URMPM Special Conference
Health Risk Management of Environment and Labour
UNU Headquarters, Tokyo, Japan
30 June 2006

United Nations University“Advancing knowledge for human security, peace and development”

Knowing Risk: The Beginning of Any Solution
A Paradigm Shift
Draft – Check against Delivery
Hans van Ginkel
Rector of United Nations University, Tokyo
Under-Secretary-General of United Nations

Introduction
In “GIM International,” the global magazine for geomatics (June 2006), I readrecently an interesting opinion article (“Pinpoint”) contributed by Dr. Mathias
Lemmens of ITC Enschedé (the International Training Centre for Geo-Information
Science and Remote Sensing in the Netherlands). I am very proud of the ITC and thework it does, as I was the Chair of its Board before I cam to Japan, and I am happy
that it is now an associated institution of the UNU. ITC, indeed, has a great potential
to contribute to Environment Risk Management.
“Never before in history,” Dr. Lemmens argues, “has humankind lived with so many
people so close together on such small piece of land.” A relevant observation ofcourse, in particular in the country with the highest population density in the world.
Not only there, but around the world have the levels of urbanization become
extremely high. Rural populations are migrating to an ever larger number ofcontinuously expanding mega-urban conglomerates, often called – when big enough– megacities (> 10,000,000 inhabitants).
They do so in an attempt to snatch a few crumbs falling from the table of wealthgenerated by an expanding global economy. But: at what price??? Nevertheless:these streams of rural people attracted to the economic shimmer of the cities growday by day. In pre-Christian times an Egyptian pharaoh never ruled over more than amillion people. Today the mayor of a moderately sized city such as Amsterdam or
Copenhagen rules over more than that number. There are also many mayors (or1governors like in Tokyo-to) who govern over more than five million citizens, someover ten and a few even over more than twenty million.
Many migrants moving from rural areas to cities have to make do with poor housing,cope with lack of potable water and less than poor or completely lacking sanitation,breathe – often heavily – polluted air and are engaged in a permanent battle to fill thestomachs of their children and themselves.
That is one side of the coin. The other is that indigent people living in highconcentrations within confined areas and in poorly constructed dwellings, are very
vulnerable to both natural and manmade disaster, including highly infectious
diseases. It is often said that disasters and poverty compound each other in a vicious
cycle.
There is no doubt that the effects of the destructive forces of nature are becoming
increasingly devastating, in particular in developing countries. Because population
growth and urbanization go on and on, the level of destruction and the number ofvictims also seem to increase continuously, whenever a volcanic eruption, earthquake,fire, typhoon or flood strikes; at least, when no countermeasures are taken to reduce
the environmental risk, as well as the vulnerability of individuals and societies.
Mastering Disasters from SpaceIn recent years many initiatives have been developed to cope with natural hazards, toprevent these from creating disaster. One of the ways to go is to try to “masterdisasters from space.” Such schemes do feature high on the international agenda.
Governments and international organizations, increasingly recognize the value ofpermanent observation of the planet earth from orbiting platforms as a means ofdisaster management. The data collected from space can benefit risk reduction,
damage assessment and recovery.
Europe has initiated the Global Monitoring for Environment and Security Project(GMES, formally adopted in 2001), while the US Commercial Remote Sensing Policy
was authorized by the President on 25th April 2005. US policy provides guidance forlicensing and operation of the US commercial remote-sensing space systems and theuse of their products by US government and foreign institutions and organizations.
The policy aims “to advance and protect national security and foreign interests bymaintaining the nation’s leadership in remote sensing space activities and by2

sustaining and enhancing remote sensing industry.” Envisaged spin-offs of the US
policy are that it will foster economic growth, contribute to environmental
stewardship, and enable scientific and technological excellence.
The European GMES-project aims at using remote-sensing data, especially today’s
wealth of very high-resolution satellite data, to improve the monitoring of theEuropean and global environment to enhance the sustainable management of
resources and security of citizens. One GMES goal is directed towards European selfprovision with respect to the production of very high-resolution satellite images, sothat the continent becomes independent of US commercial remote-sensing firms.
The programme is considered an European flagship next to the Galileo navigation
system. But: somehow there is a lack of widespread awareness of the GMES initiative,
and many projected services have not yet got off the ground.
The US and European initiatives are mainly directed towards supporting thecollection and dissemination of space data for support of managing disasters taking
place on their own respective territories. The United Nations on the other hand, ismore globally oriented; with respect to data collected from space the organization
focuses its attention primarily on developing countries. The Global Earth
Observation System of Systems (GEOSS) is primarily intended to provide this service.
During the UNISPACE III conference, held in 1999, one recommendation flagged up
the need “to implement an integrated, global system, especially throughinternational co-operation, to manage natural disaster mitigation, relief andprevention efforts, in particular of an international nature, through Earthobservation, communications and other space-based services, making maximum
use of existing capabilities and filling gaps in worldwide satellite coverage.” During
its 59th session (2000) the UN General Assembly approved a study to examine thepossibility of establishing an international entity to provide co-ordination and themeans for optimizing the effectiveness of space-based services for use in disastermanagement.
Although all these initiatives are still mainly languishing at the policy, research andstudy levels, they do offer good hope that somewhere in future Earth observationfrom space may contribute to a significantly safer world. A world in which disasters
can be managed in such a way that loss of lives and demolition of economies can be
minimized. In the meantime the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency has recently
launched (24 January 2006) the Advanced Land Observing Satellite Daichi, one of3the aims of which is to carry out Earth observation for sustainable development andglobal disaster monitoring.
Beyond Technological Solutions
Dr. Lemmens concludes from these foregoing facts and observations, that: “Somehow
it seems that the United States puts all its efforts into maintaining world leadership,
Europe and the United Nations carry on talking, while only Asia acts.” This maybe
true, I don’t disagree with his statement. However, I do think that it is more
important to conclude, that mastering disasters from space seems to have become ahighly competitive field of human endeavour. Governments are prepared to invest
much money in it, as is also illustrated, e.g. by their preparedness to invest in othertechnological solutions such as the early warning system for tsunamis in the Indian
Ocean. Some questions, however, will remain:
1. will the competition indeed contribute to a better overall result? or could cooperation, at least in setting standards, be a more attractive option?
2. what more would be needed to prevent hazards from becoming disasters? withall the technology and early warning: how do we organize ourselves so as to act
timely to reduce environmental risks and the vulnerability of individuals andsocieties? how can we go beyond technology? make good use of it?
3. what is more: many environmental risks and disasters are of a creeping nature.
They need long-term observation to become visible. Often they are evencaused by human activities: falling groundwatertables, desertification,
landslides, landdegradation, air- and water pollution. Even floods are much
more a threat now, than in the past, often as a consequence of human actions.
In his annual report focusing on the urgent need to move from a culture ofreaction to a culture of prevention (1999), Secretary-General Kofi Annan called
these “un-natural disasters.” Even though these do not get much media
attention and do not generate important fund raising campaigns, their overall
deadly impact is huge, much larger than that of natural hazards of a much
more incidental character? There is more needed than technology to cope withcreeping and un-natural disasters.

Security and the States4Security is both complex and also very simple. It is complex in that it incorporates
military, political, economic, social and environmental factors, and the many linkages
between them. In this sense both the theory and practice of national andinternational security have undergone an evolution. While basic physiological humanneeds have changed little, our conceptualization of security, and our approaches toachieving and maintaining security, have changed considerably. International
security is no longer conceived of solely as defence of national territory against‘external’ military threats under state control. An established literature now exists to
support a broad and multifaceted approach to security, and these ‘non-traditional
security’ perspectives – including human security – have taken their place inacademic and, to an extent, policy circles. But this has not been without controversy
in terms of academic rigour and policy relevance.
But security is also a very simple concept. Everyone knows what it means to have hisor her security threatened. When we look at in-security from the individual
perspective, we do not find anything new: poverty and hunger, threats to health,illiteracy, environmental degradation, civil conflict, resource insecurity, human
displacement through war, underdevelopment, the threat of illegal narcotics, andorganized crime. Anything that presents a critical threat to life and livelihood is asecurity threat, whatever the source. People suffering from extreme deprivation or
AIDS, or people having their human rights severely violated, for example, do not need
us to invent a new concept to tell them that they are insecure.
Yet it is clear that traditional security has failed to deliver meaningful security to asignificant proportion of the people of the world at the individual level. This is anempirical reality. For most people, the greatest threats to security come from disease,hunger, environmental contamination, crime and unorganized violence. For many
people a still greater threat may come from their own state itself, rather than from an‘external’ adversary. Still, attitudes and institutions that privilege ‘high politics’ above
disease, hunger, or illiteracy are embedded in international relations and foreign
policy decision-making. Indeed, we have grown so accustomed to this approach thatfor many, ‘security’ has become equal to state security.
The fundamental purpose of a state is – or should surely be – to protect the security
and promote the welfare of its citizens. In return, the state and state sovereignty are
given primacy as the ordering unit and organizing principle of world affairs, based
upon the principle of delegation of responsibility and power by individual citizens to5their state. But the capacity of many states to fulfill this double purpose is often
severely limited. The changing security discourse has thus moved beyond protectionof a state’s territorial integrity, political independence and sovereignty to embracesuch issues as the plight of children in armed conflict; terrorism; trafficking in arms,
narcotics and people; the spread of infectious diseases; hunger; and cross-borderenvironmental degradation. Security analysts today have to grapple simultaneouslywith problems of external threats, internal social cohesion, regime capacity andbrittleness, failed states, economic development, structural adjustment, gender
relations, ethnic identity, and transnational and global problems like HIV/AIDS, drugtrafficking, terrorism and environmental degradation.
These issues are often neglected by traditional security thinking, but they shorten thelife expectancy of millions and have repercussions beyond their immediate impactthat are only beginning to be understood. And when the degradations reach the point
where they become life-threatening on a large scale, it would seem ridiculous to insist
that this is not a “security” issue. We need a new approach; an approach that comescloser to the reality of the daily life of individual people.
A Copernican change?
The human security approach is not necessarily in opposition to state sovereignty andnational security; the state remains the central provider of security in ideal
circumstances. The approach does, however, suggest that international security as
traditionally defined – the defence of territorial integrity by military means – does
not necessarily correlate with all the dimensions of the security of people, and that an
over-emphasis upon statist security can be to the detriment of human security needs.
Therefore, while traditional conceptions of state security may be a necessary
condition, they cannot be a sufficient one for human survival. Citizens of states thatare ‘secure’ according to the abstract and remote concept of traditional security canbe perilously insecure in terms of basic human welfare. A human security approach
attempts to redress this asymmetry of attention and resources.
What is necessary – and perhaps what is happening – is a Copernican change inperspective regarding the relationship between the state and people. Traditionally,
state sovereignty and sovereign legitimacy rest upon a government’s control ofterritory, state independence, and recognition by other states. The role of citizens is
to support this system. The human security approach reverses this equation, andhere we see the revisionist – perhaps revolutionary – potential of the concept. The

6

state, and state sovereignty, must serve and support the people from where it draws
its legitimacy. The state derives meaning from the people, not the other way around.
This ties in with a broader debate regarding the evolving nature of state sovereignty.
Sovereign statehood remains a core characteristic of the international system.
However, the legalist model of international politics – premised upon the primacy ofsovereign autonomy, sovereign equality, non-interference, non-aggression, and theirrelevance of domestic forms of government – seems to be demonstrably out of
touch with reality in a number of respects. Debates about the evolution, erosion andindeed resilience of sovereignty have existed for decades. It has long been
acknowledged that sovereignty has never been an absolute principle; encroachments
upon sovereignty have always taken place. But it seems that a number of processes at
the international and intra-state levels require a reassessment of the contemporary
meaning and relevance of sovereignty, in particular as it relates to the constitution ofinternational order and human welfare. The concept of ‘conditional sovereignty’ hastaken on a renewed importance.
International norms regarding human rights have developed an importance thatsignificantly conditions state sovereignty and goes beyond the voluntary nature ofinternational human rights instruments. This has given rise to a solidarist norm of‘individual sovereignty’, whereby the legitimacy of state sovereignty rests not only on
control of territory and recognition, but also upon fulfilling certain standards ofhuman rights and welfare for citizens. As a corollary, the sovereignty of states which
are unwilling or unable to fulfill certain basic standards may be jeopardized. The useof military force for human protection purposes – such as the case of Kosovo – is thestarkest example of this trend, although a wider range of transnational norms,
institutions and processes of human rights and accountability also underscore thenormative transcendence of sovereignty in this area. Sovereignty, and respect for its
legitimacy, rests in part upon the recognition of other states, but the prerogative of
exclusive territorial control is arguably now premised upon a broader set of criteria,
including human rights, and “serving the people”.
So, the idea of Human Security argues that contemporary security, if it is to be
relevant to changing conditions and needs, must focus on the individual or people
collectively. Traditional ideas of state security are a necessary but not sufficientcondition of human welfare. The citizens of states that are ‘secure’ according to the
traditional concept of security can be perilously insecure in terms of health, literacy,
nutrition, and opportunities. This does not exclude the importance of traditional7

ideas of security, but it does suggest that it may be more effective to reorient theprovision of security around people. Military defence of territory remains important,of course, but human security embraces a broader, more comprehensive set of issuesof importance to people throughout the world. In many ways, indeed, this representsa Copernican change in the perception of the relationship between the state andcitizens.
Environment and Human Security
In September 1999, United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan presented his
Annual Report “Preventing War and Disaster: A Growing Global Challenge.” Less
than a decade after the fall of the Berlin Wall, it had become crystal clear that the endof the “cold” war had not brought peace to humankind, nor ended human suffering.
In 1998, for instance, armed conflicts broke out or erupted anew in Angola, GuineaBissau, Kashmir and Kosovo, and also between Eritrea and Ethiopia. Other longestablished wars – notably the war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo – wenton though largely unreported by the global media. It had also become clear that the
impact of wars on civilians had worsened considerably. Internal wars – now the mostfrequent type of armed conflict – typically take a heavier toll on civilians than interState wars. Combatants, also, have increasingly made targeting civilians a strategic
objective (Kofi Annan 1999, p.1). Even humanitarian workers are under severe threat,
now more than ever.
Security is, however, not only under unpredictable, growing threat because of war
and violence. The year 1998 was also the worst on record for weather-related
natural disasters. Floods and storms killed tens of thousands of people worldwide
and displaced many more. Including the victims of earthquakes, some 50,000 lives
were lost in 1998 as a consequence of natural disasters. During the 1990s – thehottest decade on record – the world experienced more than three times as many
great natural disasters as in the 1960s. In a recent study of WHO on the relation
between health and weather, it was estimated that in the year 2000 as many as
150,000 people were killed by global warming and related natural disasters.
Environmental risks have increasingly become the principal source of human insecurity. Of course: human communities will always face natural hazards such as
floods, droughts, storms, volcanic eruptions or earthquakes. The sobering reality is,however, that today’s disasters, too often, are man-made and that human action or
inaction exacerbates virtually all of them. The term “natural disaster” has become,8

increasingly, an anachronistic misnomer. In reality, human behaviour transforms
natural hazards into what should really be called un-natural disasters (Kofi Annan
1999, p.4).
Environmental Risks and Natural Disasters
The state of the world, in terms of economic, social and environmental security, isquite appalling. Today, global inequalities in income and living standards and,
therefore, in human security too, have reached grotesque proportions. The gap in percapita income between the richest and the poorest countries in the world is wider
than ever. In 1960, the richest countries had, on average, 30 times the per capita
income of the poorest. This gap was 60 to 1 in 1990. In 2000, it was about 80 to 1.
So, in only four decades, the income gap between rich and poor has more thandoubled, almost tripled. The marginalization of the least-developed countries isincreasing year after year, at an ever accelerating pace. In terms of human security
this means for the people living in the poor parts of the world, on the average: a shortand unhealthy life.
The numbers sadly speak for themselves: in 1998, for instance, in the 10 poorest
countries of the world, which are all in Africa, the average life expectancy of
individuals was around 45 years. At the same time in the 10 richest countries, life
expectancy was 78. A huge difference! It means that a person viewed as elderly inthe poorest countries is still a relatively young person, full of potential for the future,in the richest countries, most certainly in Japan. People in the richest countries, on
average, do outlive individuals of the poorest countries by more than 30 years, morethan the time span of an entire generation. In this context, it is not hard to imagine
the role of the lack of access to, for instance, safe water and medical services sufferedin the poorest regions of the world.
The spread of infectious diseases, in particular HIV/AIDS also plays a major role. As
a consequence in many African countries life expectancy is decreasing. According to
UNDP’s Human Development Report 2002, the life expectancy of people in Malawi
is now only 40 years. Over 14% of the Malawi population of 11 million are said to beliving, currently, with HIV/AIDS. This is the major factor behind this appalling low
life expectancy. The life expectancy in Japan is, according to the same source, twice
as much (81, Germany 79). What sort of world do we live in, that permits such a
disparity in life chances?

9

The deprivation that exists around the world needs to be at the forefront of theforeign policy agenda. There is nothing – including the war on terror, the struggle
against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and “rogue” states – moreurgent than addressing severe, preventable disease and deprivation, including hunger
and lack of adequate shelter; all commonly related to the quality of the environment
and the level of development. This means that there exists a great need to focus, rightnow, on issues such as governance, equity, development, education and also
preparedness to prevent environmental risks to materialize: natural hazards tobecome – as the Secretary-General of UN called it – unnatural disasters.
Environmental crises are, indeed, as urgent as any other human security threat. They
are, however, rarely treated as such. In terms of early deaths and deprivation,
environmental crises – including lack of freshwater and air pollution – have anurgency that is seldom recognized, even by the human security community, maybe
because the process is – in general – very slow; just creeping, after for a long time:
unnoticed. However, what seems remote now can, before we know it, become urgent
tomorrow, maybe even in the next hour. And the available data on the situation now
is more than alarming. As early as 1990 it was estimated that each year worldwide
6,000,000 hectare was lost to degradation. Within the World’s Drylands, the area
affected by landdegradation amounts in size to the equivalent of Russia, USA andChina, taken together. It is not difficult to imagine what this means in terms of poor
harvests, hunger and death. It is difficult to understand why we let this happen.
Landdegradation is not a sudden but a creeping event and the cost of preventing
landdegradation is not high, if action is taken early enough. However, once it reaches
a point where reclamation becomes economically prohibitive, the land must be
abandoned.
The widespread consequences of El Niño and La Niña are at present well-known andfeared. Disaster reduction and combating desertification as well as the possible fateof small islands, for instance, all figure high on the agenda of the United Nations. It
is this thinking that has also provided the momentum for the United Nations
University and the German Government, to launch a special programme onenvironmental degradation and human security (UNU-EHS), Bonn. This programme
will focus specifically on human vulnerability as a consequence of man-madedisasters: for example flooding, salination of arable lands, desertification, forest fires
and landslides in densely populated areas.

10Population, Natural Resources and Environmental Risks
Environmental change at the local, national, regional and global levels is rapidly
altering the balance that sustains life on the planet. The effects of such change poseboth a short and long-term threat to human security. Global warming is alreadyhaving a serious impact upon the well-being of the ecosystems and humans.
Desertification and a greater magnitude and frequency of extreme weather eventsaffect the capacity of the ecosystems in producing goods and services. Rising sealevels threaten all life on small islands, as well as the delta areas and coastal plains inwhich the majority of the world’s population lives. Environmental degradation in theform of air and water pollutants affects human health in many regions. Resource
scarcity makes certain regions unsustainable, threatening to ignite new conflicts andproducing potentially negative knock-on effects, such as forced human migration.
Despite technological improvement, people around the world, particularly in thedeveloping world are still struggling to survive in the face of growing desertification,
dwindling forests, declining fisheries, polluted water and air, and climatic extremes
and weather events that continue to intensify – floods, droughts, hurricanes andtsunami’s.
A core issue in the relation between environmental risk and human security is theongoing increase of population and population density more specifically in areas
less well endowed by nature. In particular, in major urban agglomerations indeveloping countries, we can observe an increasing tension between the number ofpeople living there and the natural resources locally available. Even clean, fresh air
to breathe and safe drinking water can be difficult to provide for. At present, already,
Mexico City is piping drinking water over a distance of more than 200km into the cityand Los Angeles is dependent – for energy and water – on the Colorado River, evenmore distant.
It is customary in research on urban development to focus very much on size, as
expressed for instance in the concept mega-cities, i.e. urban regions with more thanten million inhabitants. This ignores the great variety in population density inmega-cities, as well as the fact that by tradition in many countries the borders of theterritorial units in public administration are drawn in such a way that whatever“mega-cities” might exist, these will never become visible in the statistics. The Ruhrarea in Germany is a good example. It is not surprising that Munich-Re, the major
European Re-insurance company lists both the Ruhr area and the Randstad (in the
Netherlands) among the world’s mega-cities. The real environmental risk lies, after

11

all, in high population densities over extensive areas, the relation therefore between
density and size. When you look locally at the relation of size and density of
population with the locally available resources, you must come to the conclusion thatgeography matters. It is also clear that very big urban areas, including mega-cities,
have become characteristic for many developing countries, in particular in Asia.
To assess whether high population concentrations are sustainable, one must pay
attention to both the site and the situation of the place, as well as the relationships
between the different scale levels of geographical reality in which the place isembedded. It is, for instance, very interesting to evaluate how metropolitan Tokyo isorganizing the space in the combined area within its limits, but it is equally important
to assess how Tokyo is fitted within the total space of Japan as a country and also tounderstand how space is organized at the lower levels in the different constituting
parts of Tokyo, as well as the relations between these different scale levels. Just to
look at one scale level of reality is, in fact, not an adequate or sufficient approach inplanning, in balancing population and resources.
This is just one example of the fact that the relationship between environment andhuman security is a complex, dynamic and multi-causal one. Environmental
changes that affect human security almost always interact with other political, social,
cultural and economic factors and evolve through various stages before resulting inhuman insecurity. Furthermore, environmental insecurities may have different
causal roles: in some cases it may be a proximate and powerful cause; in others it
may only be a minor actor in a tangled story that involves many socio-economic,
cultural and political factors. The relationship between the environment and security
is also a recursive one. Just as environmental change may contribute to human insecurity in the form of war, civil strife and terrorism, these factors could also in turnlead to more environmental degradation and resource scarcities.
The foregoing observations are important to understand that there are manyenvironmental changes, many risks and many hazards, but whether a natural
event will become a disaster depends very much upon how a society has
prepared itself. That is where considerations of mitigation and prevention enter
the equation. There are, indeed, many ways by which you can reduce the disasterlevel of a natural event, or even prevent a natural event from becoming a disaster.
Take, for instance, volcanic slopes which are extremely fertile. Farmers know
perfectly well that these locations are dangerous, because lava streams may come thatwill put them at risk. But at the same time, the volcanic slope may be the best place12

to do their farming. The recent events around the Merapi (Java) illustrate this point
clearly: it was very hard to convince the endangered population to leave, when there
was still time. Can they be effectively advised at some point to leave it, when it really
becomes too dangerous? At such a time early warning systems will indeed become
important. How much time will be left to inform and convince people? More
importantly: are they prepared? Do feasible evacuation plans exist? Who takes thelead?
The same can be said of many of the low-lying areas. Often the alluvial soils are very
fertile. Farmers choose to go there, because better agricultural production is possible
there. But they also run the risk of becoming the victims of a major flood. It isinteresting to know how to balance these considerations: The question is, how you
can prepare? In such cases, perception, tradition and organization play major roles
in whether a natural event will become a disaster or not. Indeed, there are manydifferent and intriguing relations between population, natural resources andenvironmental risks. “No risk” is often not a good option or even impossible. But toknow risk and to be prepared to take appropriate action is essential to save lives andprevent losses. No Africans on the continent’s east coast should have died as aconsequence of the recent tsunami, originating from a place as distant as the shoresof Acheh. Indeed: knowing risk, and knowing what to just in case, are the beginningof any feasible solution.
“We, the Peoples”
Against the background of the UN Secretary-General’s report, presented in
September 1999, pleading for a culture of prevention to replace the existing culture ofreaction, the Millennium Report “We, the Peoples” on the role of the United Nationsin the 21st century, was a logical step forward. The core of the report focused on threeissues:•••Freedom from Want;
Freedom from Fear;
Sustaining our FutureInterestingly enough, the third issue “sustaining our future” had been included
rather in response to the “Voices of the People” than on the basis of a high priority
among governments, as very few among them mentioned the issue at that time.

13However, in the world’s largest ever, public opinion survey, the Millennium Survey,
among 57,000 adults in 60 countries, sponsored and conducted in 1999 by Gallup:……“Two thirds of all the respondents said their government had done too
little to redress environmental problems in their country.”……“Respondents in developing countries were among the most critical of
their government’s actions in this respect.”
Some important conclusions were drawn in the chapter on “Sustaining our Future,”
conclusions that can give proper direction to our efforts to promote and protect ourcommon future. Those statements are:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

We are failing to provide the freedom of future generations to sustain theirlives on this planet;
The challenges of sustainability simply overwhelm the adequacy of our
responses – they are too few, too little and too late;
Reducing the threat of global warming requires, above all, that carbon
emissions be reduced;
The international community has not found the political will needed to makethe necessary changes;
About one third of the world’s population already lives in countries considered
to be “water stressed;”
We need a “Blue Revolution” in agriculture that focuses on increasing
productivity per unit of water – “more crop for a drop”;
Conserving agricultural biodiversity is essential for long-term food security;
Environmental issues must be fundamentally repositioned in the policymaking process;Only when they reflect a fuller accounting can economic policies ensure thatdevelopment is sustainable;
The peoples of our small planet want their governments to do more to protect
their environment.

In concluding this chapter the Secretary-General made a strong plea for the“Millennium Ecosystem Assessment” (MEA); a truly comprehensive global evaluationof the condition of the five major ecosystems: forests, freshwater systems, grasslands,
coastal areas and agro-ecosystems. The MA should et. al. strengthen capacity for
integrated eco-system management policies and provide developing nations with14

better access to global data sets. It would take into account and give a more clear
insight in diversity around our small planet as: “Different regions of the world facevery different environmental problems, which require different solutions.” CoChairs of the MA are Bob Watson (World Bank) and Hamid Zakri (UNU-IAS). The
results of the MA were presented at the UNU (Tokyo-Yokohama) in late March andearly April 2005.
Risk Reduction: Challenges and Concepts
Many methodologies and techniques have been developed in the past to reduce
disaster risk through the reduction of hazards and then through the reduction ofvulnerabilities. Depending on the type of disaster, it is possible to select fromnumerous infrastructure solutions that can be implemented to reduce the magnitudeof hazards. However, it is not really viable, sometimes not even advisable, to try toeliminate the hazards completely or to reduce them to a level which makes us believethat the risks are eliminated (completely) through infrastructure development.
There will always be a hazard event, that would go beyond the designed levels of
infrastructure solutions; often creating unforeseen complications, or even worse:
chaos. A false sense of security could precipitate in more damage and call for more
infrastructure development, thus setting off an endless loop; another example tosupport the one-liner: “All engineering leads to more engineering!”
Therefore, the emphasis should be on reducing vulnerabilities and improving coping
capacities. One may question whether the danger itself, or those endangered, should
be looked upon first? In this respect vulnerability assessment and monitoring, early
warning and response capacities are key areas that need further promotion at global
scale.
Hazard, vulnerability, risk and the appropriate response to risk, are crucial concepts
for any disaster mitigation policy, aiming to enhance human security. The United
Nations University (UNU) is dedicated to “advancing knowledge for human security,
peace and development” as formulated in its motto. The concept of human security
focuses on threats that endanger the lives and livelihoods of individuals andcommunities. Safeguarding it requires a new approach, a better understanding ofmany interrelated variables – social, political, economic, technological andenvironmental – factors that determine the impact of extreme events when theyoccur.

15

UNU has a long history of involvement in improving human security. One of theearly comprehensive UNU studies was on regions that are particularly vulnerable toenvironmental degradation. These findings are summarized in the book “Regions at
Risk” which was published by UNU in 1995.
Hazard mitigation and risk reduction from floods, earthquakes, landslides and a
combination of these phenomena has always been an important research theme at
the UNU Centre. The programme on ‘Catastrophic flood risk assessment’ addresses
the important issue of how to move from a ‘fail-safe’ approach to adopting ‘safe-fail’mechanisms to mitigate losses from a catastrophic flood that would exceed flood
control design standards. This demands a major paradigm shift, accepting that thecomplete elimination of flood risk is a difficult, if not impossible, task for many of thelarge cities in the world. Once this is accepted, the next step is to access catastrophic
flood risks and take mitigation measures that include both structural and nonstructural measures.
Multi-hazard urban risks, exacerbated by complex urban infrastructure is anotherarea of current focus that is studied by multi-disciplinary teams employing highresolution dynamic spatial data that describe both three dimensional urban
landscapes as well as the behavioural patterns of urban communities.
The United Nations University Institute for Environment and Human Security(UNU-EHS) in Bonn, Germany, is a very timely addition to the profile of UNU in risk
reduction area. UNU-EHS is to explore and localize threats to human security
emanating from environmental degradation, unsustainable land use practices andfrom natural and human-induced hazards.
Within this framework UNU-EHS is to develop, test and verify vulnerability
indicators, and will investigate relationships between risks, vulnerability and coping
capacities. ‘Creeping’ environmental hazards – including climate change,
landdegradation, population pressure and migration, changing resource availability
and quality, all imperil communities gradually, usually in a hidden way. This
undetected increase of vulnerability could become manifested once the weakened
group is exposed to an extreme event of natural or human-induced origin. Thus
disasters may be seen as the evidence of this vulnerability, the lack of coping
capacity and resilience.

16

By addressing these problems from the perspective of human security the need for aparadigm shift in the concept of disaster prevention and preparedness becomes
evident. Thus instead of starting with the focus on (natural) hazards, the ‘dangers’
and their quantification, the assessment and ranking of the vulnerability of affectedgroup, ‘those endangered,’ should serve as the starting point in defining priorities
and means of remedial interventions. One key task for UNU is to explore,
conceptualize and contribute to this paradigm shift through research and then inpolicy-making and practice.
Developing countries suffer most from natural disasters and this is true for floods,
earthquakes, landslides and other natural disasters. This arises from a number offactors. (1) Often the local knowledge base required to identify hazard-prone areas iseither non-existent or fragmentary. Research and investigations carried out tounderstand the risks and hazard zones in these countries are usually insufficient.
(2) Secondly, risk reduction measures such as land use planning, appropriate
building codes, safety regulations and response plans are in these countries not welldeveloped and applied. (3) Appropriate financial mechanisms are not used and (4)unfortunately expertise in risk reduction very rarely exists in local institutes anduniversities.
It is therefore most relevant to the mandate of the United Nations and thus of UNU toassist developing countries in identifying hazard-prone areas and develop effective
risk reduction measures. International collaboration is essential to be effective in thisrespect. The problems are to be addressed in very different settings, requiring
ingenuity to draw on expertise from around the world. That is the added value andtrue importance of the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction. UNU with its
partners who are involved in promoting sustainable development and human security,especially in the developing countries, are very much committed to the promotion ofnatural hazard risk reduction through research, education, co-operation andnetworking.
Kobe-Hyogo, the place of one of the biggest earthquake disasters, should not remaina sad memento. It should become a benchmark and starting point for concentrated
action towards improved human security. With this background, within its cope of
mandate and expertise, UNU is dedicated to be involved and to contribute, together
with UN and science community partners and Member States to the success of the
Hyogo Declaration.

17

Basic principle of all our work will remain our strong belief that the beginning of any
sustainable solution must be: to know (all) the risks (better).
Thank you very much.
United Nations University
Headquarters
53-70, Jingumae 5-chome
Shibuya-ku, Tokyo 150-8925, Japan
Tel. +81-3-3499-2811 / Fax +81-3-3499-2828
E-Mail: mbox@hq.unu.edu

18