SESSION 2
What is Ecosystem-based Disaster Risk Reduction (Eco-DRR)?
Session 2.1: Linking ecosystems to disaster risk reduction
FACILITATION GUIDANCE
Overall
The objective of Session 2.1 is to establish the linkages between environment and
objective of the disasters, and between ecosystem services and disaster risk reduction.
session
Learning
objectives
Key messages
Session outline
At the end of the session, participants will:
1. Understand that environmental conditions, ecosystems, livelihoods,
disaster risks and climate risks are all closely related;
2. Appreciate the different services provided by different types of
ecosystems;
3. Appreciate the value and cost-effectiveness of ecosystem management
as a risk reduction strategy;
4. Understand how ecosystem management can be integrated into disaster
risk reduction in practice.
 Disasters have environmental causes and consequences.
 Ecosystems provide benefits for disaster risk reduction: they mitigate
hazards, reduce vulnerability and increase resilience of livelihoods.
 Eco-DRR is a cost-effective disaster prevention strategy; therefore,
ecosystem services for DRR should be sustained and enhanced.
Presentation: Linking ecosystems to DRR
Film screening
Q&A
Group discussion
Total time
60 minutes
30 minutes
90 minutes
SESSION OUTLINE DESCRIPTION
Presentation: Linking ecosystems to DRR (60 min)
Slides 1-2:
Overview of the presentation: objective, structure, topics covered.
PART I. Disasters, environment, ecosystems: the linkages
This segment provides an overview of the linkages between environment and disasters, and between
ecosystem management (ecosystem services) and disaster risk reduction. It also briefly discusses
various environmental sustainability entry points throughout all phases of disaster risk reduction/
management practice (called for ease of reference the ‘disaster management spiral’). Case studies
and country examples are featured throughout the presentation.
PEDRR Eco-DRR Course – SESSION 2.1 – FACILITATION GUIDANCE
DRAFT April 2011
1
Slide 3: What is a disaster?
Disaster risk = Hazard x Vulnerability (including Exposure).
Disaster occurs when multiple conditions are present: hazard, vulnerability (high exposure, low
resilience) of community and assets, and low coping capability. Stress that disaster are not natural.
Natural hazards by themselves do not cause disasters – it is the combination of an exposed,
vulnerable and ill-prepared community with a hazard event that results in a disaster.
NOTE: Information on disaster statistics in Sri Lanka (/national context) can be used here (with or
without using an additional slide).
 Distribute Handout 1: Selected disaster terminology
 (optional) Distribute Handout 6: Sri Lanka – Natural Hazard Risk Map
Slide 4: What is an ecosystem
Link to the previous slide by stressing the link between environmental conditions and disasters: on
one hand, many disasters are either caused or exacerbated by environmental degradation on the
other, disaster events can have wide-reaching negative consequences on the environment
NOTE: This message will be developed later on, so only briefly mention the issues to make the link
with ecosystems.
Slide 5: Ecosystem services
People derive indispensable benefits from nature, also referred to as ecosystem services. These
include provisioning services, such as food, fuel and water; regulating services such as natural
hazard mitigation, erosion control and water purification; cultural services such as recreational and
other nonmaterial benefits; and supporting services such as soil formation and nutrient cycling. Most
relevant for disaster risk reduction are the provisioning and regulating ecosystem services, presented
more in detail in the handout table.
 Distribute Handout 2: Types of ecosystem services.
NOTE: Information on ecosystem types in Sri Lanka (/national context) can be used here (with or
without using an additional slide with a map).
 (optional) Distribute Handout 7: Ecosystems in Sri Lanka pending
Questions for participants (Slides 4, 5)
 How do ecosystem services support your daily work/activities (directly or indirectly)? What
type of services?
Slide 6: Environmental causes and consequences of disasters (1/2)
The graphic explains how environmental conditions can increase disaster risk, and that disasters can
have environmental consequences, which in turn can increase existing and create new
environmental vulnerabilities.
Environmental causes/drivers of disasters are discussed more in detail in Slides 7-9
Slides 7-8: Environmental drivers: Climate change and extreme events  increased hazard risk
Although disasters are mainly caused by marginalized populations pushed to live in exposed places,
(or well-off people exposing themselves to risk for better views), climate change is expected to
PEDRR Eco-DRR Course – SESSION 2.1 – FACILITATION GUIDANCE
DRAFT April 2011
2
exacerbate existing vulnerabilities. Most predictions point to a higher frequency, magnitude and
location of extreme events, such as storms, floods and droughts. Climate change also is also expected
to compromise the functioning of ecosystems, weakening their ability to deliver goods and services
and protect against hazard impacts.
Slides 9-10: Environmental drivers: Degradation of natural infrastructure  increased vulnerability
to hazards
Environmental degradation, such as deforestation, soil erosion and loss of wetlands can cause or
exacerbate disasters. This has been evidenced in areas like Haiti, where very high rates of
deforestation have led to increased susceptibility to floods and landslides. In the U.S., the
devastation caused by 2005 Hurricane Katrina was aggravated due to canalisation, drainage and
settlement of Mississippi wetlands and floodplains, decrease in delta sedimentation due to dams and
levees, and degradation of barrier islands. In Pakistan, removal of vegetation and road construction
increased landslide susceptibility following the 2005 earthquake.
Slides 11-12: Environmental drivers: Degradation of natural resources reduced livelihood
resilience
Degradation of natural resources and the services people derive from ecosystems reduces socioeconomic resilience to hazard impacts. Poor communities are particularly affected, as their
livelihoods depend heavily on natural resources and ecosystem services. This was the case for
example in Myanmar, where pre-existing degradation of coastal vegetation limited livelihood
recovery efforts following the devastating impacts of cyclone Nargis in 2005.
Questions for participants
 Can you think of examples of issues presented in Slides 9-12 in Sri Lanka (/in your country)?
 How has the degradation of natural infrastructure increased the vulnerability of communities
to natural hazards? What other drivers of vulnerabilities come into play (e.g., poverty,
income inequality, unsustainable land management, etc)?
 How has the degradation of natural resources contributed to the higher vulnerability of
livelihoods and assets to natural hazards, and a lower capacity of communities to recover
from a disaster?
Slide 13: Environmental causes and consequences of disasters (2/2)
Disaster events can have wide-reaching negative consequences on the environment, including:
(i) Direct damage to natural resources and ecosystem functions (i.e. from hazard impacts
directly, or due to poor management of post-disaster clean up processes, especially the
dumping of debris in waterways or wetlands);
(ii) Acute emergencies from uncontrolled release of hazardous substances (i.e. from destroyed
industries);
(iii) Indirect damage due to unsustainable use of natural resources by disaster response and
recovery operations. (i.e. mining of sand dunes, a natural coastal barrier, for building
materials)
(iv) Spread of invasive species (i.e. through contamination by vehicles and clean up efforts).
As a result of environmental damage, pre-existing vulnerabilities to disasters in the affected area may
be exacerbated, or worse, new vulnerabilities and risk patterns may emerge.
Slide 14: Women more vulnerable to disasters and to environmental degradation
Women are more vulnerable and exposed to natural hazards due to gender inequalities, such as
limited access to information, socio-cultural norms that restrict women’s mobility or impose
impractical dress codes, and poor physical condition due to poor health and malnutrition. As a result,
women are less able to protect themselves, their children and their assets during, and after, a
disaster. Poor women are also particularly vulnerable to environmental degradation due to their
PEDRR Eco-DRR Course – SESSION 2.1 – FACILITATION GUIDANCE
DRAFT April 2011
3
heavy reliance on natural resources for livelihoods. Disasters such as flooding and drought impact
directly on women in their roles as providers of food, water and fuel. Food security and family wellbeing are threatened when the ecosystems on which women rely to carry out their critical roles and
obtain supplementary incomes is undermined.
During emergencies, women are less likely to have access to information about assistance than men.
In Bangladesh, women suffered the most following the cyclone and flood of 1991. Among women
aged 20-44, the death rate was 71 per 1000, compared to 15 per 1000 for men. Warning information
was transmitted by men to men in public spaces, but rarely communicated to the rest of the family.
Also, women were not allowed to leave the houses without a male relative, and many perished
waiting for their relatives to return home and take them to a safe place. Women constitute up to
80% of refugee and displaced populations worldwide, and in emergency situations women and
children may typically make up 70 to 80% of those needing assistance.
[Source: Adapted from IUCN. Climate change and disaster mitigation. Gender Makes the Difference]
Questions for participants
 How are women impacted differently than men by disasters? Why is this so – i.e due to
different roles in household and livelihood management?
Slide 15: Ecosystems reduce disaster risk in two important ways
1. Well-managed ecosystems, such as wetlands, forests and coastal systems, reduce physical
exposure to natural hazards, such as landslides, flooding, avalanches, storm surges, wildfires and
drought by serving as natural protective barriers or buffers.
The physical risk reduction capacity of ecosystems depends on their health and structure, and
the intensity of the hazard event. Degraded ecosystems can sometimes still play a buffering role,
although to a much lesser extent than fully functioning ecosystems.
2. Ecosystems increase resilience and reduce social-economic vulnerability to hazard impacts by
sustaining human livelihoods and providing essential goods such as food, fibre, medicines and
construction materials that are important in strengthening human security and resilience against
disasters. For example, in addition to providing coastal hazard protection, mangroves, coral reefs
and seagrass beds support fishing and tourism activities.
 Distribute Handout 3: Hazard mitigation functions of ecosystems.
Slide 16: Ecosystems reduce disaster risk in urban areas
Urban inhabitants account for half of the world’s population, around 3.4 billion people. Urban
growth is estimated to continue rapidly and by 2050, cities will be home to 6 billion people, almost
70% of the population. Urbanization transforms land-use and social structures, and redefines
environmental risks, including those related to natural hazards. Floods and droughts, hazards
traditionally affecting rural areas, are increasingly striking cities all over the world, resulting from
factors that amplify urban risks.
Cities depend on their surrounding areas for the provision of essential food and raw materials, for
absorbing their waste and emissions, and, in many cases, obtain hazard regulation services from
these areas. For example, healthy watersheds surrounding urban areas provide freshwater, absorb
wastewaters, provide recreation areas, and can regulate urban flood and landslide incidence by
regulating rainwater flows and stabilising slopes.
Local urban ecosystems are a combination of artificial, semi-artificial and natural elements, such as
street trees, lawns and parks, urban forests, cultivated land and gardens, and wetlands and streams.
PEDRR Eco-DRR Course – SESSION 2.1 – FACILITATION GUIDANCE
DRAFT April 2011
4
These urban green and blue areas provide direct ecosystem services locally (such as rainwater
drainage, or a healthy and satisfying living environment); and urban wetlands and green areas absorb
and store excess waters, buffering against floods.
Ecosystems provide multiple valuable services to urban inhabitants, often overlapping or
complementing those that local governments are competent for. Water treatment, hazard
protection, noise reduction or climate regulation, to name a few, can often be delivered very costefficiently when recurring to the ecosystem-based alternatives, or by designing a mixed
natural/engineered solution.
 Distribute Handout 4: The drivers of urban risk.
Questions for participants
 How is urbanization linked to ecosystem degradation?
 What types of ecosystems and ecosystem services should be taken into account in urban
planning? How can urban communities directly benefit from ecosystem services?
 How should ecosystems services be protected and maintained in urban settings (i.e. through
legislation, awareness and education at different levels)?
Slide 17: Ecosystems and disaster recovery
Following a disaster event, affected communities especially in poor, rural areas often turn to their
surrounding environment for meeting immediate needs (food, water, shelter). Well-managed or
healthy ecosystems are able to better support the recovery needs of communities. Ecosystems and
the resources they provide form an essential part of local coping and recovery strategies and should
be better acknowledged in recovery operations as well as in long-term disaster risk reduction
strategies.
Questions for participants
 Can you think of an example where an ecosystem/ecosystem services contributed to
recovery activities after a disaster?
Slide 18: Ecosystems and climate change mitigation and adaptation
Sustainable ecosystem management also yields important benefits for climate change mitigation
through carbon sequestration (forests and peatlands), and for climate change adaptation by
buffering against extreme weather events and securing natural assets needed to make livelihoods
resilient to climate change impacts.
Slide 19: Film screening: Multiple benefits of ecosystems. Example: wetlands
Title:
Ramsar Convention on Wetlands
Key issues:
Multiple benefits of wetlands, including hazard mitigation
Link: http://www.goodplanet.info/Contenu/Videos/L-objectif-de-la-convention-deRamsar-la-protection-des-zones-humides/(theme)/306
Duration:
4:34
Questions for participants
PENDING
PEDRR Eco-DRR Course – SESSION 2.1 – FACILITATION GUIDANCE
DRAFT April 2011
5
Slide 20: Part II of the presentation. Integrating ecosystem management and disaster risk
reduction/ management: Ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction.
This segment of the presentation discusses how and why ecosystem management can/should be
integrated into disaster reduction strategies, and throughout all phases of disaster management.
Slide 21: Environment in all phases of disaster management
The graphic presents the disaster management spiral, illustrating how long-term sustainability can be
strengthened by improving pre-disaster conditions, reducing risk and vulnerability, and increasing the
resilience of local communities. An upward movement along the spiral indicates that risk reduction
and preparedness measures are gradually put into place, thereby reducing vulnerability to disasters
and the need for emergency assistance in the event of a disaster.
NOTE: In a spiral, disaster-related activities are linked as a continuum, but not in a cyclical manner
(i.e. that would assume there is always a subsequent disaster event when the cycle is complete).
Environmental safeguards can and should be integrated in all phases of disaster management, to
improve overall sustainability and to ensure that ‘we move up the spiral’. Conversely, if
environmental considerations are not taken into account, subsequent environmental degradation
may increase future vulnerabilities, create new risks and cause shortcomings in disaster risk
reduction ( ‘moving down the spiral’).
The different entry points in disaster management (in the graph) are as follows:
 Risk and vulnerability assessments: include environmental factors in risk / vulnerability
assessments
 Risk reduction: use ecosystem-based and hybrid measures; use integrated policies and
collaboration
 Preparedness: include environmental monitoring
 Disaster response: avoid damage to natural resources and ecosystem functions, ‘build back
safer’; rehabilitate ecosystems;
 Sustainable development: strengthen environmentally sustainable livelihoods
 Distribute Handout 5: Environmental entry points in disaster risk management.
Slide 22: Separate spheres: Environment and DRR
Despite obvious linkages, environmental management and disaster risk reduction/ management are
usually dealt with by a different set of institutional actors and are regulated by different sets of legal
and regulatory frameworks, both at national and global policy level. However, with the growing
incidence of disasters, and environmental causes and consequences of disasters, the linkages
between the two spheres need to be acknowledged and steps need to be taken to increase their
synergies.
This workshop illustrates how environmental management and ecosystem services can be integrated
into disaster risk reduction practices – what is called eco-DRR. It demonstrates how eco-DRR, as an
integrated approach, is a more sustainable approach to development than environmental
management and DRR undertaken separately.
Slide 23: Ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction (eco-DRR)
Eco-DRR = sustainable management, conservation and restoration of ecosystems to provide services
that mitigate hazards and increase livelihood resilience.
Slide 24: Why eco-DRR: Cost-effective, multiple benefit strategy
PEDRR Eco-DRR Course – SESSION 2.1 – FACILITATION GUIDANCE
DRAFT April 2011
6
Ecosystem-based DRR can be regarded as a cost-effective strategy because of the multiple benefits
ecosystems provide regardless of a disaster event, and due to their relatively low-cost maintenance.
In many cases, maintaining and restoring natural infrastructure can offer high benefit-cost ratios
compared to human-built infrastructure, when taking into account the full range of benefits provided
by ecosystems. For example, coastal green belts or wetlands as natural buffers are often less
expensive to install and maintain than dykes or concrete walls, while also providing supplementary
ecosystem services to local livelihoods
A set of examples/ case studies will now be used to illustrate how eco-DRR is conceived and has been
applied in different contexts.
Slides 25-27: Illustrations of ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction.
Use the most appropriate examples for the training context. A short video can also be shown, if
available.
NOTE: The facilitator should prepare a few questions related to the video shown or the case study
selected to guide the discussion.
EXAMPLES OF ECOSYSTEM-BASED DISASTER RISK REDUCTION
Restoring wetlands for flood mitigation and local development, China
In Hubei Province, a wetland restoration programme by WWF and partners reconnected lakes to Yangtze River
and rehabilitated 448 km2 of wetlands with a capacity to store up to 285 million m 3 of floodwaters. The local
government subsequently reconnected further eight lakes covering 350 km2. Sluice gates at lakes have been
seasonally re-opened, and illegal aquaculture facilities have been removed or modified. Local administration
has designated lake and marshland areas as nature reserves. In addition to contributing to flood prevention,
restored lakes and floodplains have enhanced biodiversity, increased income from fisheries by 20-30% and
improved water quality to drinkable level. While central government was principally concerned to reduce flood
risk, local communities and governments were motivated by better access to clean water and increased
incomes. Working in partnership with government agencies has ensured that new practices are mainstreamed
in daily operations, and similar measures are adopted at other areas.
International transboundary watershed management for DRR, Mexico and Guatemala
In 2005, Hurricane Stan caused severe flooding and mudslides in Guatemala and Mexico, with over 2,000
deaths and material damages of up to USD 40 million. Roads, bridges, water supply systems, crops and other
livelihood assets were destroyed. The devastation served as a catalyst to reduce the impact from future
hurricanes. IUCN and partners initiated an integrated watershed management programme on the border area
between the department of San Marcos, Guatemala, and the state of Chiapas, Mexico, encompassing the
watersheds of the Suchiate, Coatán and Cahoacán Rivers. Through ecosystem restoration, such as soil
conservation and sustainable agricultural practices, the project aims to reverse watershed degradation, secure
water supply to settlements, agriculture and livestock downstream, and reduce the risk of devastating floods
caused by tropical storms and hurricanes. The project also seeks to ensure that local authorities and natural
resource-dependent people have tools and information to develop and implement water resource
management plans. The project promotes multi-stakeholder participation, and local communities are now
organized into micro-watershed councils that have developed micro-watershed management plans for villages.
A river basin committee for the Cahoacán River has also been established.
PEDRR Eco-DRR Course – SESSION 2.1 – FACILITATION GUIDANCE
DRAFT April 2011
7
Coastal buffers and integrated coastal zone management, Bangladesh
Bangladesh, one of the most vulnerable coastal countries, has since the 1960s invested in coastal afforestation,
with the aim of reducing the impact of cyclones and tidal surges through coastal green belts (such as
mangroves). Additional objectives include stabilisation of newly accreted mud flats, timber production,
alternative livelihoods for remote rural communities, and protection of biodiversity. Coastal afforestation is a
coordinated effort between the government, NGOs and local people. People’s livelihoods are improved
through timber, fodder and fuelwood production, and cash income from group-based forestry activities. In
addition, plantations on newly accreted coastal lands facilitate the settlement of poor and displaced people.
The integrated coastal zone management adopted in Bangladesh has provided a sound basis for sustainable
management of coastal resources, fostering multi-agency and multi-stakeholder participation, and contributing
to the social, environmental and economic wellbeing of coastal communities.
(Source: PEDRR, 2010)
Slides 28-29: Illustration of ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction in urban contexts
Urban environmental policies, strategies, and tools should incorporate risk reduction, and, viceversa, urban disaster risk reduction planning should take into account how local and surrounding
ecosystems may increase (through environmental degradation) or reduce (through natural buffers
and resilient livelihoods) disaster risks.
Use the most appropriate examples for the training context. A short video can also be shown, if
available.
NOTE: The facilitator should prepare a few questions related to the video shown or the case study
selected to guide the discussion.
EXAMPLES OF ECOSYSTEM-BASED DISASTER RISK REDUCTION IN URBAN SETTINGS
Wetlands reducing urban flooding, Vientiane, Lao PDR
The capital city Vientiane experiences frequent heavy rainfall, resulting in overflowing drains and urban
flooding. Flooding occurs at least six times annually, damaging buildings and infrastructure. Wetlands in the
surrounding areas absorb a proportion of the floodwater, and considerably reduce the damages. The annual
flood protection value of the wetlands (using value of avoided flood damages) has been estimated to be close
to US$ 5 million.
Community reforestation for slope stability, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
The Community Reforestation Project in Rio de Janeiro was established to reduce soil erosion and to improve
the socio-economic conditions of the city's poorest residents. Favelas - informal squatter settlements
established on the hillsides of the city - have long suffered from a lack of basic municipal services as they have
developed outside formal urban planning structures. The rapid growth of favelas on the steep slopes has led to
severe soil erosion and resulting problems with landslides, drainage and disease infestation. Through
community reforestation with favela residents, the city has not only reduced erosion and landslides, but also
created much needed employment and fostered community involvement.
Making space for water – UK
In 2005, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) launched Making Space for Water as
an innovative country strategy for flood and coastal erosion risk management in the UK, triggered by severe
flooding events in recent years. In the past, protection against floods and coastal erosion had heavily relied on
rigid, human-made structures along riverbanks and coastlines, requiring constant repair and costly upgrades.
The new approach adopts the use of natural infrastructure and processes for risk management, such as
planting trees as shelterbelts, vegetative buffer strips along riverbanks, creation of retention ponds and
wetlands for increased flood storage capacity, and sustainable management of urban rivers and floodplains.
River and floodplain restoration for flood protection: the Living River Project, Napa, US
The Napa river basin in California is subject to severe winter storms and frequent flooding. The property
damage potential within the floodplain is calculated well over US$ 500 million. After a major flood in 1986, the
federal government proposed constructing levees and implementing structural modification of the riverbanks.
Local citizens opposed the plan, concerned by the risk of saline water intrusion, water quality degradation and
the disposal of contaminated dredge material. The “Living River Initiative” was proposed in response – a
comprehensive flood control plan to reconnect the river to its historic floodplain and restore its original
PEDRR Eco-DRR Course – SESSION 2.1 – FACILITATION GUIDANCE
DRAFT April 2011
8
capacity to retain floodwaters. Since 2000, the programme has reconverted close to 300 hectares around the
city of Napa into marshes, wetlands and mudflats, retained natural channel features like mud flats, shallows
and sandbars, and supported a continuous fish and riparian corridor along the river. The programme has
reduced flood-related losses, such as property damage, cleanup costs and the need for flood insurance. It has
also prompted an economic renaissance along the river, which earlier was viewed as an uncertain area for
property development, with approximately US$ 400 million being spent on private development investment in
downtown Napa. Urban citizens’ health has improved with access to trails and recreation areas. By 2015, the
project will protect over 7,000 people and 3,000 residential/commercial units from flooding. The project has a
high benefit-cost ratio with over US$ 1.6 billion expected savings in flood damages.
Restoration of vegetation to prevent landslides, Seattle, US
Landslides are a widespread, frequent, and costly hazard in Seattle due to its geological features, topography
characterized by steep slopes, and a climate with wet winters and frequent rain. Climate change is likely to
increase slope instability through more frequent and intense precipitation and subsequent saturation of soils.
Following disastrous landslides in the 1990s, the city of Seattle in collaboration with the US Geological Survey
and the State of Washington carried out extensive research to identify landslides prone areas, and issued
regulations within the Seattle Municipal Code for landslide risk prevention. These regulations include detailed
requirements on the maintenance and restoration of vegetation in areas prone to landslides. The regulations
are presented to Seattle residents, among others, in user-friendly “Client Assistance Memos” and through
public meetings.
Green aeration corridors, Stuttgart, Germany
The city of Stuttgart is susceptible to poor air quality as it is located in a valley basin, with mild climate and low
winds and with extensive surrounding industrial activity. Urban development up the slopes has worsened the
situation by hindering air circulation in the city and contributing to an urban heat island effect. Stuttgart has
planned to exploit natural wind patterns and vegetation in reducing overheating and air pollution. A Climate
Atlas for the Stuttgart region was developed, with information on temperature distribution and cold air flows
according to the topography and land use in the city. A number of subsequent planning and zoning regulations
to preserve open space and increase the presence of vegetation in densely built-up areas have been
recommended.
Preserving wetlands for climate change resilience, New Orleans, US
Following the disastrous failure of flood defence structures during Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the State of
Louisiana and the City of New Orleans have undertaken steps to increase the resilience to sea-level rise,
hurricanes and river flooding. An approach using several lines of defence has been adopted. One of the key
protection measures is the conservation and restoration of wetlands as a buffer zone between the sea and the
city. Detailed actions promoting wetlands as green infrastructure are included in the New Orleans Masterplan,
signalling a significant change, from an emphasis on levees and floodgates to the incorporation of more natural
solutions in flood defence. The focus on wetlands as a natural buffer responds to the calls of research
emphasizing the importance of wetlands in flood protection.
Slide 30: Limits of ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction.
Ecosystem-based DRR interventions, like all DRR activities, reduce but do not remove risk. Ecosystem
composition (size, density, species) and health, and the type and intensity of the hazard event affect
ecosystems’ effectiveness in hazard regulation. For instance, using forests to stabilize avalancheprone slopes reduces the frequency of avalanches but not the fact that avalanches will still occur
under specific conditions. The force of tsunamis is, in many cases, too strong for coastal vegetation –
just like for most seawalls – but natural buffers nevertheless offer important protection against
storms, extreme waves and other more frequent coastal events, as well as provide valuable
livelihood benefits to local communities.
In some cases, natural buffers are not feasible due to biological limitations, space constraints,
incompatibility with priority land uses, or prohibitive costs.
Sometimes a hybrid approach, combining both natural and human-built infrastructure may be most
effective and appropriate. For example, wetlands can be used to reduce wave action to protect
human-built levees, increasing their effectiveness and lifespan. However, especially in the context of
climate change and the scale of solutions needed to adapt to increasing weather extremes, humanPEDRR Eco-DRR Course – SESSION 2.1 – FACILITATION GUIDANCE
DRAFT April 2011
9
built infrastructure may not be feasible due to its high costs and technology requirements.
Conventional engineering solutions may also generate adverse environmental impacts, such as
altering sedimentation patterns, and may fail dramatically, amplifying disaster damage.
Finally, ecosystem-based risk reduction needs to be grounded in good understanding of the natural
environment and the local context. Conventional human-built DRR methods such as floodwalls and
storm channels require engineering expertise. Similarly, environment-based risk reduction requires
consultation with environmental specialists. To be effective, the use of ecosystem-system based
activities requires reliable data on hazard frequency as well as a good understanding of the ecological
context, such as the geologic and hydrologic conditions of a given area as well as the plant-wildlifehuman interactions that take place.
Questions for participants
 What are the limitations of natural buffers that you can think of? (The facilitator can give
examples of hazards in a particular context as explained above, i.e. tsunami, avalanche, etc).
 In your experience, how did human-built infrastructure mitigate a particular hazard? Could
natural infrastructure play the same role in that situation - or could it be combined with
engineered infrastructure?
Discussion (30 min)
Invite participants to raise questions on the issues presented and illustrated through the case studies
and videos. Make sure the discussion is not diverted towards items that will be discussed further on;
actively encourage participants to share their own experiences in relation to the issues presented.
Equally, if a ‘bad’ practice example is presented, ask participants to think about the alternative
measures that could be/ have been taken.
 Guiding questions for the facilitator are inserted along various slides. The facilitators can ask
these questions either at that particular time, or use them to guide the discussion at the end of the
presentation.
NOTE: The key messages of Session 2.1 will be presented at the end of Day 1, in a 30-minutes wrapup session.
Following the discussion, invite participants to take a coffee/tea break (20 min).
ESSENTIAL READING FOR FACILITATORS
PEDRR (2010). Demonstrating the role of ecosystem-based management for disaster risk reduction.
Partnership for Environment and Disaster Risk Reduction.
http://www.pedrr.net/PEDRR%20GAR%20paper-%20Post-Bonn_October%202010.pdf
Sudmeier-Rieux, K. and Ash, N. (2009). Environmental guidance note for disaster risk reduction. IUCN:
Gland. http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/guidancenoteoct2009.pdf
TEEB (2009) The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity for National and International Policy
Makers – Summary: Responding to the Value of Nature.
http://www.teebweb.org/InformationMaterial/TEEBReports/tabid/1278/Default.aspx
UNISDR. (2009) Terminology on disaster risk reduction.
http://www.unisdr.org/eng/terminology/terminology-2009-eng.html
WWF and American National Red Cross (2010). Green Guide to Disaster Risk Reduction. Module 9.
Green Recovery and Reconstruction: Training Toolkit for Humanitarian Aid. www.greenrecovery.org
PEDRR Eco-DRR Course – SESSION 2.1 – FACILITATION GUIDANCE
DRAFT April 2011
10
FURTHER READING
Kazmierczak A. and Carter J. (2010) Adaptation to climate change using green and blue
infrastructure, a database of case studies. University of Manchester, UK.
http://www.preventionweb.net/english/professional/publications/v.php?id=16880
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). http://www.maweb.org/en/index.aspx
Miththapala, S. (2008) Integrating Environmental Safeguards into Disaster Management. Vol. 1:
Reference Material. IUCN.
Miththapala, S. (2008) Integrating Environmental Safeguards into Disaster Management. Vol. 2: The
Disaster Management Cycle. IUCN.
Miththapala, S. (2009). Incorporating environmental safeguards into disaster risk management. Vol.
3: Tools, techniques and other resources. IUCN.
All 3 volumes:
http://www.iucn.org/what/tpas/livelihoods/resources/documents/?3356/IntegratingEnvironmental-Safeguards-into-Disaster-Management-a-field-manual
TEEB (2010). The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity for local and regional policy makers.
Chapter 4: Ecosystem services in Cities and Public Management.
http://www.teebweb.org/ForLocalandRegionalPolicy/LocalandRegionalPolicyMakersChapter
Drafts/tabid/29433/Default.aspx
PEDRR Eco-DRR Course – SESSION 2.1 – FACILITATION GUIDANCE
DRAFT April 2011
11