This article was downloaded by: [University of South Florida]On: 08 October 2014, At: 07:22Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office:Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Climate and DevelopmentPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscriptioninformation:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tcld20

Issues at the interface of disaster riskmanagement and low-carbon developmentFrauke Urban a , Tom Mitchell b & Paula Silva Villanueva aa Climate Change and Development Centre , Institute of DevelopmentStudies IDS , Brighton, BN1 9RE, UKb Climate Change, Environment and Forests Programme , OverseasDevelopment Institute ODI , 111 Westminster Bridge Road, London, SE1 7JD,UKPublished online: 14 Sep 2011.

To cite this article: Frauke Urban , Tom Mitchell & Paula Silva Villanueva (2011) Issues at the interfaceof disaster risk management and low-carbon development, Climate and Development, 3:3, 259-279, DOI:10.1080/17565529.2011.598369

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2011.598369

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”)contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and ourlicensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, orsuitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publicationare the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor &Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independentlyverified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilitieswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantialor systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and usecan be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Issues at the interface of disaster risk managementand low-carbon developmentFRAUKE URBAN1,*, TOM MITCHELL2 and PAULA SILVA VILLANUEVA1

1Climate Change and Development Centre, Institute of Development Studies IDS, Brighton BN1 9RE, UK2Climate Change, Environment and Forests Programme, Overseas Development Institute ODI, 111 Westminster Bridge Road,

London SE1 7JD, UK

Effectively managing disaster risks is a critical tool for adapting to the impacts of climate change. However, climate changemitigation and low-carbon development have often been overlooked in disaster risk management (DRM) research, policy andpractice. This article explores the links between DRM and low-carbon development and thereby sheds light on a new andemerging research and development agenda. Taking carbon considerations into account for DRM and post-disaster recon-struction can contribute to laying the foundations for low-carbon development and the benefits it can bring. It can also provide anopportunity to combine adaptation and mitigation efforts. The article elaborates the carbon implications of DRM interventions andpost-disaster reconstruction practices, drawing on case studies from flood risk reduction, coastal protection, drought riskreduction, post-disaster housing and energy supply reconstruction. Finally, the article makes suggestions about how the carbonimplications of DRM measures could be accounted for in a coherent manner. Suggestions include calculating the carbonemissions from DRM and post-disaster interventions as part of globally standardized environmental impact assessments andimproving the linkages between ministries of environment, energy and climate, and those ministries that deal with disasters.

Keywords: adaptation; carbon emissions; climate change; development policy; disaster risk management; energy; greenhouse gas

emissions; low-carbon development; mitigation

1. Introduction: the interplay between climatechange, mitigation and disasters

Global climate change is considered one of the

greatest threats to development efforts. It poses

risks to humans, the environment and the

economy. Scientists agree that the possibility of

staying below the 28C threshold between ‘accep-

table’ and ‘dangerous’ climate change becomes

less likely the longer that no serious global

action on mitigating climate change is taken

(Richardson et al., 2009; Tyndall Centre, 2009).

A rise above 28 is likely to lead to abrupt and irre-

versible changes (IPCC, 2007). These changes are

expected to make it difficult for contemporary

societies to cope with and they could cause

severe societal, economic and environmental

disruptions which could severely threaten inter-

national development throughout the 21st

century and beyond (Richardson et al., 2009).

Global climate change has adverse effects on agri-

culture, water, food production, human and

animal health, coastal areas, energy and many

other sectors. The poor in developing countries

are the most vulnerable to climate change,

despite contributing to it the least. Climate

change can exacerbate existing disaster risks and

thus increases the frequency and severity of

some extreme climate events, such as heat

waves and heavy precipitation events (IPCC,

2007). There is thus a link between climate

change and disasters.

Adaptation to climate change and mitigation

of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) are both

review article

B *Corresponding author: E-mail: f.urban@ids.ac.uk

CLIMATE AND DEVELOPMENT 3 (2011) 259–279 doi:10.1080/17565529.2011.598369

# 2011 Taylor & Francis ISSN: 1756-5529 (print), 1756-5537 (online) www.tandfonline.com/tcld

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 0

7:22

08

Oct

ober

201

4

crucial responses to climate change. While the

scientific community, practitioners and policy-

makers have for a long time focused on miti-

gation, the focus has recently shifted to

low-carbon development (LCD). The key charac-

teristics of LCD, as described by the UK’s Depart-

ment for International Development (DFID)

are: (1) improving energy efficiency and using

low-carbon energy sources, (2) protecting and

promoting carbon sinks, (3) promoting low- or

zero-carbon technologies and business models

and (4) introducing policies which discourage

carbon-intensive practices (DFID, 2009, p. 58).

LCD aims for climate-friendly economic and

social development, which is important, both

for developed and developing countries. In high-

income countries and emerging economies LCD

is mainly about reducing emissions, while in

poor countries LCD is mainly about the opportu-

nities and benefits it can offer such as access to

electricity from renewable energy, green jobs,

payments for sustainable forest management

and distributive effects (Urban, 2010). In poor

countries LCD has to be aligned with poverty

reduction, economic growth and broader devel-

opment goals to enable it to be an ‘upward’

trend rather than a ‘downward’ trend. It also has

to be recognized that in poor countries LCD

may not be the preferred or the least cost

option, and so additional incentives may be

required.

The disaster risk management (DRM) commu-

nity has been actively engaged in issues related

to climate change adaptation. DRM is seen as a

critical tool for adapting to the impacts of

climate change where tackling the adaptation

deficit (Burton, 2004) to existing climate variabil-

ity is viewed as a sensible first step. Despite the

fact that DRM, climate change mitigation and

adaptation share common goals, namely redu-

cing the vulnerability of communities and

achieving sustainable development, mitigation

issues and LCD issues have so far not been system-

atically addressed by the DRM community. This

is a trend that can be observed in other

development sectors and programmes as well,

where climate change adaptation tends to play a

dominant role while mitigation aspects receive

less attention in development circles.1 One

could therefore argue for the need to bring in low-

carbon considerations into development efforts

at a broader level. However, this type of general

assessment is too broad for one article and there-

fore the focus here is on the low-carbon consider-

ations of DRM. Taking carbon considerations into

account for DRM and post-disaster reconstruc-

tion can help to lay the foundations for LCD

and the benefits it can bring. It can support a

move away from the old polluting development

model that today’s developed countries have fol-

lowed, and instead offer opportunities and

benefits for a new cleaner development model

which relies less on carbon, such as for post-

disaster energy supply, housing reconstruction,

coastal protection, flood protection and drought

risk management. This can reduce dependency

on expensive fossil fuel imports and imported

externally produced building materials and it

can enable decentralized climate-friendly energy

access for households living in energy poverty.

It can also increase indigenous capacity for tech-

nological development and innovation; as well

as resilience to climate change when it is linked

to adaptation measures, and the resilience of

households, as it can have a positive impact on

people’s livelihoods.

Klein et al. (2005) suggest integrating mitiga-

tion and adaptation into climate and develop-

ment policy. Integrating LCD considerations

and DRM considerations could be an opportunity

to combine adaptation and mitigation efforts

and to contribute to low-carbon climate-resilient

development in countries that are particularly

vulnerable to climate change and changing

disaster risks.

This article explores the links between DRM

and LCD and sheds some light on a new and

emerging research and development agenda.

The most important links between DRM and

LCD are related to four issues: (1) the carbon

260 Urban et al.

CLIMATE AND DEVELOPMENT

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 0

7:22

08

Oct

ober

201

4

and greenhouse gas implications of measures

to reduce disaster risk; (2) the carbon and

greenhouse gas implications of post-disaster

and reconstruction interventions; (3) climate

change-related changing disaster risk for LCD

options and their limits; and (4) how LCD

increases resilience and reduces vulnerability to

climate change. The links between DRR and

LCD are elaborated below, while the third and

fourth links are very important and need further

elaboration, but go beyond the scope of this

article. Research on aspects (3) and (4) is

ongoing, and the results will be published at a

later stage. Both DRM interventions and recon-

struction interventions can either contribute to

GHG and therewith climate change, or mitigate

the emission of GHG, for example, by sequester-

ing carbon or avoiding emissions leading to

climate change. This is often linked to the protec-

tion of natural carbon sinks and the provision of

low-carbon energy, which can have positive

impacts for communities affected by disasters.

Section 2 explores the LCD implications of DRM

interventions; Section 3 explores the impli-

cations for reconstruction interventions; and

Section 4 discusses and concludes the article.

This article takes an original approach to both

LCD and DRM research as it aims to explore

issues at the interface of both and elaborate the

policy and practice implications.

2. DRM interventions and implications for LCD

2.1. Environmental considerations of DRMinterventions

Environmental concerns related to development

efforts became a public issue long before the

public concern for climate change started. Con-

siderable research and analysis has been under-

taken by the United Nations International Strategy

for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) to illuminate the

connections between environmental hazards,

sustainable development strategies and disaster

response and management. UNISDR (2004) puts

it most succinctly:

The environment and disasters are inherently

linked. Environmental degradation affects

natural processes, alters humanity’s resource

base and increases vulnerability. It exacerbates

the impact of natural hazards, lessens overall

resilience and challenges traditional coping

strategies. Furthermore, effective and economi-

cal solutions to reduce risk can be overlooked

[. . ..] Although the links between disaster

reduction and environmental management

are recognized, little research and policy work

has been undertaken on the subject. The

concept of using environmental tools for disas-

ter reduction has not yet been widely applied

by practitioners (UNISDR, 2004, p. 195).

The Hyogo Framework of Action (UNISDR,

2005a) argues that ‘reducing the underlying risk

factors’ related to the environment and disasters

are a priority for action. The framework specifi-

cally recommends efforts on environmental and

natural resource management that: (a) encourage

the sustainable use and management of ecosys-

tems, including through better land-use planning

and development activities to reduce risk and

vulnerabilities; and (b) implement integrated

environmental and natural resource manage-

ment approaches that incorporate DRM, includ-

ing structural and non-structural measures, such

as integrated flood management and appropriate

management of fragile ecosystems.

In line with this reasoning, United Nations

Development Programme (UNEP) launched its

new Online Resource Centre in 20102 to reduce

the environmental impact of relief work and to

establish preventive measures. UNEP argues that,

for example, cutting down trees for shelter and

fuel wood in humanitarian relief interventions

often exacerbates existing problems like defores-

tation and stress on natural resources, while it

leaves the local people vulnerable to future pro-

blems. ‘Several best practices have proven that

including environmental considerations in

Disaster risk management and low-carbon development 261

CLIMATE AND DEVELOPMENT

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 0

7:22

08

Oct

ober

201

4

humanitarian operations is not only better for the

environment but also cost-effective, such as

sending supplies by ship rather than by air, as

well as predictable and coordinated planning of

logistical operations’ (UNEP, 2010, p. 1).

Environmental management and practices

have started to be applied within organizations’

DRM guidelines (e.g. Tearfund, 2009); however,

issues related to carbon emissions or other GHG

have received very little consideration so far and

are not always considered in environmental

impact assessments (EIAs) of DRM interventions.

Nevertheless, taking into account low-carbon

considerations for DRM and post-disaster recon-

struction can increase the resilience of affected

people and communities to climate change.

This is elaborated below.

Measures to reduce disaster risk include ‘soft’

interventions such as ecosystem approaches and

‘hard’ structural interventions, such as levees,

sea walls, earthquake resistant buildings and eva-

cuation shelters (UNISDR, 2005a). All physical

constructions that use building materials and

energy resources have carbon and other GHG

implications; however, their impact varies sig-

nificantly. Taking carbon considerations into

account in risk reduction, relief and reconstruc-

tion would contribute to making the DRM indus-

try more climate friendly. This is an important

dimension for recognizing the benefits that a

climate-friendly low-carbon economy can bring

to developing countries. It should not be seen as

an effort to reduce the emissions of countries

that are disaster prone and already have very

low emissions. Therefore, efforts to support a low-

carbon DRM industry that takes its carbon impli-

cations into account should not be an attempt to

reduce emissions in poor countries, but is about

raising awareness of the potential climate-related

damage being caused by DRM interventions and

encouraging the choice of climate-friendly

alternatives where appropriate. This can lay the

foundations for LCD and the social, economic

and environmental benefits it can bring. Urban

(2010) stresses that measures for LCD in poor

countries are mainly about the benefits and

opportunities they can bring in a carbon-

constrained world, rather than about cutting

emissions. These efforts for including low-carbon

considerations in the DRM sector go hand in

hand with the trend to include low-carbon con-

siderations in the development sector.

2.2. Greenhouse gas and carbon emissionimplications of DRM interventions

There are strong arguments to support the idea

that DRM interventions should aim to reduce

GHG to avoid further contribution to the risks

posed by climate change (Curtis, 2009). While

development agencies and DRM agencies are

increasingly aiming to reduce organizational

carbon footprints, it is time to start thinking

about intervention level carbon impacts. Bockel

reports that, for example, the World Bank sup-

ports the piloting and development of a mix

of market and non-market mechanisms to encou-

rage agricultural carbon sequestration and reduce

carbon emissions for development projects

(Bockel et al., 2010). Among others, it is piloting

a range of approaches to estimating the carbon

footprint of its projects and DRM interventions.

These include (a) listing activities that contribute

to mitigation or adaptation; (b) testing and rolling

out more robust estimation tools for measuring

carbon footprints; (c) project-based carbon

measurement for access to the voluntary carbon

market; and (d) sharing knowledge between and

within countries (Fernandes and Thapa, 2009).

Accordingly, this section will elaborate the

carbon emission implications of three important

types of DRM interventions: flood risk manage-

ment interventions, coastal protection and

drought risk management. These three types of

DRM intervention have been chosen because

they are considered the most important in

relation to climate change. It is crucial for

countries, which are affected by climate change

and changing disaster risks to protect their

262 Urban et al.

CLIMATE AND DEVELOPMENT

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 0

7:22

08

Oct

ober

201

4

coastal areas, to protect their people and land

against floods and to protect against droughts,

water stress and food shortages. These are the

three types of DRM intervention which are most

relevant for low-income countries, particularly

small island developing states, least developed

countries and countries struggling with food

security, water security, floods and sea-level rise.

We are aware that ecosystem approaches to

DRM are a key strategy to reduce the severity

and the impact of disasters. However, for the

purpose of this article we have chosen to

include both ecosystem approaches, such as

forest restoration, and commonly used structural

interventions, such as dams. The key reason for

doing so is to highlight how different DRM inter-

ventions have the potential to either mitigate

GHG or have the potential to lead to emissions.

Investigating the links between LCD and ecosys-

tem approaches for DRM in more depth could

be the subject of follow-up research that exam-

ines the options for carbon uptake due to DRM

interventions rather than the carbon emissions

from DRM interventions. This article acknowl-

edges that all interventions have trade-offs,

although some are more important than others.

Coastal protectionCoastal areas are particularly prone to disasters

such as storm surges and sea-level rise and are

therefore especially vulnerable to climate

change. Coastal protection depends both on

structural DRM interventions such as sea walls

and dams, and on non-structural interventions

such as land-use management and ecosystem-

based risk management. Ideally, an appropriate

hybrid mix of the two approaches is used for

coastal protection. An example is Sri Lanka,

where the Disaster Management Centre has

studied the potential benefits of adopting

hybrid schemes or ‘soft engineering’ approaches

to coastal defence (UNEP, 2007).

There is an increasing recognition that healthy

coastal forests – mangrove forests in particular –

can help to reduce coastal disaster risk (Othman,

1994; Mazda et al., 2004; UNISDR, 2005b).

Although we acknowledge that structural inter-

ventions are effective, this article focuses on eco-

system approaches, such as preserving mangrove

forests, because they have the potential to seques-

trate carbon.

Mangroves are important sources of income for

local fishermen as they are abundant in fish,

shrimps and other aquatic organisms. However,

for many decades these natural coastal barriers

have declined in many places due to human

and natural activities, such as harvesting fuel

wood or claiming land for agriculture. Osti et al.

(2008) report that in the past 20 years, 50 per

cent of the world’s mangrove forests have been

lost, making them one of the world’s most endan-

gered landscapes. Some argue that this reduction

is associated with commercial shrimp farming.

Many see it as crucial to recover these forests

and to use them as a shield against costal disasters

and as a resource to secure socio-economic, eco-

logical and environmental benefits. UNEP

reports how mangroves in Vietnam have contrib-

uted to DRM:

Vietnam is one of the most typhoon-struck

countries in Asia [. . .. The] Red River delta –

an extensive rice-growing area in northern

Vietnam [is] one of the most densely populated

regions in the world. The mudflats of the delta

were claimed for agriculture over several centu-

ries by building dykes. Local communities

traditionally left a band of natural saltwater-

tolerant mangrove forest between the dykes

and the sea in order to help protect the rice

fields from waves, wind and typhoon damage.

However, the cutting of the mangrove forests

for fuel and the spraying of chemical defoliants

during the war in the 1970s destroyed most of

this natural protection belt. As a result, some

of the dykes started to erode, posing an increas-

ing risk to people and their rice fields. [. . .] The

Vietnamese Red Cross planted more than

175 km2 of mangrove forest along almost

Disaster risk management and low-carbon development 263

CLIMATE AND DEVELOPMENT

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 0

7:22

08

Oct

ober

201

4

200 km of coastline, representing nearly the

entire coastline (where natural conditions

allowed). Local communities carried out the

planting and were granted the right to harvest

marine products such as crabs and mussels in

the areas they had planted for a number of

years [. . .] The planting and protection of

12,000 ha of mangroves cost around USD 1.1

million, but helped reduce the cost of dyke

maintenance by USD 7.3 million a year. The

Red Cross also estimates that 7,750 families

improved their livelihoods, and hence their

resilience to further hazards, through the

selling of crabs, shrimps and molluscs (UNEP,

2007, p. 25).

Nevertheless, this case study has to be

approached with caution: mangroves provide

effective protection from coastal erosion and

occasional storms. However, there is less evidence

that mangroves are an effective defence mechan-

ism in the case of disastrous events, such as tsuna-

mis, where the massive wave energy can often

strip mangroves or other coastal forests at the

roots.

It is reported that coastal wetlands can poten-

tially accumulate carbon at high rates over long

periods of time. Mangroves play an important

role: Trumper et al. (2009) calculated that man-

grove accumulates around 0.038 gigatonnes of

carbon (GtC) per year globally. Suratman (2008)

argues that, proportional to the area covered,

mangroves sequester carbon faster than terrestrial

forests (Suratman, 2008).

Nevertheless, it is not clear as to whether the

estimates of carbon sequestration by mangroves

take into account methane release from the

highly organic mud around the roots of the man-

groves. As mangroves are growing under stressed

conditions, there is some uncertainty around

whether mangrove trees would sequester more

carbon than, for example, rapidly growing

poplars under irrigated conditions. Kristensen

et al. (2008) report that, despite increased

research into carbon sequestration in mangroves,

there is still uncertainty about the mechanisms

of carbon sequestration and their regional vari-

ation. The study indicates that the capacity

to sequester carbon is influenced by spatial, tem-

poral and environmental conditions. The carbon

sequestration capacity depends on vegetation

type, microbial processes, sediment structure

and tidal variations. External factors that affect

the mangroves and their sequestration capacities

are climate change, exposure to water move-

ments, river discharges, soil changes in the terres-

trial system and the composition of marine and

terrestrial fauna around the mangroves (Kristen-

sen et al., 2008). Mitra et al. (2011) found that

carbon sequestration in mangroves also depends

on levels of salinity and siltation. Higher levels

of salinity seem to reduce the amount of carbon

stored, as found in Bangladesh. Given these vari-

ations and uncertainties, it is difficult to make

generalizations about the amount of carbon

sequestrated by mangroves.

Research into other types of wetlands confirms

the highly regional carbon sequestration

capacities. In addition, the methods for measur-

ing carbon are subject to a certain degree of uncer-

tainty, especially long-term studies. Brevik and

Homburg (2004) analysed data for carbon seques-

tration in wetlands over the last 5,000 years in

southern California and found that carbon

sequestration occurs at the fastest rate in

lagoons, followed by intertidals, salt water

marshes, freshwater marshes and most slowly in

aeolins. The study suggested that a mean rate

for carbon accumulation in southern California

is 0.033+0.0029 kg C/m2/year over a long time

period (5,000 years). Trumper et al. (2009)

report that globally tropical and subtropical

forests such as in mangrove-growing regions

store 547.8 GtC within the entire biome. Bernal

and Mitsch (2008) found that soil carbon

accumulation in temperate wetlands is signifi-

cantly greater than in tropical wetlands. This is

in line with findings from other soils in tropical

regions (e.g. Scheffer and Schachtschabel, 2009).

The Bernal and Mitsch study observed three

264 Urban et al.

CLIMATE AND DEVELOPMENT

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 0

7:22

08

Oct

ober

201

4

main types of wetlands, namely isolated forested,

riverine flow-through and slow-flow slough. The

forested wetlands had higher carbon contents

than the other two types. Bernal and Mitsch

(2008) conclude that the type of wetland and its

carbon inflow are decisive factors for the

amount of carbon stored.

Improved ecosystem management represents a

valuable approach for DRM, climate change adap-

tation and climate change mitigation.3 Protected

and well-managed ecosystems are cost-effective

ways to promote sustainable livelihoods, protect

coasts and increase resilience. They also bring

the benefits of LCD. Some sources suggest that

improved ecosystem management can offer new

economic opportunities through global carbon

trading schemes (UNEP and UNISDR, 2008;

Sudmeier-Rieux and Ash, 2009). This would be

the case when specific activities qualify under

carbon trading standards or projects qualifying

under the REDD (reducing emissions from defor-

estation and forest degradation) and LULUCF

mechanisms (land use and land-use change and

forestry). REDD ‘is an effort to create a financial

value for the carbon stored in forests, offering

incentives for developing countries to reduce

emissions from forested lands and invest in

low-carbon paths to sustainable development.

“REDD + ” goes beyond deforestation and forest

degradation, and includes the role of conserva-

tion, sustainable management of forests and

enhancement of forest carbon stocks’

(UN-REDD Programme, 2010).

The UNFCCC (2010, p. 1) states that:

Activities in the LULUCF sector can provide a

relatively cost-effective way of offsetting emis-

sions, either by increasing the removal of

greenhouse gases from the atmosphere (e.g.

by planting trees or managing forests), or by

reducing emissions (e.g. by curbing

deforestation).

These activities include afforestation, reforesta-

tion, forest management, cropland management,

grazing land management and revegetation

(UNFCCC, 2010, p. 1).

Coastal protection through afforestation of

mangroves and wetland protection is also a

key strategy for linking adaptation and mitiga-

tion and thereby contributing to low-carbon

climate-resilient development.

Drought risk managementAgriculture, and especially food production, is

one of the most climate-sensitive sectors. Com-

munities heavily dependent on agriculture are

increasingly vulnerable to disasters due to losses

of harvests, destroyed plantations, salinization,

animal losses, disease, etc. On the other hand, it

is reported that agriculture currently contributes

to about 30 per cent of global GHG emissions,

but has major potential to serve both as a mitiga-

tion and adaptation option for tackling climate

change and reducing poverty (Fernandes and

Thapa, 2009).

In terms of irrigation, low-carbon energy tech-

nologies can offer benefits. Case studies from

India and Brazil, for example, show how solar

panels and small wind turbines can power irriga-

tion pumps for increased agricultural pro-

ductivity and for reducing drought risks. This is

just one example of how irrigation, drought risk

management and LCD are linked (Wisions of

Sustainability, 2010).

UNISDR (2007) reports the following case

study from Kenya which shows how tree planting

can reduce drought risk while sequestering

carbon and mitigating climate change:

The Green Belt Movement (GBM) of Kenya [. . .]

fosters local-based efforts to create a more sus-

tainable environment that will be more resili-

ent to the effects of drought. The program

creates a culture of resilience by encouraging

women and men in rural areas to plant and

nurture native trees. Established in the

mid-1970s, GBM is credited with planting

more than 30 million trees and is now expand-

ing to other African countries. Its founder,

Disaster risk management and low-carbon development 265

CLIMATE AND DEVELOPMENT

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 0

7:22

08

Oct

ober

201

4

Wangari Maathai, won the Nobel Peace Prize in

2004 (UNISDR, 2007, p. 45).

The movement was set up to decrease negative

effects from deforestation and agricultural inten-

sification which led to erosion, lower fertility of

soils, reduced water availability, a reduction in

wildlife, shade and air quality.

The result was greater vulnerability to drought,

malnourishment, famine, and death. Maathai

taught women to collect seeds of indigenous

trees from their immediate surroundings and

to nurture them using whatever resources were

at hand. GBM paid the women a token

amount for each seedling that survived. [. . .]

GBM organizers conducted a variety of environ-

mental education and awareness activities for its

‘foresters without diplomas’, and made a point

to listen to people in their native languages as

they shared traditional knowledge from their

particular areas (UNISDR, 2007, p. 45).

This example demonstrates how one programme

has grown to meet the broader needs of local com-

munities. It has increased re-forestation, brought

greater food security, empowered women and

developed environmental education and leader-

ship capacity. The programme reduces the risks

of climate-related disasters such as drought and

famine while it contributes to carbon uptake

from the atmosphere. However, it should be

noted that the green belt movement (and similar

efforts) is not without problems, and has been cri-

ticized for its simplistic approach that does not

consider people’s livelihoods and the feasibility

of tree planting in local areas. In addition, the

type of trees planted can determine the success or

failure of such initiatives. Other initiatives (e.g.

in Thailand) have created local opposition

because the newly planted Eucalyptus trees use so

much water and soil nutrients that they exacerbate

drought and erosion conditions rather than

improve them (FAO, 2011). Nouvellon et al.

(2008) also indicate that soil carbon budgets in

savannahs in Congo were slightly negative after

afforestation efforts with Eucalyptus.

Regarding the carbon uptake, Trumper et al.

(2009) report that, globally, grasslands, savannah

and shrublands (e.g. in Kenya and large parts of

Sub-Saharan Africa) store 285.3 GtC within the

entire biome. Wang et al. (2009) and Witt et al.

(2011) report that knowledge and research

about the carbon sequestration of arid and semi-

arid soils, such as in Africa and Australia, is very

limited. Witt et al. (2011) nevertheless suggest

that arid and semi-arid soils play an important

role in carbon sequestration and biodiversity pro-

tection. The study concludes that carbon seques-

tration rates for grazing, soil and ground biomass

in Australia’s semi-arid mulga lands has the

potential to sequestrate between 0.92 and 1.1 t

CO2-e/ha/year for up to 40 years. Similar studies

exist for Senegal’s Sahel transition zone (e.g.

Woomer et al., 2004); nevertheless, results are dif-

ficult to compare because measurements and

methods vary. It is clearer that drought risk man-

agement through afforestation and the protec-

tion of soils and lands is a key strategy for

linking adaptation and mitigation and thereby

contributing to low-carbon climate-resilient

development.

Flood risk management: hydropower dams andreservoirsThere are many structural and non-structural

options for flood risk management. Non-

structural options include river restoration,

wetland restoration, river basin management,

afforestation and a change in regulations relating

to settlement on or near river banks and coastal

areas. Structural options include river bank and

coastal protection with embankments, dikes,

flood walls, sea walls and costal defences; chan-

nels, run-offs, retention basins and drainage

systems; and dams and reservoirs. Perhaps the

most controversial flood risk management

options are dams and reservoirs.

Hydropower dams and reservoirs are predomi-

nantly built for power generation, but more

recently their benefits for water storage for irriga-

tion and household use has been discussed, as

266 Urban et al.

CLIMATE AND DEVELOPMENT

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 0

7:22

08

Oct

ober

201

4

well as their potential to prevent and control

floods (Schultz, 2002; World Commission on

Dams, 2000). Dams provide low-carbon energy,

but at the same time they can be the cause of

GHG due to embedded emissions during con-

struction and operation. Dams and reservoirs

have proved to be effective for flood control, as

evidenced by Brazil’s Tucuruı dam in, the

Tarbela dam in Pakistan, Turkey’s Aslantas dam,

the Gran Coulee dam in the US, the Kariba dam

in Zimbabwe/Zambia (World Commission on

Dams, 2000a, b) and Egypt’s Aswan dam (Strzepek

et al., 2008).

Hydropower is the most commonly used

renewable energy source today (IEA, 2010). The

World Energy Council estimates that there is a

global potential for more than 41,202 TWh/year

(4,703 GW) of hydropower with a technically

exploitable potential of more than 16,494 TWh/

year (1,883 GW) (WEC, 2007). At the end of

2005, 778 GW were installed and another

124 GW were under construction worldwide

(WEC, 2007). Many developing countries such

as China, Brazil, Lao, Cambodia, Ghana and

Ethiopia depend heavily on hydropower as a

form of clean energy. Nevertheless, hydropower

is vulnerable to droughts, water stress, increased

temperatures and decreased precipitation

(ESMAP, 2011).

Dams allow the retention of run-off which can

be released in dry periods. ‘The dams closest to

the origins of the tributaries restrain the flood-

waters while the dams further downstream

release their reserves and the flood waters are

then released into each succeeding dam and

finally into the main river’ (McCartney et al.,

2001, p. 1). The efficacy of these structures is

sometimes questioned as they can result in

negative consequences downstream and their

environmental impacts can be high, for

example, by directly or indirectly affecting

coastal or riparian environments, fisheries and

natural processes of erosion and sedimentation.

Despite these negative impacts, construction-

based flood risk reduction efforts, such as dams

and hydropower reservoirs, are a significant com-

ponent of disaster prevention (UNEP, 2007).

Recently, there has been an ongoing debate

about GHG from large dams and reservoirs and

their contribution to climate change. There are

marginal GHG emissions from two main sources:

1. GHG emissions due to the industrial pro-

duction of the dams, mainly from the pro-

duction of concrete, steel and power lines for

connection with the nearest grid (e.g. Rashad

and Ismail, 2000). Life cycle analysis shows

that the GHG emissions from both large and

small hydropower are similar to those of

other renewable energy and are significantly

below those of fossil fuel plants (Gagnon

et al., 2002; Evans et al., 2008).

2. Emissions from bacterial decomposition of

organic material underwater after flooding of

the vegetation (Rosa et al., 2004). Gases

emitted are mainly nitrous oxide carbon

dioxide and methane. There is uncertainty

about whether methane emissions depend

on the age of the dams (Rashad and Ismail,

2000; Fearnside, 2002; Ruiz-Suarez et al.,

2003; Rosa et al., 2004). The carbon content

in tropic ecosystems is estimated higher than

that of boreal and grass land ecosystems, so

that more GHG emissions are emitted from

tropical dams (Rashad and Ismail, 2000).

Many studies seem to agree that GHG emissions

from dams range in average between 40 and

45 g CO2 equivalents/kWh with smaller dams

and dams in cooler climate being at the lower

end of the scale and large dams and dams in the

tropics being at the upper end of the scale

(Rashad and Ismail, 2000; Gagnon et al., 2002;

International Rivers, 2002; IHA, 2005; Evans

et al., 2008). Nevertheless, studies agree that

hydropower dams produce far less GHG emis-

sions during their lifetime than fossil fuel

plants, namely at least 10 times less (World Com-

mission on Dams, 2001; Gagnon et al., 2002; IHA,

2005). The focus of the debate should therefore be

Disaster risk management and low-carbon development 267

CLIMATE AND DEVELOPMENT

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 0

7:22

08

Oct

ober

201

4

rather about the emissions that can be mitigated

by hydropower dams due to being an alternative

to fossil fuels, rather than its marginal emissions.

Dams can be important stepping stones for LCD

and shifting from high-carbon to low-carbon

energy systems.

A more significant issue is the high social

impactsof largedam building which often involves

resettlement, loss of livelihoods, inadequate or

non-existent compensation payments and other

negative effects. Studies show that many past reset-

tlement programmes are inadequate as they have

relocated affected people to areas without appro-

priate infrastructure, such as sanitary facilities,

drinking water, electricity and roads like at

Tarbela (Pakistan) and Tucuruı (Brazil) (World

Commission on Dams, 2000a, b). The main social

problems regarding relocations are the following:

compensation payments are often too low for a

decent living, relocation of the local population

often results in loss of livelihoods such as fisheries

or subsistence farming and compensation pay-

ments are not equally well distributed which

means that some people do not receive any com-

pensation at all, or payment is very late (World

Commission on Dams, 2000b).

It is well established that dams and reservoirs can

provide effective flood risk management and

increase potential for irrigation and agricultural

activity, thereby improving the livelihoods

of those dependent on agriculture (World

Commission on Dams, 2000a, b). Nevertheless,

this often comes with serious environmental

impacts. Observed impacts include increased rates

of erosion and sedimentation, increased frequency

of landslides, changes in water flows, destruction of

flora and fauna, ecosystem changes, decreases in

water quality (partly due to increased inflows of

pesticides and industrial waste waters), increased

eutrophication and, most importantly, changes in

fish and shrimp productivity (World Commission

on Dams, 2000b). A very serious environmental

impact is reported to be reservoir-induced seismi-

city which might trigger earthquakes. This is

assumed to be problematic for the Three Gorges

Dam which is built on two major tectonic fault

lines (International Rivers, 2008). Nevertheless,

this can occur only in very rare cases. The main

alternatives are fossil fuel power plants which con-

tribute significantly to climate change, or a reliance

on nuclear power, which is risky and can lead to

serious health and safety issues as became evident

in the nuclear accident in Fukushima, Japan in

March 2011.

Small hydropower plants, and particularly

micro- and pico-hydropower plants, usually

have very little impact on GHG emissions, and

very low social and environmental impacts,

because they are mainly from river run-off and

often do not include any dams or reservoirs.

Debates around low-impact and non-structural

alternatives to dams that reduce flood risk while

being environmentally friendly have started to

emerge. For example, the Government of Japan

is shifting its flood protection interventions

based on concrete river walls to construction

based on ecosystem restoration (UNEP, 2007).

Similar approaches are reported in Central

Europe, for example along the Danube. In

recent years, attention has been paid to using

environmentally friendly alternatives to large

structural flood management. This new approach

calls for integrated management of the water-

shed, river and floodplain, and incorporates

non-structural strategies in addition to other

traditional flood management structures (Brink

et al., 2004). Maintaining watersheds by avoiding

deforestation and diversion of waterways protects

water quality and quantity, as well as preserving

livelihoods dependent on fisheries. Risk manage-

ment measures, such as appropriate construction

to withstand storm and flood, can also help

communities in adapting to climate change

(UNISDR, 2007). Other important alternative

flood protection measures that can replace dams

include not building houses and settlements in

direct proximity to rivers or flood plains, restor-

ing riparian ecosystems such as natural wetlands

and floodplains, and to reduce concrete river

regulation.

268 Urban et al.

CLIMATE AND DEVELOPMENT

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 0

7:22

08

Oct

ober

201

4

Finally, the benefits of dams and reservoirs

mainly relate to energy provision. Hydropower

has made a revival during recent years due to

climate change concerns. It has to be acknowl-

edged that dams are primarily built for energy

generation which is crucial for powering econom-

ies, while flood protection has been a desirable

side effect. Given the controversy around dams

due to emissions from reservoirs, resettlement

issues and high environmental impacts it is advi-

sable to favour ecosystem approaches for flood

protection such as restoring floodplains and wet-

lands and avoiding settlements within the proxi-

mity of rivers. Haque and Zaman even go as far as

suggesting that physical prevention of floods in

Bangladesh and ‘technological fixes’ are likely to

‘pose serious threats to long-term sustainability

of floodplain ecology and sociocultural resources

of Bangladesh’ (Haque and Zaman, 1993, p. 93).

On another note, Mirza et al. (2001) argue that

intensification of settlement in flood-prone areas

might be one of the key factors why floods appear

to get worse in the Ganges, Brahmaputra and

Meghna basins. River banks are often considered

the home of the poorest of the poor in many

developing countries that are prone to flooding,

such as in Bangladesh. Introducing new regu-

lations against settlement of river banks, and

efforts to restore ecosystems in places where the

poorest settle is linked to enforcement barriers

and is likely to create increased social instability.

3 Post-disaster and reconstructioninterventions and implications for LCD

This section examines the carbon and green-

house gas implications of post-disaster relief and

reconstruction interventions. It draws particu-

larly on case studies from housing reconstruction

interventions and post-disaster energy supply

as examples of how emissions can be mitigated

in the DRM sector. Low-carbon post-disaster

reconstruction options, such as post-disaster

energy supply from renewable energy and locally

manufactured housing, can decrease the depen-

dency on expensive imports and fossil fuels,

quickly provide rapid energy access for people

living in energy poverty, and can contribute to

local employment and capacity building and an

overall increase in resilience. It can also support

indigenous capacity for innovation and a new

climate-friendly development pathway.

3.1. Environmental considerations ofpost-disaster and reconstructioninterventions

In 1997, in recognition of concerns about huma-

nitarian response efforts, non-governmental

organizations (NGOs) launched the Sphere

Project,4 the first collaborative initiative to

produce globally applicable minimum standards

for humanitarian response. The aims of the

Sphere Project are to improve the effectiveness

of humanitarian efforts and to enhance the

accountability of the humanitarian system, pri-

marily to those people who need protection and

assistance in disasters, as well as to agency

members and donors (The Sphere Project, 2010).

Besides humanitarian response efforts, recon-

struction efforts after disasters are crucial.

Among others, the Sphere standards emphasize

that the critical role of managing future disaster

risks should not be overlooked in the rush to

restore the situation in disaster regions to pre-

disaster conditions.

Post-disaster situations create enormous

pressure to provide survivors with adequate per-

manent housing and other vital supplies as

rapidly as possible. The urgent need for housing

normally leads to large-scale reconstruction pro-

grammes and huge demand for construction

material. Moreover, in post-disaster situations

environmental assessments are often neglected

to increase the speed of reconstruction (UNEP

and SKAT, 2007).

The pressure to regain equilibrium as quickly

as possible must be balanced with seizing

Disaster risk management and low-carbon development 269

CLIMATE AND DEVELOPMENT

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 0

7:22

08

Oct

ober

201

4

opportunities for long-term risk-reduction, adap-

tation toclimatechangeand community improve-

ments through sustainable reconstruction. After

the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, the DRM commu-

nity embraced the principle of ‘build back better’.

The aim was to assess existing problems and devel-

opment issues to take them into account for future

actions as a way to improve the lives of people

affected and of future generations (Kennedy

et al., 2008; Chang et al., 2010).

The 2010 post-disaster reconstruction guidelines

Lessons from Aceh by the Disasters Emergency

Committee (DEC) members highlights the impor-

tance of EIAs in reconstruction programmes, and

the opportunities that post-disaster reconstruction

processes may bring for introducing low-carbon

technologies (Da Silva, 2010). While EIAs may be

desirable for post-disaster construction work,

rapid responses and restoration of livelihoods

may require some shortcuts or streamlining of pro-

cedures, in what can be a rather lengthy process.

The DEC guidelines propose that the following

key questions could be included in EIAs to

improve the links between disasters, environ-

mental effects and low-carbon issues:

How did the disaster affect the environment?

How can reconstruction protect, repair and

enhance ecosystems?

Is there potential to re-use or recycle waste

materials generated by the disaster? Can transi-

tional shelters be re-used or incorporated into

permanent housing?

What materials are available locally and are they

sustainably sourced and certified? Is there

potential to introduce new materials or manu-

facturing processes which have less environ-

mental impact?

How are building components manufactured? Do

they require energy intensive processes or

create toxic waste products?

What is the source of potable water? Has this been

affected by the disaster? How can sanitation

and solid waste management be designed to

protect and enhance water sources?

Is there potential to incorporate rainwater har-

vesting, renewable energy, composting or

biogas toilets? Are these appropriate and

would they be maintained? (Da Silva, 2010,

p. 21).

Unfortunately, these EIA considerations for Aceh

do not include assessments of emissions of

carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from

reconstruction interventions. The problem is

that there are no globally agreed standards for

EIA, even though there are efforts by multilateral

organizations to standardize EIAs and to include

estimates of GHG emissions. However, EIA guide-

lines do differ from region to region, and not all

request estimates for emissions. The EU has devel-

oped their own guidelines for EIAs, illustrated by

the following example:

‘Environmental impact assessment (EIA) is an

important procedure for ensuring that the likely

effects of new development on the environment

are fully understood and taken into account

before the development is allowed to go ahead’

(Department for Communities and Local

Government (DCLG), 2000, p. 5). ‘The following

developments need EIA:

(i) major developments which are of more than

local importance;

(ii) developments which are proposed for par-

ticularly environmentally sensitive or vul-

nerable locations;

(iii) developments with unusually complex and

potentially hazardous environmental

effects’ (DCLG, 2000, p. 9).

The agreed EIA procedures in the EU require

information on ‘emissions to air’ from pro-

duction processes of the proposed development,

a description of climatic factors and air quality

(DCLG, 2000, p. 56), assessments of effects from

‘emissions from the development during normal

operation’ (DCLG, 2000, p. 57) and an elabor-

ation of mitigation measures to reduce adverse

effects on the environment. However, this is not

270 Urban et al.

CLIMATE AND DEVELOPMENT

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 0

7:22

08

Oct

ober

201

4

specifically related to reducing emissions (DCLG,

2000, pp.58–59). The EU’s EIA guidelines take

into account carbon and GHG, although other

countries often have less strict regulations. It is

often suggested, particularly in relation to large

hydropower projects in the developing world,

that EIAs have either been ignored to some

extent or in some cases even been omitted (e.g.

Mekong River Commission, 2007). A different

trend has been observed recently in relation to

large hydropower projects in Southeast Asia,

which have taken GHG emissions into account

in their EIA and have established a climate

change baseline assessment (ICEM, 2010).

3.2. Greenhouse gas and carbon emissionimplications of post-disaster relief andreconstruction interventions

The following two sections will highlight case

studies from housing reconstruction and post-

disaster energy supply and their GHG implications.

Housing reconstructionThe exploitation of natural resources during post-

disaster situations for intensive production of

building materials may sometimes cause irrevers-

ible environmental impacts and degradation

(Roseberry, 2008; Chang et al., 2010), followed

by high levels of carbon emissions (O’Brien

et al., 2008). For example, timber products are

commonly used building materials in post-

disaster reconstruction interventions. Sustain-

ably sourced timber has significant benefits over

unsustainably sourced timber or imported pro-

ducts. Unsustainable timber harvesting can also

lead to a decline in forest size and quality and

thus reduce natural carbon uptake.

Forests and wood are integrally linked to

climate change and have an important role

to play in mitigation and adaptation (Van

Bodegom et al., 2009). Forests sequester carbon

from the atmosphere when they grow, thereby

offsetting a significant part of GHG emissions.

Forests store more than 80 per cent of terrestrial

above ground carbon and more than 70 per cent

of soil organic carbon (Prins et al., 2009; Van

Bodegom et al., 2009). They are also a source of

fuelwood and modern biomass (such as wood

chips) that can be a substitute for fossil energy,

thereby reducing GHG emissions.

There is an increasing understanding of the

relationship between house type and environ-

mental sustainability, and this is being con-

sidered in reconstruction interventions (O’Brien

et al., 2008; UNEP, 2008; Chang et al., 2010).

The following case study indicates how different

types of post-tsunami reconstruction in Indone-

sia had direct carbon and GHG implications.

O’Brien et al. (2008) report that after the Indian

Ocean Tsunami in 2004, housing reconstruction

agencies aimed to build houses based on

mass-produced construction materials.

The dominant house type built by reconstruc-

tion agencies followed the ubiquitous ‘bun-

galow’ model and was constructed with

industrialized materials. Other types were

hybrid models that used the industrialized

materials but traditional ‘house on stilts’ typolo-

gies. In Aceh, Indonesia, the adoption of these

types extended existing trends away from verna-

cular traditions and materials such as timber and

bamboo (O’Brien et al., 2008, p. 361).

Researchers examined the sustainability of three

house types built by reconstruction agencies in

Aceh and compared these with traditional timber

housing. The study made a life cycle assessment

(LCA) to determine the sustainability of each

type of house, calculating both the CO2 emissions

and the ecological footprint of each house. ‘The

ecological footprint shows how much biologically

productive land and water a house requires

throughout its life-cycle’ (O’Brien et al., 2008,

p. 363). LCA is a method for assessing the environ-

mental impacts of specific products or processes

during their life cycle, taking into account the pro-

duction, use, transport and recycling phases. The

study found that the post-tsunami reconstruction

housing types were ‘linked with levels of

Disaster risk management and low-carbon development 271

CLIMATE AND DEVELOPMENT

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 0

7:22

08

Oct

ober

201

4

greenhouse gas emissions up to fifty times higher

than traditional types and triple the ecological

footprint of traditional types. This increase is pri-

marily due to the overwhelming use of externally

procured and imported construction technologies

and mass-produced materials’ (O’Brien et al., 2008,

p. 361). The study confirmed that based both on

CO2 emissions and on ecological footprints tra-

ditional housing types constructed with locally

harvested timber are key to reducing negative

environmental impacts associated with post-

disaster housing (O’Brien et al., 2008).

Sustainable housing reconstruction could con-

tribute to LCD and the benefits it can bring.

Benefits include, among others, reduced depen-

dency on imports for building materials; lower

building costs; houses that can be amended for

the specific needs of and in line with the tra-

ditions of the local population and the region

(e.g. houses on stilts for flood-prone areas); and

the creation of local employment opportunities.

As such sustainable housing can bring together

mitigation and adaptation efforts; while introdu-

cing new mechanisms and options for enabling

disaster relief and development in a carbon-

constrained world.

Post-disaster energy supplyPost-disaster reconstruction provides an opportu-

nity to address the need for household energy

supply. Energy is a basic human need for basic

household activities. It is also required to

sustain and expand economic processes like agri-

culture, electricity production, industries, ser-

vices and transport. It is commonly suggested

that access to energy is closely linked with devel-

opment and economic growth (e.g. WEC, 2000,

2001; DFID, 2002; IEA, 2002; WHO, 2006) and

that alleviating energy poverty is a prerequisite

to fulfil the Millennium Development Goals

(DFID, 2002; WHO, 2006). It is also closely inter-

twined with climate change.

In 2007, about 80 per cent of the global energy

supply came from fossil fuels such as coal, oil and

natural gas in 2007 (IEA, 2010). As well as the

negative environmental impacts of fossil fuels,

they can also create a dependency on resources

which are not locally available but need to be

imported. These energy choices are therefore

expensive and inconvenient for poor house-

holds (UN Habitat, 2007) and they pose a threat

to energy security. Extensive fossil fuel use

ultimately leads to a ‘carbon lock-in’, with

infrastructure and investments bound to a

carbon-intensive economy for decades. Relying

on them can mean greater costs in the long run

(Urban and Sumner, 2009).

Most developing countries rely primarily on

traditional biofuels such as fuelwood as primary

energy source (Karekezi et al., 2004; Urban and

Sumner, 2009). According to the WHO (2005),

1.6 million people – mainly women and chil-

dren – are likely to die every year from respiratory

and other diseases because of exposure to indoor

air pollution from traditional biofuels. Introdu-

cing modern renewable energy sources as a repla-

cement for traditional biofuels would improve

the health of the population in developing

countries. Renewable energy can also reduce

GHG emissions, reduce dependence on energy

imports and increase energy security. Small-scale

renewable energy technology such as solar

panels, lamps and cookers, small wind turbines,

small hydropower and biogas cookers can be

used for lighting, cooking, heating and other

household activities. The social and environ-

mental benefits of improved cooking stoves have

been widely assessed (DFID, 2002). These include

access to energy for poor households, health

improvements, better income opportunities, edu-

cational gains (such as being able to study after

dark and having electricity and heating in

schools), reduced workloads from fuelwood collec-

tion, greater safety and a number of environ-

mental pay-offs such as reduced pressure on

finite energy resources and forests, and improved

air quality. Renewable energy can be an option

for providing off-grid decentralized energy. This

is particularly important in rural areas and for

272 Urban et al.

CLIMATE AND DEVELOPMENT

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 0

7:22

08

Oct

ober

201

4

post-disaster reconstruction when the central grid

does not exist or has been damaged.

It has been reported that renewable energy is

used in many post-disaster and reconstruction

interventions. One example is from Haiti where

after the 2010 earthquake solar energy is used to

power health care provisions and to reconstruct

the damaged power infrastructure (Inhabitat,

2010; Renewable Energy World, 2010). This is

carbon neutral and enables a quick and cost-

effective way of rebuilding the power supply in

a sustainable low-carbon way.

Similar approaches have been reported from

refugee camps in Sudan’s Darfur region, where

solar cookers are locally manufactured and used

by refugee women as an alternative to fuel

wood. This project was primarily implemented

to reduce incidents of violence and rape against

women and girls when leaving the refugee

camps to collect fuelwood, but it has also had

positive environmental side effects such as safe-

guarding the forest areas surrounding the camps

and providing low-carbon energy for cooking

(JWW, 2010).

After the 2008 earthquake in Sichuan province,

China, DFID China spent USD1 million on

technical assistance, 20 per cent of which is

being used for low-carbon reconstruction of the

city of Guangan. This low-carbon reconstruction

focuses on three main areas: promoting renew-

able energy such as solar and wind energy, build-

ing a low-carbon community, promoting

low-carbon lifestyles and constructing low-

carbon buildings (Wang, 2010).

Post-disaster renewable energy supply could

contribute to LCD and bring a range of benefits,

including reduced dependency on expensive

fossil fuels; rapid and decentralized energy

access in regions where there is no grid; increased

energy security and protection of fossil energy

resources; improved health as a consequence

of reducing indoor air pollution from traditio-

nal biomass cooking; and income generation

and educational benefits from energy access.

Renewable energy is also being used for water

pumping and irrigation for agriculture in areas

affected by climate change. Water pumping is

important for post-disaster relief interventions.

As such, use of renewable energy in post-disaster

situations can bring together mitigation and

adaptation efforts, while introducing new mech-

anisms and options for enabling disaster relief

and development in a carbon-constrained world.

3.3. Practical implications

The task of reconstruction after a major disaster is

difficult and the introduction of low-carbon

materials and technology may not facilitate the

task in the short term. It will require deliberate

and coordinated efforts of all stakeholders

for effective recovery that provides new paths

to LCD.

The responsibility for establishing and imple-

menting reconstruction policies rests primarily

with governments. Most countries have their

own institutional arrangements for disaster man-

agement, including reconstruction. Post-disaster

responses by national governments, bilateral aid

agencies, NGOs and UN agencies have been

characterized by rapid rehabilitation projects

including water and sanitation, housing, irriga-

tion, food-security and health. These are often

ad hoc and separate from the overall develop-

ment objectives of disaster-hit countries. The

real challenge lies in broadening the remit of

humanitarian, developmental and environ-

mental bodies and in bringing them together in

a shared effort for achieving sustainable recovery

(UN Habitat, 2007).

Disaster risk reduction, relief and reconstruc-

tion need to be seen as opportunities for develop-

ing countries to reap multiple benefits in terms of

development and resource management that can

at the same time help to mitigate GHG emissions.

As well as the advantages outlined above, sus-

tainable housing reconstruction and use of

renewable energy in post-disaster situations are

both cost effective (as they reduce the need for

Disaster risk management and low-carbon development 273

CLIMATE AND DEVELOPMENT

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 0

7:22

08

Oct

ober

201

4

expensive imports and use local and more sus-

tainable resources) and enable a quick response

to urgent problems. Importing diesel oil or con-

crete building blocks takes time and relies on a

functioning transport infrastructure. Cases from

the earthquake in Haiti and conflict-struck Pales-

tine show that neither transportation nor distri-

bution networks are very reliable in extreme

situations. Use of solar cookers or local timber to

construct traditional houses can offer quick, cost-

effective and low-carbon alternatives for rapid

response in disaster and conflict situations.

This section has elaborated the challenges and

opportunities for incorporating carbon emission

considerations in post-disaster circumstances.

Challenges include, for example, time constraints

and the need for rapid action, while opportunities

include the additional benefits of off-grid renew-

able energy. LCD can be stimulated in post-

disaster circumstances by (a) fostering the use of

low-hanging fruit technologies (such as renew-

able off-grid electricity supply), and (b) planning

ahead. Rather than only having risk maps and

disaster-resilient building codes in place when a

disaster strikes, LCD considerations could be fac-

tored in at a much earlier phase. This could con-

tribute to both climate change mitigation and

adaptation.

4. Discussion and conclusions

Incorporating carbon emission considerations in

DRM approaches can increase the opportunities

for LCD. Low-carbon practices should be favoured

whilehigh-carbon practices shouldbe avoided. For

high-income countries and emerging economies

greater efforts should be made to reduce emissions

within their DRM and reconstruction efforts. For

poor countries, this is mostly about the benefits

and opportunities of LCD, such as access to low-

carbon energy, rather than about full optimization

of all DRM and reconstruction efforts.

From an analysis of the literature it is evident

that the carbon and greenhouse gas implications

of DRM and post-disaster interventions – and

development efforts in general – are hardly con-

sidered in research and practice to date. There is

much scope for further exploration of the carbon

emission implications of DRM practices and

options for reducing the impacts. As some develop-

ment programmes already have experience with

low-carbon alternatives, emphasis should be laid

on transferring this knowledge to the disaster man-

agement community. Further research is required

into the potential for low-carbon options, such as

sustainably sourced building materials, renewable

energy alternatives and natural protection against

disasters, which can sequester carbon and thereby

mitigate climate change.

This article has illustrated that there is scope for

DRM and reconstruction interventions to

respond both to climate change adaptation and

mitigation. Taking a strategic approach to risk

management before and after disaster situations

can potentially lead to triple benefits, namely

reducing disaster risk, enhancing adaptation

and mitigating GHG.

Mitigation actions could include renewable

energy systems, carbon sequestration by forests

and wetlands, and improved land-use planning.

Minimizing negative impacts on natural carbon

sinks such as forests, vegetation and soils, which

absorb carbon dioxide has been identified as a

potential win–win outcome of DRM interven-

tions. Introduction of renewable energy technol-

ogy and greening initiatives in the planning and

execution of DRM intervention can substantially

reduce emissions and other potentially negative

environmental impacts.

The following suggestions could more coher-

ently promote the consideration of carbon emis-

sions in DRM measures:

B CO2 and other GHG from DRM interventions

should be calculated and their risks assessed as

part of EIAs globally. To some extent this is

done in EIAs in the EU and other countries,

but this practice can often fall short in devel-

oping countries and in emergency responses.

An international standardization of EIAs

could offer a solution, and reduce a number

274 Urban et al.

CLIMATE AND DEVELOPMENT

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 0

7:22

08

Oct

ober

201

4

of adverse environmental effects including

effects that bring about emissions in

both developing and developed countries.

However, EIAs are commonly overlooked in

the post-disaster work. In such cases, the bar-

riers to undertaking EIAs need to be addressed

before additional requirements can be intro-

duced. Since EIAs can be lengthy, their proces-

sing time needs to be shortened and tailored

to emergency responses.

B Post-disaster reconstruction phases need to

take into account the GHG associated with

interventions, and should implement strat-

egies to reduce these emissions by using, for

example, renewable energy technologies for

post-disaster energy supply and local resources

for post-disaster housing. However, as with the

point made above, there are various barriers

which need to be addressed before additional

requirements can be introduced. These barriers

include an absence of adequate institutions

and mechanisms to coordinate responses; a

lack of enabling frameworks, standardized pol-

icies and guidelines for how to deal with disas-

ter situations; corruption particularly with

respect to post-disaster and reconstruction

interventions; and the need for relief and

development organizations to take a more

coordinated approach.

B LCAs of structural interventions such as sea

walls, dykes and large hydropower dams

should be conducted and should be made

public to enable learning and improved

decision-making for future interventions.

B The links between environmental ministries,

climate ministries, energy ministries and dis-

asters ministries on LCD and mitigation

issues should be improved.

B Sphere standards should include measures to

address the emissions of relief operations.

B Reconstruction processes should include

analysis of low-carbon scenarios and climate

change mitigation options.

B So far, data related to the above suggestions are

limited. For example, there are very limited

data about LCAs which are relevant to DRM

interventions (although more may emerge in

the future). Ideally, DRM and post-disaster inter-

vention teams should work with climate change

mitigation specialists for the purposes of advice

and calculations of carbon footprinting, mitiga-

tion potential, low-carbon reconstruction pro-

cesses and renewable energy options. There

needs to be improved cooperation between

national and local authorities involved in disas-

ter planning and LCD planning. There also

needs to be improved cooperation and knowl-

edge exchange between disaster specialists, low-

carbon specialists and other technical experts.

Finally, some would argue that DRM is already

moving towards better disaster preparedness by

taking into account environmental concerns.

However, low-carbon issues specifically have so

far received less recognition. There are two key

reasons as to why these concerns should be

taken into account:

1. Many useful LCD practices can at the same time

be useful DRM practices and even useful adap-

tation practices. This article shows that many

low-carbon practices have the potential to

increase the resilience of people and commu-

nities affected by disasters. Hence, there is

potential for creating synergies between adap-

tation and mitigation in the DRM sector. This

would enable an integrated approach to

climate change rather than treating adaptation

and mitigation as separate issues. This could

increase the effectiveness of climate policy

and practice, increase prospects for funding

and raise awareness of climate change issues.

2. Taking carbon considerations into account for

DRM and post-disaster reconstruction can

support a transition to LCD. It can lay foun-

dations for a shift away from the polluting

development model that today’s developed

countries have followed. Instead it can offer

opportunities and benefits for a new cleaner

development model which relies less on

Disaster risk management and low-carbon development 275

CLIMATE AND DEVELOPMENT

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 0

7:22

08

Oct

ober

201

4

carbon and brings with it other developmental

and socio-economic benefits. DRM has the

potential to affect key sectors such as energy

provision, housing, agriculture, forestry and

coastal protection, which can play a key role

in developing a more sustainable development

model. DRM could therefore be seen as an

opportunity for moving towards low-carbon

climate-resilient development.

Acknowledgements

This work has been funded by the UK Department

for International Development (DFID) under the

Strengthening Climate Resilience (SCR) pro-

gramme. The authors are grateful to Purvi Malho-

tra for her work on the project. The authors would

also like to thank Maarten van Aalst, Lars Otto

Naess and two anonymous reviewers for their

valuable comments to the article.

Notes

1. While the international policy process around

climate change is often predominantly concerned

with mitigation, adaptation is more prominent in

development circles when it comes to climate

change in developing countries. This is due to the

marginal emissions most developing countries have

and the need for rapid adaptation to climate change.

2. UNEP Online Resource Centre: http://postconflict.

unep.ch/humanitarianaction/.

3. However projections for sea-level rise need to be care-

fully assessed when it comes to investing into ecosys-

tem restoration for coastal areas. This needs to be

done to avoid new forests/new ecosystems being

inundated by increased sea-level rise in the future.

4. The Sphere Project. Available at www.sphereproject.

org/content/view/443/264/lang,english/.

References

Bernal, B., Mitsch, W., 2008, ‘A comparison of soil

carbon pools and profiles in wetlands in Costa Rica

and Ohio’, Ecological Engineering 34(4), 311–323.

Bockel, L., Smith,G., Bromhead, M., Bernoux,M., Tinlot,

M., Matieu, H., 2010, ‘Mainstreaming carbon balance

appraisal of agriculture projects and policies?’, A Tool for

Measuring Carbon-Balance in Ex-ante Project – Pro-

gramme Impact Appraisal – Policy Brief [available at

www.oecd.org/dataoecd/17/3/44781061.pdf].

Brevik, E. C., Homburg, J. A., 2004, ‘A 5000 year record

of carbon sequestration from a coastal lagoon and

wetland complex, Southern California, USA’,

CATENA 57(3), 221–232.

Brink, E., McClain, S., Rothert, S., 2004, Beyond Dams:

Options and Alternatives: Water Supply: Water Diversion

& Irrigation Methods, A report by American and Inter-

national Rivers [available at elitemedicalimaging.

com/basics/alternatives/pdf/BeyondDams.pdf].

Burton, I., 2004, ‘Climate change and the adap-

tation deficit’, in: A. Fenech, D. MacIver, H. Auld,

R. Bing Rong, Y. Yin (eds), Climate Change: Building

the Adaptive Capacity, Environment Canada, Meteor-

ological Service of Canada, Toronto.

Chang, Y., Wilkinson, S., Seville, E., Potangaroa, R.,

2010, ‘Resourcing for a resilient post-disaster

reconstruction environment’, International Journal

of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment 1,

65–83.

Curtis, K., 2009, Climate Change Toolkit, Designing for

Flood, Risk, London.

Da Silva, 2010, Lessons from Aceh – Key Considerations in

Post-Disaster Reconstruction, Disaster Emergency Com-

mittee and ARUP Partners Ltd., UK [available at www.

dec.org.uk/download/721/lessons-from-aceh.pdf].

DCLG (Department for Communities and Local

Government) 2000, Environmental Impact Assess-

ment: A Guide to Procedures [available at www.com-

munities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuild-

ing/pdf/1579 89.pdf].

DFID (UK Department for International Development),

2002, Energy for the Poor: Underpinning the Millenium

Development Goals [available at www.DFID.gov.uk/

pubs/files/energyforthepoor.pdf].

DFID, 2009, Eliminating World Poverty: Building our

Common Future. DFID White Paper, DFID, London.

ESMAP, 2011, Climate Impacts on Energy Systems. Key

Issues for Energy Sector Adaptation, ESMAP, Washing-

ton, DC.

Evans, A., Strezov, V., Evans, T. J., 2008, ‘Assessment of

sustainability indicators for renewable energy tech-

nologies’, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

13(5), 1082–1088.

FAO, 2011, Why Eucalyptus is not Adopted for Agroforestry

[available at www.fao.org/DOCREP/005/AC772E/

ac772e0p.htm].

276 Urban et al.

CLIMATE AND DEVELOPMENT

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 0

7:22

08

Oct

ober

201

4

Fearnside, 2002, ‘Greenhouse gas emissions from a

hydroelectric reservoir (Brazil’s Tucurui dam) and

the energy policy implications’, Water, Air and Soil

Pollution 133, 69–96.

Fernandes, E., Thapa, D., 2009, Reduced Emissions and

Enhanced Adaptation in Agricultural Landscapes. Book

Reduced Emissions and Enhanced Adaptation in Agricul-

tural Landscapes, World Bank, Washington, DC.

Gagnon, L., Belanger, C., Uchiyama, Y., 2002, ‘Life-

cycle assessment of electricity generation options:

the status of research in year 2001’, Energy Policy

30, 1267–1278.

Haque, E. C., Zaman, M. Q., 1993, ‘Human responses to

riverine hazards in Bangladesh: a proposal for sus-

tainable floodplain development’, World Develop-

ment 21(1), 93–107.

ICEM (International Centre for Environmental Man-

agement), 2010, ‘MRC SEA for hydropower on the

Mekong mainstream’, Climate Change Baseline

Working Paper [available at www.icem.com.au/docu

ments/envassessment/mrc_sea_hp/sea_climate%20

change_baseline%20 working%20paper.pdf].

IEA (International Energy Agency), 2002, World Energy

Outlook 2002. Energy and Poverty, IEA/OECD, Paris.

IEA (International Energy Association), 2010, Energy

Statistics [available at www.iea.org/stats/index.asp].

IHA (International Hydropower Association), 2005,

Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Reservoirs [available

at www.hydropower.org/downloads/F6%20GHG%

20Emissions%20from%20Reservoirs.pdf].

Inhabitat, 2010, Solar Energy Powering Reconstruction

Efforts in Haiti [available at www.inhabitat.com/

2010/01/21/solar-energy-powering-reconstruction-

efforts-in-haiti/].

International Rivers, 2002, Flooding the Land, Warming

the Earth [available at www-fa.upc.es/personals/

fluids/oriol/ale/2002ghreport.pdf].

International Rivers, 2008, The Three Gorges Dam: The

Cost of Power [available at www.internationalrivers.

org/files/3Gorges_factsheet.lorez_.pdf].

IPCC (Intergovernmental panel on Climate Change),

2007, Fourth Assessment Report on Climate

Change [available at www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/

assessments-reports.htm].

JWW (Jewish World Watch), 2010, ‘Help the women

of Darfur’, Factsheet, January 2010 [available at

www.jewishworldwatch.org/refugeerelief/pdfs/JWW_

FactSheet_Jan10_v5_lr.pdf].

Karekezi, S., Lata, K., Coelho, S. T., 2004, ‘Traditional

biomass energy – improving its use and moving to

modern energy use. Thematic background paper’,

International Conference for Renewable Energies,

Bonn.

Kariba Dam Zambia and Zimbabwe, Final Report [avail-

able at www.dams.org/docs/kbase/studies/cszzmain.

pdf].

Kennedy, J., Ashmore, J., Babister, E., Kelman, I., 2008,

‘The meaning of ‘Build Back Better’: evidence from

post-tsunami Aceh and Sri Lanka’, Journal of Contin-

gencies and Crisis Management 16, 24–36.

Klein, R. J. T., Schipper, E. L. F., Dessai, S., 2005, ‘Inte-

grating mitigation and adaptation into climate and

development policy: three research questions’,

Environmental Science and Policy 8(6), 579–588.

Kristensen, E., Bouillon, S., Dittmar, T., Marchand, C.,

2008, ‘Organic carbon dynamics in mangrove eco-

systems: a review’, Aquatic Botany, 89(2), 201–219.

Mazda, Y., Magi, M., Kogo, M., Hong, P. N., 2004, ‘Man-

groves as a coastal protection from waves in the Tong

King Delta, Vietnam’, Mangoves and Salt Marshes 1,

127–135.

McCartney, M. P., Sullivan, C., Acreman, M. C., 2001,

Ecosystem Impacts of Large Dams, IUCN, UNEP &

WCD., Gland, Switzerland.

Mekong River Comission, 2007, The Current Status of

Environmental Criteria for Hydropower Development in

the Mekong Region [available at www.mrcmekong.

org/download/free_download/ECHD_Technical_

Document.pdf].

Mirza, M. M. Q., Warrick, R. A., Ericksen, N .J., Kenny, G.

J., 2001, ‘Are floods getting worse in the Ganges,

Brahmaputra and Meghna basins?’, Global Environ-

mental Change Part B: Environmental Hazards 3(2),

37–48.

Mitra, A., Sengupta, K., Banerjee, K., 2011, ‘Standing

biomass and carbon storage of above-ground

structures in dominant mangrove trees in the Sun-

darbans’, Forest Ecology and Management 261(7),

1325–1335.

Nouvellon, Y., Epron, D., Kinana, A., Hamel, O.,

Mabiala, A., D’Annunzio, R., Deleporte, P., Saint-

Andre, L., Marsden, C., Roupsard, O., Bouillet, J.-P.,

Laclau, J.-P., 2008, ‘Soil CO2 effluxes, soil carbon

balance, and early tree growth following savannah

afforestation in Congo: comparison of two site prep-

aration treatments’, Forest Ecology and Management,

255(5–6), 1926–1936.

O’Brien, D., Ahmed, I., Hes, D., 2008, Housing

Reconstruction in Aceh: Relationships Between House

Type and Environmental Sustainability [available at

www.grif.umontreal.ca/pages/conferencegrif08/32-

OBrien.pdf].

Disaster risk management and low-carbon development 277

CLIMATE AND DEVELOPMENT

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 0

7:22

08

Oct

ober

201

4

Osti, R., Tanaka, S., Tokipka, T., 2008, ‘The importance

of mangrove forest in tsunami disaster mitigation’,

Disasters 33(2), 203–213.

Othman, M. A., 1994, ‘Value of mangroves in coastal

protection’, Hydrobiologia 285, 277–282.

Prins, K., Hetsch, S., Hirsch, F., Michalak, R., Pepke, E.,

Steierer, F., 2009, Forest, Wood and Climate Change:

Challenges and Opportunities in the UNECE Region

[available at www.unece.org/oes/nutshell/2009/

4_ForestWoodClimateChange.pdf].

Rashad, S. M., Ismail, M. A., 2000, ‘Environmental

impact assessment of hydro-power in Egypt’,

Applied Energy, 65, 285–302.

Renewable Energy World, 2010, How the Renewable

Energy Community can Help Haiti [available at

www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/

2010 /01/how-the-renewable-energy-community-

can-help-haiti].

Richardson, K., Steffen, W., Schellnhuber, H. J., Alcamo,

J., Barker, T., Kammen, D. M., Leemans, R., Liverman,

D., Munasinghe, M., Osman-Elasha, B., Stern, N.,

Wæver, O., 2009, ‘Climate change. Global risks, chal-

lenges and decisions’, Synthesis Report [available at

http://climatecongress.ku.dk/pdf/synthesisreport/].

Rosa, L. P., Dos Santos, M. A., Matvienko, B., Dos Santos,

E. O., Sikar, E., 2004, ‘Greenhouse gas emissions from

hydroelectrical reservoirs in tropical regions’, Cli-

matic Change 66(1–2), 9–21.

Roseberry, R., 2008, ‘A Balancing Act: an assessment of

the environmental sustainability of permanent

housing constructed by international community

in post-disaster Aceh’, 4th International i-Rec Con-

ference. Building Resilience. Achieving Effective

Post-disaster Reconstruction, May 2008 of Confer-

ence, New Zealand.

Ruiz-Suarez, l. G., Segura, E., Saldana, A., Ordonez, A.,

Hernandez, J.M., Sevilla, E., Hernandez, E., 2003,

Greenhouse Gases Emissions Estimates from a Projected

Hydroelectrical Dam in Mexico [available at www.coa

linfo.net.cn/coalbed/meeting/2203/papers/economics/

EC016.pdf].

Scheffer, F., Schachtschabel, P., 2009, Text Book of Soil

Science, Spektrum Academic Publishers, Heidelbergd

(in German: Lehrbuch der Bodenkunde).

Schultz, B., 2002, ‘Role of dams in irrigation, drainage

and flood control’, International Journal of Water

Resources Development, 18, 147–162.

Strzepek, K. M., Yohe, G. W., Tol, R. S. J., Rosegrant,

M.W., 2008, ‘The value of the high Aswan Dam to

the Egyptian economy’, Ecological Economics 66(1),

117–126.

Sudmeier-Rieux, K., Ash, N., 2009, Environmental Gui-

dance – Note for Disaster Risk Management, revised

edn, Nature, Switzerland.

Suratman, M. N., 2008, ‘Carbon sequestration potential

of Mangroves in Southeast Asia’, Managing Forest

Ecosystems 17, 1568–1319.

Tarbela Dam and Related Aspects of the Indus River

Basin Pakistan, Final report [available at www.

dams.org/docs/kbase/studies/cspkmain.pdf].

Tearfund, 2009, CEDRA – Climate Change and

Environmental Degradation Risk and Adaptation

Assessment, Tearfund.

The Sphere Project, 2010, The Sphere Handbook [avail-

able at www.sphereproject.org/content/view/443/

264/lang,english/].

Trumper, K., Bertzky, M., Dickson, B., Van der

Heijden, G., Jenkins, M., Manning, P., 2009, The

Natural Fix? The Role of Ecosystems in Climate Miti-

gation. A UNEP Rapid Response Assessment, UNEP,

Cambridge.

Tucuruı Hydropower Complex Brazil [available at www.

dams.org/docs/kbase/studies/csbrmain.pdf].

Tyndall Centre, 2009, Climate Change in a Myopic

World, Tyndall Briefing Note No. 36 [available at

www.tyn dall.ac.uk/publications/briefing_notes/

bn36.pdf].

UNEP, 2007, Environment and Disaster Risk – Emerging

Perspectives [available at http://postconflict.unep.

ch/publications/env_vulnerability.pdf].

UNEP, 2010, Humanitarian Operations go Green

[available at www.unep.org/Documents.Multilin

gual/Default.asp?DocumentID=646&ArticleID=6724

&l=en].

UNEP and SKAT, 2007, After the Tsunami – Sustainable

building guidelines for South-East Asia, Programme,

U. N. E. & SKAT., Washington, DC.

UNEP and UNISDR, 2008, Opportunities in Environmental

Management for Disaster Risk management: Recent Pro-

gress. A Practice Area Review: In Contribution to the

Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk management

[available at www.preventionweb.net/english/

hyogo/gar/background-papers/ documents/Chap5/

thematic-progress-reviews/UNEP-Environmental-

Management-for-DRM.pdf].

UNFCCC, 2010, LULUCF: Land Use and Land Use

Change and Forestry [available at http://unfccc.int/

methods_and_science/lulucf/items/3060.php].

UN Habitat, 2007, Rethinking Emergencies. Sustainable

Relief and Reconstruction. Synopsis from World Urban

Forum II & III [available at www.unhabitat.org/down-

loads/docs/5501_34505_SRR%20II.pdf].

278 Urban et al.

CLIMATE AND DEVELOPMENT

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 0

7:22

08

Oct

ober

201

4

UNISDR, 2004, Living with Risk – A Global Review of

Disaster Reduction Initiatives, UN, Geneva.

UNISDR, 2005a, Hyogo Framework for Action 2005–2015:

Building the Resilience of Nations and Communities to

Disasters (HFA).

UNISDR, 2005b, Words into Action: A Guide for Imple-

menting the Hyogo Framework, Geneva.

UNISDR, 2007, Drought Risk Management Framework

and Practices: Contributing to the Implementation

of the Hyogo Framework for Action [available at

www.unisdr.org/eng/about_isdr/isdr-publications/

10-drought-risk-reduction/drought-risk-reduction.

pdf].

UN-REDD Programme, 2010, About REDD+ [avail-

able at www.un-redd.org/AboutREDD/tabid/582/

language/en-US/Default.aspx].

Urban, F., 2010, ‘Pro-poor low carbon development and

the role of growth’, International Journal of Green

Economics 4(1), 82–93.

Urban, F., Sumner, A., 2009, After 2015: Pro-Poor Low

Carbon Development, IDS, Brighton.

Van Bodegom, A. J., Savenije, H., Wit, H., 2009, Forest

and Climate Change: Adaptation and Mitigation, Inter-

national, Wageningen.

Wang, G., 2010, Interview with DFID climate change

advisor.

Wang, L., Okin, G. S., Caylor, K. K., Macko, S. A., 2009,

‘Spatial heterogeneity and sources of soil carbon in

southern African savannahs’, Geoderma, 149(3–4),

402–408.

WEC (World Energy Council), 2000, Energy for Tomor-

row’s World – Acting Now, World Energy Council,

London.

WEC (World Energy Council), 2001, Living in One

World: Sustainability from an Energy Perspective,

World Energy Council, London.

WEC (World Energy Council), 2007, 2007 Survey of

Energy Resources [available at www.worldenergy.org/

documents/ser2007_final_online_version_1.pdf].

WHO (World Health Organisation), 2005, Indoor Air

Pollution and Health [available at www.who.int/

mediacentre/factsheets/fs292/en/].

WHO (World Health Organisation), 2006, Indoor Air

Pollution. Fuel for Life: Household Energy and Health

[available at www.who.int/indoorair/publications/

fuelforlife/en/index.html].

Wisions of Sustainability, 2010, Sustainable Energy

for Poverty Reduction [available at www.wisions.

net/files/downloads/PREP_10_Poverty_Reduction.

pdf].

Witt, G. B., Noel, M. V., Bird, M. I., Beeton, R. J. S.,

Menzies, N. W., 2011, ‘Carbon sequestration

and biodiversity restoration potential of semi-arid

Mulga lands of Australia interpreted from long-term

grazing exclosures’, Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environ-

ment, doi:10.1016/j.agee.2011.02.020.

Woomer, P. L., Toure, A., SAll, M., 2004, ‘Carbon stocks

in Senegal’s Sahel Transition Zone’, Journal of Arid

Environments 59(3), 499–510.

World Commission on Dams, 2000, Dams and Develop-

ment: A New Framework for Decision-Making [available

at www.dams.org/].

World Commission on Dams, 2000a, The WCD –

Frequently Asked Questions and Answers [available at

www.dams.org/about/].

World Commission on Dams, 2000b, Information about

Several Dams.

World Commission on Dams, 2001, Dams and Develop-

ment – A New Framework for Decision-Making.

Chapter 3: Ecosystems and Large Dams: Environ-

mental Performance [available at www.dams.org//

docs/report/wcdch3.pdf].

Disaster risk management and low-carbon development 279

CLIMATE AND DEVELOPMENT

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 0

7:22

08

Oct

ober

201

4