
545.2
52.6
29.1
305.9
178.9
75.0
50.0
2.0
1,959.5
46.4
22.1
1,891.0
308.0
--3,200.3
543.2
455.0
9.3
78.9
1,736.1
411.8
355.8
564.9
403.6
1,436.8
43.7
16.3
1,376.8
...
594.8
4,310.9
R. Zapata - Focal Point on Disaster
Evaluation
Total
,1,170.1
1,000.2
61.9
108.0
2,042.0
590.7
430.8
614.9
405.6
3,396.3
90.1
38.4
3,267.8
308.0
594.8
7,511.2
30
ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE ATLANTIC 2004
HURRICANE SEASON
Island / State
Economic impact
Event
Millions of US$
Assessed by ECLAC
6,059
Ivan, Frances and Jeanne a/
Bahamas
551
Hurricanes Frances and
Jeanne
Cayman Islands
3,432
Ivan
Dominican Republic
296
Tropical storm Jeanne
Granada
889
Ivan
Haiti
296
Jeanne
Jamaica
595
Ivan
Florida (a)
30,000
Jeanne, Charley and Frances
Cuba (b)
1,500
Frances
Total (including Cuba y Florida)
37,559
a) Based on information provided by insurance and reinsurance companies (Munich Re)
b) Official estimates from t he Cuban government,
may
not include
R. Zapata
- Focal
Point onlosses
Disaster
Evaluation
UN - ECLAC
31
Damage profile in the Caribbean
Hurricane 2004 season
Composition of damage and losses
Emergency and relief
Productive Sectors
0.4%
35.2%
Environment
1.3%
Infrastructure
15.6%
Social Sectors
47.5%
UN - ECLAC
R. Zapata - Focal Point on Disaster
Evaluation
32
2004 Atlantic Hurricanes: Relative and absolute impact
of damage and losses by affected country / state
4,000
1000.00%
212.00%
183.00%
3,500
US $ millions
3,000
100.00%
2,500
8.00%
7.30%
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
10.50%
1.70%
551
3,432
296
889
296
595
0
1.00%
Hurricanes Hurricane
Frances
Ivan
and Jeanne
Tropical Hurricane Hurricane Hurricane
Storm
Ivan
Jeanne
Ivan
Jeanne
Bahamas Cayman Dominican Grenada
Islands
Republic
Economic Impact, US$ million
UN - ECLAC
10.00%
Haiti
Jamaica
Impact as % of GDP
R. Zapata - Focal Point on Disaster
Evaluation
33
Deaths
2005 Atlantic Hurricane
season
Directly
affected
populati
on
Total impact
(millions of
USD)
Damage
(to
assets)
Loss
es (in
flows
)
Per capita
impact on
affected
population
Date
Location
Type of event
Population
January
Guyana
Flood due to intense rainfall in
December/January period in
coastal floodplains in
Georgetown and Albion
34
274,774
465.1
418.3
46.8
1,692.7
October
Guatemala
Torrential rains, tropical storm
Stan
1,583
474,821
988.3
421.1
567.2
2,081.4
October
El Salvador
Torrential rains, tropical storm
Stan, and Ilamatepec (Santa
Ana) volcano eruption
69
72,141
355.7
196.2
159.5
4,930.6
July-September
United
States b/
Dennis, Katrina, Rita
1,698
900,000
200,000.
0
65,000.
0
135,000.
0
222,222.2
July-September
Mexico b/
Emily, Stan, Wilma, etc.
64
2,680,571
2,200.0
1,250.0
950.0
820.7
4
63,300
413.2
322.8
90.4
6,527.5
16
2,500,000
1,400.0
950.0
450.0
560.0
1,134
3,474,389
150.0
100.0
50.0
43.2
1,690
885,036
2,222
1,358
864
2,511.0
TOTAL (not including United States)
2,900
6,002,307
5,559
3,236
2,174
926.2
TOTAL (IN CLUDING UNITED STATES)
4,598
6,902,307
205,559
68,236
137,174
29,781.2
Emily
August
Cuba b/
Dennis
Other events a/
TOTAL
Assessed by ECLAC
Total impact (millions of USD)
Source: ECLAC estimates
Nota: Data for Mexico and United States are partial and reflect preliminary estimates. In the case of Mexico the complete assessment is in
process by the official technical entities.
a/ Includes volcanic eruptions, earthquakes and floods in other countries and are an estimate on the basis of partial data.
b/ Based on diverse sources, not official estimates.
UN - ECLAC
R. Zapata - Focal Point on Disaster
Evaluation
34
Post-disaster needs in a wider
context: Extreme events as a driver
for change
The financial adaptation: the
experience of re-insurers
 The social adaptation: the tsunami and
Katrina syndromes
 The economic adaptation: move public
goods into the market domain

UN - ECLAC
R. Zapata - Focal Point on Disaster
Evaluation
35
Finally… where do we want to
be: the road to be taken

The Kobe conference: from the Hyogo Declaration to
effective action




De-tsunamize and De-Katrinize disaster management
Act on conviction: risk reduction is a developmental and an
economic issue
Revert the myth on public goods: internalize damage and
externalize benefits/profits
Act as a “united” United Nations




Cooperation and sharing vs. turf battling and individual posturing
Priority to “client” needs over supply-driven initiatives (overcome the
“father knows best” syndrome)
Recognize diversity and dissension
Advance knowledge over advance self-interest
UN - ECLAC
R. Zapata - Focal Point on Disaster
Evaluation
36
Appropriation of risk needed to
promote risk reduction:
Need for institutional and regulatory
changes
 Use of market to value (“price”) risk
 Need for social policies for
compensation and promotion (provide
gender, age, ethnic sensitive
instruments)
 See risk reduction as a business
opportunity
Imperfect or inactive markets require
government action / intervention

UN - ECLAC
R. Zapata - Focal Point on Disaster
Evaluation
37

Reference materials:




ECLAC handbook for the socioeconomic and environmental
impact of disasters (www.cepal.org/mexico, “desastres”)
Disasters and development (IADB/ECLAC publication, 2000
Disaster assessments: 1973 to 2005
(www.cepal.org/mexico), “desastres”)
The 2004 Hurricanes in the Caribbean and the Tsunami in the
Indian Ocean (ECLAC series (“Estudios y perspectivas) no.35
Thanks for your attention
UN - ECLAC
R. Zapata - Focal Point on Disaster
Evaluation
38