Professional Documents
Culture Documents
(eds)
© 2010 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-60034-7
Sergio Mora
Engineering Geologist, Consultant to the World Bank, Costa Rica
ABSTRACT: Risk Management (RM) as we know it, refers to the convolute relationship
between hazards and vulnerability. Natural, socio-natural and anthropogenic hazards, when
mixed with social, environmental, economic and governance vulnerabilities, have consider-
able destructive power. Recent significant events in Latin America, the Caribbean and other
regions of the world have shown that considerable damage could have been avoided, or at least
reduced if only a view on risk, more than to disasters would have been applied. According to
several sources around two thirds of the total damage could have been spared by using space
(land, territory) more wisely, taking better care of the environment, and by offering more
options to the chronic impoverishment of our populations. These closely interlinked factors
have two common keys, most of the time not well understood nor materialized: policy and
strategy. Disasters are socially built; they are the product of a misconception of development
processes and a mismanagement of risk. Their evident social, economic and environmental
consequences lead us to ask: Has traditional Disaster Risk Management (DRM) been effec-
tive? Where are we going with it? Is it true that risk management should always have to be
benchmarked against “disaster reduction”? Why should we continue to call it DRM instead
of RM? Nowadays the most “à la mode” issue is of course climate change (CC). Why and
how has it taken more attention than climate variability (CV), the latter being, at least for the
time being, far more damaging for most nations? Does CC really deserve its present priority,
particularly after the disappointing results of Copenhagen 2010? What is then to be done
about other hazards, not related to climate change? Haven’t they caused and won’t they con-
tinue to cause, at least for the time being, more damage than CC? Again, a renewed effort in
setting down a clear and sound RM policy and strategy is required. Engineering and scientific
communities, even by being able to read Nature’s processes and by having reached a consid-
erable knowledge on hazards, vulnerability and risk, have not yet brought forward a politi-
cally effective risk management proposal. We are not persuasive enough. There is something
wrong or weak in the way we address the topic, stress our arguments and present our results.
It is therefore evident that RM requires new energy, vision and stamina to place it as an
integral cross-cutting policy. There is not a single order of priorities because they have to be
defined according to the mutating realities and circumstances of each nation and community.
However, it seems promising to incorporate RM into national and sub-national development
processes, as a cross-cutting multi-sectoral axis for public and private investment. Mitigation
should be inspired by the definition of “accepted” rather than “acceptable” risk thresholds,
and by metrics establishing sound Cost/Benefit ratios and future loss assessments. But the
most important paradigmatic change would be to associate RM with development planning,
separate from “disaster management”.
89
90
2 RISK MANAGEMENT
Figure 2. A problem tree indicating the most common causes of vulnerability in developing countries
(Mora 2007, 2009).
92
Figure 3. The combination of hazards and vulnerability create the conditions of risk.
93
2
http://www.ecapra.org/capra_wiki/es_wiki/index.php?title=P%C3%A1gina_Principal
94
Figure 5. Risk assessment sequence (Mora et al. 2010; modified from CAPRA: http://www.ecapra.org/es/).
Figure 6. Risk and loss estimate models and scenarios (Modified after Anderson, 2008).
95
3.1 Has the current view of “Disaster” Risk Management (DRM) been effective?
From the perspective of engineering, disasters could be defined as the consequence of a lack
of physical resilience resulting from not complying with or not having safety requirements
and standards. They are also the result of the materialisation of exposure in prone areas,
according to land use planning principles.
Most important of all, disasters are the product of human vulnerability, therefore Nature
does not deserve to be passed the liability generated by societal decisions; disasters should
not be qualified as “natural”. Under this perspective, risk management should have focus not
only on hazards, but also on how vulnerability is generated, increases, accumulates and how
it should be resolved.
Therefore, as of today and keeping in mind the important losses materialized during recent
catastrophic events, very little added value has effectively been made by the current DRM
views, trends and practices.
3.2 The January 12th 2010 earthquake in Haiti: A proof that disasters are not natural
Before daybreak on January 12, 2010, Haiti was rocked by a 7.0 magnitude earthquake
(maximum intensity of X+ on the Modified Mercalli Scale, Figs. 7 and 8) that caused large
scale and substantial human, social, economic, and environmental destruction.
This earthquake ranks among the deadliest and most devastating in the world’s recent
history, equalled only by the 1976 Tangshan earthquake in China, and deals a crippling
blow to Haiti’s development process, claiming at least 230,000 lives and injuring more than
100,000 people.
Almost 600,000 people were left homeless and nearly 300,000 were displaced (Figs. 9 to 16).
All these figures are in addition to another sizeable portion of the population in a similar situ-
ation as a result of the combined effects of poverty, exacerbated by previous disasters, and politi-
cal upheaval, which have plagued Haiti for many years. The earthquake also compounded the
hydro-meteorological disasters of the past two decades, causing additional suffering and pre-
senting an impediment to the restoration of stability of Haiti’s development momentum.
The earthquake caused landslides and liquefaction on the coast, which showed crustal sub-
sidence and uplift, as well as a minor tsunami. This situation resulted in profound psycho-social
Figure 7. Modified Mercalli intensities; January 12th 2010 Haiti earthquake (McCann & Mora 2010
in preparation).
96
Figure 9. The nearly completed and already operating SODEC hospital in downtown Port-au-Prince
(A) December 11th 2009 and (B) February 2010, after collapse during the earthquake due to shearing
and torsion of pillars supporting heavy concrete floors. Several tens of patients, administrative and
medical staff were killed inside.
97
Figure 10. The collapse of unreinforced or poorly reinforced, masonry and concrete slab buildings in
a Canapé Vert shantytown, a neighbourhood in the hills above Port-au-Prince, was due largely to their
brittle construction and unsuitable foundations on steep slopes.
98
Figure 11. Shantytowns, characteristic of those surrounding Port-au-Prince (A) Canapé Vert after the
January 12th 2010 earthquake. (B) Picture taken on December 10th 2009, and (C) after the January 12th
2010 earthquake. Differences in damage to structures are related to minor differences to the quality of
building materials or construction, including masonry lacking steel or brittle steel reinforcement, poor
mixtures of cement/aggregates, etc.
99
Figure 13. The Cathedral at Port au Prince, after the January 12th 2010 Haiti earthquake.
Figure 14. Palais de Justice (Supreme Court Palace), Port au Prince, after the January 12th 2010 Haiti
earthquake.
100
Figure 16. Damage at Port au Prince’s port facilities caused by liquefaction triggered by the January
12th 2010 Haiti earthquake.
101
measures must be taken to change the trend, at least to the proportion of that caused by
human global factors, and attempts be made to mitigate this trend.
The greenhouse effect appeared as soon as the atmosphere was consolidated around our
planet ca. 4.5 billion years ago. It has eventually and continuously varied thanks to the accu-
mulation of volcanic emissions and the incorporation of astronomic materials (e.g. comets,
meteorites, attrition gases). The evolution of its composition has also varied following the
influence of solar and cosmic radiation and the geo-tectonic and telluric fields, the latter
provoking changes of the rotation axis and magnetic field of the planet.
On the other hand, the rate of solar radiation, controlled by the eccentricity and length
of the perihelion, and thus precession (i.e. seasonal variations), produced by retrograde
movements of equinoctial points (i.e. intersection of the equator with the ecliptic), thanks to
whom the equinoxes and solstices occur and vary, are defined as the Milankovitch Cycles4,
after the Serbian astronomer and engineer (Milankovitch 1920, 1930, 1941, Hays et al. 1976,
Muller & MacDonald, 1976, Wunsch, 2004).
The analysis of core samples recovered from drilling through the ice in Antarctica and
Greenland (e.g. Vostok-d180), as well as micro-palaeontology (foraminifera), palynology and
dendrochronology have reconfirmed Milankovitch’s theories. Solar radiation highs and lows
coincide remarkably well with their imprint left on thermo-biological and δ18O glacier ice
indicators. This means that a large proportion of climate change, thus global cooling and
warming cycles, as well as climate variability drivers, have existed almost since our planet has
existed and have accompanied life since its beginnings, as stratigraphic and paleontological
records have proven.
Climate changes have followed the trend of solar radiation and the amount and compo-
sition of green house effect gases, particles and vapours and there have been innumerable
changes and trends in its composition and thermo-dynamical balance.
Evidence and records of these changes and their evolution are beginning to be rich and
precise. One of the better known series of episodes occurred during the Quaternary (latest
2,588,000 years): the glaciations of the Danube, Gunz, Mindel, Riss and Würm (I, II, III)
and their respective interglacial periods.
4
Milankovitch cycles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
102
Würm III started about 11,000 years ago, after a sudden decrease in temperatures during
the Younger Dryas episode5, which suddenly interrupted the progressive warming at the end
of the Pleistocene, leading to a decrease of around 5°C in a period of some 15 years, approxi-
mately 11,500 to 12,900 years ago. Its cause was perhaps a partial or a total interruption of
the thermo-haline circulation in the North Atlantic, derived from a sudden fresh water inflow
coming from the rapid fusion of a large ice mass at the northern polar ice sheet.
103
105
Figure 19. Incidence of climate change (i.e. global warming) over the evolution of risk derived
from an increment of the intensity of hazards and the level of vulnerability at a given space and time
condition.
external geodynamics (e.g. tsunami, liquefaction, soil erosion, landslides), which definitely
require immediate attention. Observation, monitoring and surveillance of all natural hazards
must become a priority, as well as of the factors aggravating vulnerability.
106
Figure 20. A public display poster at a train station in Buenos Aires, Argentina; April 2009: “If you do
not want this to happen again, turn your lights off at home for one hour. Join the hour of our planet”.
107
Risk is always present. Whether it is severe or barely detectable, it must always be man-
aged. Disasters represent the materialization of poorly managed risk. The January 12, 2010
earthquake in Haiti was a sharp reminder of this. It is now time to build the future, incorpo-
rating pro-active risk management principles.
Meanwhile, demographic growth keeps concentrating in urban areas randomly exposed to
natural hazards (e.g. shorelines, river margins, steep slopes, the proximity to active volcanoes
and tectonic faults), along with ever present poverty.
Risk management requires identifying and understanding causes and consequences,
according to its level and space-time distribution. Moreover, this process facilitates assessing
vulnerability, how it builds up, increases and, in addition, how it can be reduced. Pro-active
risk management helps reduce the impact of natural hazards and, more importantly, the
sources of vulnerability to a level considered acceptable from social, economic, and environ-
mental standpoints.
Since it is impossible to eliminate risk entirely, steps should be taken to protect people and
property. Measures, channelled through, for example, the geo-sciences and geo-engineering
spectrum, must be implemented ex-ante to permit rapid reactions through surveillance, alert
and alarm systems, response, rehabilitation (immediate), and reconstruction (in the medium
and long terms) protocols. In adopting such an approach, replication of previous conditions
of vulnerability must be avoided. Instead, priority should be accorded to new paradigms
creating sustainable resilience, in addition to installing a culture of prevention to ensure the
integration of risk management in all future development processes.
A parallel process of raising awareness among the population, and political and managerial
decision makers is essential for advancing an understanding of risk and promoting measures
and actions for its reduction (i.e. multiple hazards assessments, such as in the case of Haiti;
Mora et al 201012) through land use planning, building codes, and eventually in defining reten-
tion/transfer thresholds through financial, environmental and social protection schemes.
Climate hazards must, without doubt, be paid attention regardless of whether or not they
are regulated or altered by natural or artificial conditions of variability and/or change. How-
ever, if this action is to be achieved effectively, considering that resources, most of the time are
quite insufficient, the first step to launch is reinforcing formal rigorous risk identification.
12
http://community.understandrisk.org/group/haitijanuary12thandbeyond/forum/topics/multihazards-
assessments; http://www.iris.edu/hq/haiti_workshop/docs/Report-MULTIHAZARDS-HA-English-
SergioMora-Final-Red.pdf
108
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The author wishes to thank Ann Williams for her reviews and assistance during the prepara-
tion of this paper.
DISCLAIMER
The findings, interpretations and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those of the
author. They do not represent the views of his employers.
REFERENCES
Anderson, E. 2008. Central American Probabilistic Risk Assessment: Overview 2008. (Second Phase).
Disaster Risk Management, Sustainable Development Department—Latin America and The
Caribbean, The World Bank. Unpublished report. 16pp.
Cardona, O. 2006. Indicators of disaster risk and risk management in Latin America and the Caribbean.
Instituto de Estudios Ambientales (IDEA); Department of Sustainable Development; Inter-American
Development Bank (BID) 53p. http://idea.unalmzl.edu.co/
CEPAL—Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe, 2000a. Una cuestión de desarrollo:
La reducción de la vulnerabilidad estructural frente a los desastres naturales, Conferencia Confronting
Natural Disasters: A Matter of Development, Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Car-
ibe, Naciones Unidas, Chile y México, New Orleans, March 25–26. http://www.cepal.un.org.mx/
CEPAL—Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe, 2000b. Efectos socioeconómicos de
las inundaciones y deslizamientos en Venezuela, 1999. Comisión Económica para América Latina y
Caribe; Misión CEPAL-PNUD con aporte del Banco Mundial, CAF, OPS y PNUMA. Santiago de
Chile y México D.F. Inf. Inédito. 87p. http://www.cepal.un.org.mx/
CEPAL—Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe, 2001a. El terremoto del 13 de enero de
2001 en El Salvador. Impacto socioeconómico y ambiental. Comisión Económica para América Latina
y el Caribe; Naciones Unidas; México. 87p. http://www.cepal.un.org.mx/
CEPAL—Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe, 2001b. El Salvador: Evaluación del
terremoto del 13 de febrero de 2001. Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe; Naciones
Unidas; México. 112p. http://www.cepal.un.org.mx/
FAO 2003. Integrating early warning into disaster risk reduction policies. FAO/GIEWS for the Second
International Conference on Early Warning, Food and Agriculture Organisation; 16–18 October
2003, Bonn, Germany.
GRAVITY 2005. Global risk and vulnerability index; Maxx Dilley, Robert S. Chen: Drought analysis.UNDP-
BCPR;UNEP/DEWA/GRID. http://publications.worldbank.org/ecommerce/catalog/product?item_
id=4302005
Hays, J.D., Imbrie, J. & Shackleton, N.J. (1976). “Variations in the Earth’s Orbit: Pacemaker of the Ice
Ages”. Science 194 (4270): 1121–1132. doi:10.1126/science.194.4270.1121. PMID 17790893.
109
110