Focus: food security

WorldRiskReport
In cooperation with2015

www.WorldRiskReport.org
The print version of the WorldRiskReport has a volume
enabling fast reading. The texts of the Report are supplemented by maps, diagrams and pictures to illustrate
their content. More in-depth information, scientific detailsof the methodology applied and tables are available atwww.WorldRiskReport.org. There, the 2011, 2012, 2013 and2014 Reports can be downloaded, too.

The term “developing countries”:
Finding the right word for the “poor countries” in Africa,
Asia and Latin America is not unproblematic. For one
thing, different terms are used by the various globalorganizations (the UN, UN organizations, the World
Bank) in this context. Second, any expression one
might use will be questionable. “Third World” is a termthat the countries thus referred to will hardly appreciate. “Developing countries” suggests that the countries
in North America or Europe are developed and thecountries in the other continents are underdeveloped.
Of course we do not subscribe to such a simple view,
but we have nevertheless opted for using the term
developing countries (not in inverted commas) in thisreport. In accordance with UN practice, it refers to all
countries in Africa, Asia (with the exception of Japan,
South Korea and Taiwan) and Latin America, including
the emerging countries.

2 [ WorldRiskReport 2015

1. Food insecurity and risk assessment.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 5Peter Mucke

2. Focus: food security.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 12
2.1
		How disasters and crises affect food security .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 14
Bernhard Walter

2.2 How food insecurity influences disaster risk.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 19		Matthias Garschagen, Michael Hagenlocher, Julia Kloos und Joanna Pardoe

2.3 Food security in disaster and crisis situations .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 26
		Katrin Radtke

2.4 The field of tension between food security and disaster risk.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 32
		Matthias Lanzendörfer

3. The WorldRiskoIndex 2015.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 40
Torsten Welle, Jörn Birkmann

4.	Food security: recommendations for action and perspectives .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 50
Peter Mucke, Jakob Rhyner

Annex .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 63

WorldRiskReport 2015 ] 3

4 [ WorldRiskReport 2015

1. Food insecurity andrisk assessment

There will be no more hunger in 2030. For the 795 million people
worldwide who are massively undernourished in 2015, this promise
is a good prospect. In September 2015, the heads of state andgovernment of more than 150 countries agreed on including “Zerohunger” in the seventeen goals adopted at the UN Summit on
Sustainable Development in New York. Since disaster risk and foodsecurity are mutually influential to a considerable extent, a world
without hunger would mean fewer disasters. This is demonstrated
by the WorldRiskReport 2015, which focuses on food security.

WorldRiskReport 2015 ] 5

The author:
Peter Mucke isManaging Director of
Bündnis Entwicklung
Hilft.

By 2030, food will have to be available foran additional 1.2 billion people, a figurethat corresponds to India’s entire present
population. The world population is set togrow from 7.3 billion people in 2015 to 8.5
billion in 2030. Nevertheless, arithmetically,
the “Zero hunger” goal set by the international
community of states is not unrealistic. Alreadytoday, 5,000 kilocalories of food is produced
per person per day, whereas an individual
only requires 1,800 kilocalories a day not
to go hungry. Fair distribution, avoiding
wasting food, moderate meat consumption,and giving up gaining diesel, petrol, andoil from agricultural production are important elements in attaining “Zero hunger”.
Political will and the fulfillment of financial
pledges reiterated by the governments at
the UN Sustainability Summit are crucial toachieve this. The Perspectives Chapter in theWorldRiskReport 2015 (starting on page 52)
presents a wide range of solution strategies
and recommendations.

Disasters, wars and crises are a threat to “Zerohunger”
There is one fact that still continues to be an
obstacle to achieving “Zero hunger”: In many
countries that have missed the international
Millennium Goal of eliminating extreme poverty
and hunger, disasters, wars or political instability have triggered or aggravated increased
vulnerability and food insecurity. In thesecontexts, it is difficult to effectively implement
measures to protect vulnerable sections of the
population and improve their livelihoods (FAO/
IFAD/ WFP 2015b). Comprehensive food security cannot be attained without disaster and crisis
prevention.
In accordance with its definition by the UN Foodand Agriculture Organization (FAO), food security has four dimensions:++ availability++ access++ utilization++ stability.

Figure 1: Share of undernourished worldwide according to region (FAO/IFAD/WFP 2015b)

Sub-Saharan-Africa

33.2
23.2

Caribbean

27.0
19.8

Southern Asia

23.9
15.7

Oceania

15.7
14.2

Eastern Asia

23.2
9.6

South-Eastern Asia

30.6
9.6

Western Asia

6.4
8.4

Caucasus und Central Asia

14.1
7.0

Latin America

13.9
<5.0

Northern Africa

<5.0
<5.0
0

1990 – 1992

6 [ WorldRiskReport 20155102014 – 201615

MDG target

20

25

30

35

Sufficient availability is given, when adequate
food can be provided through people’s own
production or via the markets (this includes
production, warehousing, food imports,
and food aid). Access to food means that allhouseholds and their members are really able
to get the food that is available. Obstacles tosuch access include income inequalities, pricelevels, trade systems and restricted distribution mechanisms. Thus access strongly
depends on societal, economic and politicalconditions. The dimension of utilization
comprises an individual’s health conditionin connection with a diversified diet, clean
and hygienic preparation of the food, and theexistence of clean drinking water, healthcare
and sanitation. The physical ability to fully
take up food and turn it into energy is also
crucial to an individual’s health condition.
Special criteria have to be applied in the caseof population groups with special needs, suchas infants or pregnant women. The dimension of stability refers to whether the three
afore-mentioned dimensions are maintained
over time. Stability can be threatened e.g.
by armed conflicts or disasters. This may bechronic insecurity owing to recurrent bottlenecks or temporary instability, for instanceduring an extreme natural event (FAO/ IFAD/
WFP 2013).
Thus, food security is the result of interaction between various factors, ranging fromproduction and warehousing through accessto clean water to social and political dimensions such as the right to food, healthcare,
power and property relations, as well as accessto resources. Extreme natural events, likedrought or floods and the impacts of climatechange, can massively disturb the entire
chain of food supply. Production, processing
and procuring of food may be affected just as
much as warehousing and the preparation andconsumption of food.
Risk assessment

Glossary+ Food security
A situation that exists when all people, at all times, havephysical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe andnutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life. Based on this definition, four food security dimensions can be identified: foodavailability, economic and physical access to food, food utilization and stability over time.
+ Food insecurity
A situation that exists when people lack secure access to sufficient amounts of safe and nutritious food for normal growthand development and an active and healthy life. It may becaused by the unavailability of food, insufficient purchasing
power, inappropriate distribution or an inadequate use offood at the household level. Food insecurity, poor conditionsof health and sanitation and inappropriate care and feedingpractices are the major causes of a poor nutritional status.
Food insecurity may be chronic, seasonal or transitory.
+ Chronic Undernourishment or Hunger
A state, lasting for at least one year, of inability to acquireenough food, defined as a level of food intake insufficient tomeet dietary energy requirements. For the purposes of thisreport, hunger was defined as being synonymous with chronic undernourishment.
+ Undernutrition
The outcome of undernourishment, and/or poor absorption
and/or poor biological use of nutrients consumed as a resultof repeated infectious disease. It includes being underweightfor one’s age, too short for one’s age (stunted), dangerously
thin for one’s height (wasted) and deficient in vitamins andminerals (micronutrient malnutrition).
+ Malnutrition
An abnormal physiological condition caused by inadequate,
unbalanced or excessive consumption of macronutrients and/or micronutrients. Malnutrition includes undernutrition andovernutrition as well as micronutrient deficiencies (FAO/IFAD/
WFP 2015b).

The relation also applies in the reverse
direction. As long as there is food insecurity,
extreme natural events are going to haveWorldRiskReport 2015 ] 7

Vulnerability—Societal sphere

Natural hazard sphere
Exposure

Susceptibility

CopingAdaptation

Exposure to natural
hazards

Likelihood of suffering
harm

Capacities to reduce
negative consequences

Capacities for long-term
strategies for societal
changeExposure

Vulnerability

WorldRiskIndex
Figure 2: The WorldRiskIndex and its components

disastrous impacts. In the event of a natural
hazard, a poorly fed population will be more
vulnerable than one that is well fed (Bündnis
Entwicklung Hilft 2011). Thus, the share of
the malnourished population is one of theindicators of the disaster risk as assessed by
the WorldRiskIndex 2015 (see Chapter 3).
In risk assessment, the WorldRiskReport setsout from the general notion that the severityof the forces of nature hitting people is not the
only crucial factor but that a society’s level ofdevelopment counts just as much. It is on thisbasis that the WorldRiskIndex calculates thedisaster risk for 171 countries worldwide (seeFigure 3 on page 9).
The WorldRiskIndex is meant to give answers
to four key questions:++ How likely is an extreme natural event, andwill it affect people?
++ How vulnerable are people to natural
hazards?
++ To what extent can societies cope withacute disasters?
++ Is a society taking preventive measures toface natural hazards to be reckoned with in
the future?

8 [ WorldRiskReport 2015

The representation through the Index andits four components provides answers to thisand highlights both, the problems and thefields of action, very clearly. Nevertheless, it
is also important to keep the limits of such a
representation in mind. Just like any otherindex, the WorldRiskIndex can only consider
indicators for which comprehensible, quantifiable data is available. For example, while
direct neighborly help cannot be measured
in a disaster event, it is nevertheless very
important. It cannot be fed into the calculation of the WorldRiskIndex for lack of data.
Furthermore, the quality of data between
different countries may vary if data gathering
is conducted only at national level and not by
an independent international institution. This
is why, in addition to the data section with aquantitative interest, the WorldRiskReport
always has a focus chapter with a qualitative
approach that looks at the background andcontext – this year of the topic “food security”.
Its absence, i.e. food insecurity, is closely
connected to the phenomena of hunger,
undernutrition, and malnutrition (see Glossary on page 7 for these terms). Children are
particularly endangered. During pregnancy
and in the first years of life, undernutrition
and malnutrition can result in developmental

defects and disabilities. In turn, children withdisabilities suffer hunger more frequently
than non-disabled children, since, for example, they attend school less often and therefore
cannot benefit from school meal programs(CBM 2014).
The costs and the law
It would cost an additional 160 US dollars a
year for each person living in extreme poverty
to eliminate hunger over the period between
2015 and 2030. To achieve and sustain thisgoal, the international community of states
would have to raise 267 billion US dollars a
year, a task that can be accomplished giventhat this sum is a mere 0.3 per cent of the
global gross domestic product. According to
the UN report “Achieving Zero Hunger”, thismoney is needed for social security (116 billion
US dollars a year), in rural development andagriculture (105 billion US dollars) and forinvestments in urban development (46 billion
US dollars) (FAO, IFAD and WFP 2015). For
the 800 million people below the poverty line,
i.e. living on not more than 1.25 US dollars aday, this combination of combating hunger
and investing in future productivity would
enable a crucial change: getting out of spiraling poverty and entering a cycle enabling an
income of one’s own and investing in one’s
own future.

These are not mere alms or favors. The right tosufficient food was already established in Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights with a binding international law status
in 1948 (United Nations General Assembly1948). The international community of statesreiterated this right in Article 11 of the UN
Social Pact in 1966 (United Nations General
Assembly 1966). Each government that hassigned the UN Social Pact is obliged to implement the right to food.
Refugee food insecurity
The food supply situation is particularly
precarious for refugees and internally displaced
individuals. In many cases, the right to foodis not guaranteed by these people’s own
government, the neighboring countries arethen overburdened, and often enough, the UN
High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) as
well as the World Food Programme (WFP) lackthe money needed. Usually, it is not extreme
natural events that people are fleeing from butwars or conflicts. In 2014, more than half of
all refugees under the mandate of the UNHCR
came from the three countries of Syria (3.88
million), Afghanistan (2.59 million), andSomalia (1.11 million), all countries in which
systems of government and social security
are, to a large degree, now absent. The neighboring countries, such as Turkey (1.59 million

This has to be enough to survive
These were the quantities distributedby, for example, Welthungerhilfe incooperation with the World Food
Programme in Rubkona County inSouth Sudan in June 2015 . As a rule,
packages with a monthly ration for
one family (6 persons) were handedout (90 kg of sorghum, 9 kg ofpulses, 5 .4 liters of oil, 900 g of salt) .

30 ml of oil

per person/per day

5 g of salt

per person/per day

500 g of sorghum (grain)
per person/per day

50 g of pulses
per person/per day

Figure 3: Emergency ration in South Sudan in June 2015

WorldRiskReport 2015 ] 9

refugees), Pakistan (1.51 million) and Lebanon(1.15 million) are unable to care for the refugees on their own (UNHCR 2015). However,international support, for example in food andwater supplies, is underfinanced. In Iraq, forinstance, the WFP had to massively reduce
the emergency rations for almost a million
internally displaced people in the country(WFP 2015b). Already in April 2015, the valueof food vouchers was reduced from 26 to 16
US dollars, and in August, the monthly emergency rations for the families had to be halved– to 40 instead of the 80 per cent of a family’s
actual needs.
“Zero hunger” by 2030
The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)
already had a strong focus on food security,and significant successes were achieved with
their implementation. Nevertheless, there
were regional differences. While the MDG
goal of halving the number of those suffering hunger was fully achieved in East Asia
and Southeast Asia, the reverse trend wasobserved in West Asia (FAO/ IFAD/ WFP
2015b). In the regions of Sub-Saharan Africa,

The concept of the WorldRiskReport“Whether it be an earthquake or a tsunami, a cyclone orfloods, the risk of a natural event turning into a disaster always depends only partly on the force of the natural event
itself. The living conditions of the people in the regions affected and the options available to respond quickly and toprovide assistance are just as significant. Those who are prepared, who know what to do in the event of an extreme
natural event, have a greater chance of survival. Countries
that see natural hazards coming, that are preparing for theconsequences of climate change and are providing the financial means required will be better prepared for the future.
The WorldRiskReport should contribute to look at these links
at a global level and draw future-oriented conclusions regarding assistance measures, policies and reporting”(Bündnis Entwicklung Hilft 2011).

10 [ WorldRiskReport 2015

the Caribbean, South Asia, and Oceania, thehunger situation improved, although the
MDG goal was missed (see Figure 1, page 6).
In addition, across the world, approximately
two billion people are suffering from a lack ofessential vitamins and minerals – so-called
hidden hunger (von Grebmer et. al. 2014).
Extensive political efforts and financial
support on the part of the international
finance institutions and the donor countries
will be required to achieve the new “Zerohunger” goal by 2030 (see Chapter 4). Modelsof the future relating to climate change and its
impacts show that the frequency of extreme
natural events is increasing, reducing thetime left for both the societies hit and theecosystems to regenerate (see Chapter 2.1).
Conflict and crisis situations raise vulnerability and hence exacerbate the negative impactsof extreme natural events. Thus the “Zerohunger” goal also presupposes that climatechange is stemmed, adaptive strategies
against weather-conditioned and other disasters are developed and political solutions arefound for millions of refugees and internallydisplaced persons.
In Chapter 2, this report shows where there
is a particularly urgent need for action in thecontext of food security and disaster risk, andin Chapter 4, it provides a selection of recommendations to secure food supply and prevent
disasters.

WeltRisikoIndex
Rank

Results at a glance
Where is the highest disaster risk in the world? In otherwords, where do natural hazards coincide with a vulnerable
society? The WorldRiskIndex identifies the disaster risk hotspots in Central America, in the Southern Sahel, in Southeast
Asia, and in Oceania – conspicuously often, countries witha high or very high risk are situated close to the equator.
High exposure towards natural hazards is a significant risk
driver, as demonstrated by the example of Japan. Owing to
its exposure (the fourth highest worldwide), Japan belongs
to the class with a very high disaster risk (ranking seventeenth worldwide), although, thanks to its very good levelof development, the country shows only a very low level ofvulnerability (the fifteenth best value worldwide). Liberia is
the opposite example. While this West African country bears
only a very low exposure (rank 113 of 171 countries), Liberia is extremely vulnerable due to its very poor economic
and social situation – as was also dramatically demonstrated
in the 2014/2015 Ebola epidemic. Liberia ranks sixth in theworldwide vulnerability comparison. The result is that it has
a high disaster risk, putting it in fifty-seventh position worldwide. Looking at the table on the right, it is noticeable thatno less than six island nations are among the 15 countries
with the highest risk worldwide – and the remaining nine
are also situated next to the sea. This especially exposes
them to sea-level rise, cyclones, and floods. The other endof the ranking mainly comprises highly developed countries
all of which bear only a very low level of exposure towards
natural hazards.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.

Country
Vanuatu
Tonga
Philippines
GuatemalaSolomon Islands
Bangladesh
Costa Rica
Cambodia
Papua New Guinea
El Salvador
Timor-Leste
Brunei Darussalam
Mauritius
Nicaragua
Guinea-Bissau

Risk (%)

146.

Germany

3.00

157.
158.
159.
160.
161.
162.
163.
164.
165.
166.
167.
168.
169.
170.
171.

Israel
NorwayEgypt
FinlandSingapore
SwedenUnited Arab Emirates
Bahrain
Kiribati
Iceland
GrenadaBarbados
Saudi Arabia
Malta
Qatar

2.39
2.28
2.26
2.26
2.24
2.22
1.84
1.76
1.73
1.55
1.44
1.22
1.10
0.62
0.08

36.72
28.45
27.98
20.10
19.29
19.26
17.17
16.82
16.82
16.80
16.23
16.15
14.66
14.63
13.78

WorldRiskReport 2015 ] 11

12 [ WorldRiskReport 2015

2. Focus: food security

Disasters can have devastating impacts on a country’s foodsecurity – not only in the short term, but also long after they haveoccurred. They destroy harvests, stocks, and transport routes,
and therefore above all the livelihoods of those depending on
agriculture. However, the reverse is true as well. It is not unusualfor extreme natural events to turn into disasters because thepopulation affected is particularly vulnerable due to a poor foodsituation. In the worst case, the combined effect of disasters andfood insecurity leads to a fatal downward spiral, with the people hit
slipping from one crisis into the next.

WorldRiskReport 2015 ] 13

2.1 How disasters and crises affect food security
The author:
Bernhard Walter isFood Policy Advisor for
Brot für die Welt.

W

hen Nepal was shaken by an earthquakeon the 25 April 2015, more than 8,000
people died, and tens of thousands were
injured. It soon became clear that the quake
was also seriously impacting the population’s
food situation. Food security deteriorated
in all areas affected. In remote mountainregions, not enough or barely enough food
was available for 70 per cent of the population. Half of the people could only have an
unbalanced diet. There was an almost totalcollapse of food markets, and households
depending on wage labor had to come toterms with income losses of more than 30 per
cent. Around 35 per cent of the households
depended on food aid. In addition, the earthquake had also caused widespread losses
of food stocks. In one of the worst affectedareas, 80 per cent of the population lost their
entire food stocks, and in all areas, people
lacked 70 per cent of their reserves. In addition, many farmers were devoid of valuable
farming equipment and seed – with longterm consequences, for the majority of the
population in the areas hit live on agriculture(Nepal Food Security Cluster 2015).
Over the last few years, there has beena significant increase in the number ofextreme natural events like the earthquake
in Nepal. According to the Food andAgriculture Organization, the agricultural
sector is among the most strongly affectedeconomic areas in this respect (FAO 2015b).
While out of 78 extreme natural events
between 2003 and 2013, “only” 22 per centconcerned agriculture, the impacts are
disproportionately high. For worldwide, 2.5
billion people directly depend on agriculture
to survive. Not rarely, a natural event thatharms harvests, equipment, seed or livestock
can threaten the livelihoods of those affected.
Three levels of food security
Food security can generally be looked at
at three levels: the global, national and

14 [ WorldRiskReport 2015

household levels (Brot für die Welt et al.
2011):++ Food security on a global scale is the levelto set out from for an analysis of generaltrends and to gain an understanding of
the possible impacts of e.g. climate change
on agriculture. This is of importance sincethese trends have an effect on the worldwide level of agricultural prices and influence the decisions made by producers.

++ The national level is where most of thedecisions on food security are taken, forexample on how much finance is available for the national agricultural policy.
Central elements of adaptive strategies
in response to crises and disasters aredefined at a national level.

++ Food security at the household level:

Without a detailed examination of the
impacts on the household level, it would
not be possible to gain an understandingof the specific needs of each individualwith regard to food security. Such know­
ledge is key to the support of groups mostthreatened by food insecurity in the eventof a crisis.

These distinctions show that food security
given in a country as a whole cannot always
be equated with food security at regional
level or at household level, and this also
determines the measures to be taken in theevent of a crisis. It can result in food particularly rich in minerals and vitamins being
handed out specially to pregnant women andinfants in order to address their particularsituation, whereas other groups, such asnomads, receive animal feed so that they canagain keep livestock to earn a living.
There are a number of potential risk drivers
for all three levels of food security: natural
hazards some of which are exacerbated byclimate change on the one hand, and crises

Country example Burkina Faso

Seed and education for
healthy children
Since the food crisis of 2007/2008, Burkina Faso hasrepeatedly been hit by famine brought about above allby climate fluctuations, growing population density andchanges in land use. In the spring of 2012, a drought period
lasting several months led to serious food shortages.
Around 2.85 million people in 170 rural communities
of Burkina Faso, especially in the country’s north, were
threatened by hunger. At the beginning of 2012, there
was a disproportionately high increase in food prices. For
example, millet cost 85 per cent more than the annual
average. Above all peasants without land of their own
had to sell their livestock in order to be able to buy the
expensive grain, and there was a drastic drop in grain
production. In addition, in the same period, more than
46,000 refugees came across the border into the north of
Burkina Faso from Mali, which was hit by civil war. Thisadditionally aggravated the food situation.
As a result, around 300,000 children suffered frommalnutrition. About a third of them were underweight,
with 13 per cent in a state of acute malnutrition. Owing toan unbalanced diet, many children lacked micronutrientssuch as iron, zinc, iodine and vitamin A, which made them
particularly susceptible to night blindness and developing
goiters. Especially during the first 1,000 days of life, which
are particularly crucial to a human being’s further courseof life, i.e. in pregnancy and in the first two years of life,
chronic micronutrient deficiency can lead to irreversible
delayed physical and cognitive development amongchildren. Moreover, undernourished and malnourishedbabies are highly susceptible to infectious diseases such as
diarrhea and pneumonia. As a rule, if they do not receive
medical care in time, they will die of these avoidablediseases.
terre des hommes launched an emergency relief programin the drought region in the north of Burkina Faso in
April 2012 together with their local partner organization“Association D’aide aux Enfants et aux Familles Démunies”(ADEFAD). 5,600 children from more than 1,000 families

obtained millet bought in Western Burkina Faso. Seed forbeans and groundnuts was handed out to the women.
They were able to make use of the main agricultural
season from May to September 2012 to grow them in.
However, the very heavy rain that started in September
only partly resulted in a better harvest, but also destroyed
farmland and necessitated resettlements, which inturn reduced agricultural production. terre des hommes
financed further food programs and transformed theemergency relief program into a longer term program to
improve food supplies in ten communities. Starting kitchen
gardens and planting various varieties of vegetables
such as carrots, beans and lettuce provided the village
inhabitants with important nutrients. In order to spot
the first signs of malnutrition in time and have diseases
treated in their early stages, the women were given
vouchers for a free-of-charge visit to a health center andmedical care for their children.
In parallel, ADEFAD launched a training program for
200 women who learned how to provide their children
with nutritious food – for example by exclusively
breastfeeding them in the first six months. The results
were impressive. None of their children had to be referred
to a special health center because of undernourishment
or malnutrition. The babies and infants attained a normal
weight and grew up in good health. terre des hommes
supported the ADEFAD project with 140,000 Euros up to
May 2015.

Tanja Funkenberg, Officer for children’s rights and health atterre des hommes

WorldRiskReport 2015 ] 15

and conflicts as well as the globalization ofagriculture on the other.
Natural hazards
Natural events such as earthquakes, storms,
floods, droughts and sea-level rise have very
different effects on food security at global,
national and household level. At global level,
droughts in the 2000s resulted in considerable losses of wheat and maize in the USA,
Russia and Australia. These droughts were
one of the most important reasons for theworldwide stocks of grain to diminish step bystep, reaching their lowest level since 1974
in 2008/2009. The result was that world
food prices doubled in comparison to theyears 2002 to 2004 (FAO 2015a), while thenumber of those suffering hunger rose by 150
million to more than a billion in 2010.
For example, the droughts in the Sahelcountries in the 1970s and 1980s had devastating impacts at national level, affecting
around 50 million people and resulting inan estimated one million people dying of
hunger and disease. But in 2011/2012 too,
extreme dryness in Burkina Faso, Mali, Niger
and Chad led to shortages of food (Haeseler2012). Heavy rainfall following this periodof drought triggered floods that in turndestroyed part of the cultivated land and thefood stocks. In all four countries, the numberof people suffering from hunger remains at ahigh level and is even growing in some areas(FAO/IFAD/WFP 2015b).
As the effects of the floods in Pakistan in 2010
show, just like drought, flooding can havean impact on national food security if infrastructure such as roads, bridges or irrigation
systems in catchment areas of major rivers
is destroyed. The fertile river flood plains
are then also affected, so that failed harvests
owing to excessive flooding in these areas canconsiderably impair national food supplies.
However, earthquakes and cyclones can also
lead to national disasters. When Cyclone

16 [ WorldRiskReport 2015

Mitch struck in Central America in November 1998, 10,000 people were killed in
Honduras. A further two million people weremade homeless, and it was only possible toaccommodate a small proportion of them in
emergency shelters provided by the government or privately. The harvest was almost
totally destroyed. In particular, 70 per cent of
the areas under cultivation with the country’s
two most important export products, coffee
and bananas, was destroyed by the floodingthat Mitch had caused (Bornhorst 1999;
Mosbrucker/Mosbrucker 2008).
In coastal and island nations, sea-level rise
has a long-term negative effect on food security. It leads to soil salinification and renders
the cultivation of important staple food crops
impossible. In Bangladesh, for example, rice
growing in the coastal regions has declined
because storms keep on pressing seawater
into the land, where it then remains forseveral days. The increased salt concentration in the soil kills off the plants. Entire
population groups are losing their livelihoods
because of this. Saltwater advancing into
low-lying areas also poses a threat to freshwater fishery, which alone in Bangladesh
sustains the livelihoods of 1.35 million families (Diakonie Katastrophenhilfe 2009).
The deterioration of food security due todisasters in the wake of extreme natural
events – regardless of which type – can be
felt most strongly at household level. Poor
households with only a small income andhardly any property or savings are particularly hard hit when all stocks or forthcoming
harvests are destroyed. The collapse of
infrastructure then often makes it difficult
to provide these families with food in the
short term. Regional and local markets are
cut off from the outside world. In the regions
affected, the prices of staple food rise considerably. Not only is there a lack of caloric
supply but food quality is impaired, too. Now
people only have food containing starch toeat, while fruit and vegetables with important
micronutrients are not available. In such

situations, food aid providing staple foods isessential. Here, care has to be taken that as
far as possible, aid should come from inside
the country affected or from neighboring
countries, be culturally adapted, correspondto dietary habits and contain the necessary
micronutrients.
How long a disaster takes is crucial to theimpacts on the long-term food securityof (poor) households. In the long term,
long-lasting droughts or those occurring
at ever shorter intervals or sea-level rise inparticular lower the viability of tillage or
animal husbandry. For example, many pastoralists or nomads in West and East Africa canno longer earn a living and migrate to regions
where there is more rainfall. But there, land
is usually hard to come by, and conflicts withthe local population develop.
Climate change
The frequency and extent of these natural
food security risk factors are aggravated byan anthropogenic factor: climate change.
Currently, we are moving on a trajectory thatwould make the world four degrees warmer
by the end of the century (World Bank 2012).
The consequences would be devastating –above all for global food security. In addition
to a dramatic loss of biodiversity and thecollapse of maritime and terrestrial ecosystems, there is a threat of drastic drops inyield through heat stress among many crop
plants. But not only would temperatureschange – there would also be strong temporaland spatial shifts in precipitation and evaporation. The frequency of droughts, floods,
storms and other extreme weather eventswould also increase significantly according
to forecasts by the International Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC 2014b). Given a growing world population, this would result in
an increase in distribution conflicts, violent
conflicts over scarce resources and a probable
dramatic rise in migration and flight. Therefore, unchecked climate change is a threat tofood security and to human security.

In addition, it can be assumed that harvest
shortfalls will have to be reckoned with at
global level (IPCC 2014b). Those countries
that are closer to the equator, especiallythe tropical regions and wet-dry areas withseasonal dryness, are expected to be the
big losers. This is where a large share of theworld population live, and it is also where
the world’s poorest countries lie. The areasof Sub-Saharan Africa and the densely populated areas of Asia, including the major riverdeltas (such as the Indus, the Mekong andthe Red River), in which a rising sea levelis giving additional cause for concern. In
these areas, harvest shortfalls – for instanceof maize, by up to 40 per cent – are expected even if there is only a relatively small
increase in global warming of one to twodegrees Celsius (World Bank 2013).
But even very much smaller harvest shortfalls
are disastrous for regions with low overall
yields. Already today, more frequent water
scarcity for irrigation, increases in extreme
weather events, problems with additional
plant pests and diseases as well as animal
epidemics, higher abiotic stress factors forlivestock (e.g. heat sensitivity), a decline inbiodiversity, higher evaporation rates, soil
acidification and an increased decline inmaritime fish stocks can be observed in areas
close to the equator.
Above a global temperature rise of more than
two degrees, given an increasing demandowing to population growth, considerable
negative impacts on global and regional foodsecurity can be reckoned with, and, especially,
fluctuations in harvest yields will be far more
frequent. From four degrees Celsius on, it will
hardly be possible to compensate for damage
through adaptive measures (IPCC 2014b).
Thus the IPCC has projected that yields fromagriculture depending on rain could be halved
by 2020 in some African countries. Competition for increasingly scarce natural resources
raises the risk of regional conflicts which inturn are a threat to food security.

WorldRiskReport 2015 ] 17

In rural areas, particularly the poor people
are suffering from climate change since
they have only a limited adaptive potential.
Around 80 per cent of those going hungry arefarmers, pastoralists, fishers, hunters, gatherers and indigenous peoples. In addition toan undersupply of calories, they suffer froma chronic lack of vital micronutrients. Often,
women and children are especially threatened. Children who grow up undernourishedstill suffer from the effects of malnutrition in
adulthood.
Crises and conflicts
While food security can be restored after
disasters in the short to medium term, especially in conflict long-term food security is
not ensured.
Although the incidence of armed crises
between 2013 and 2014 did not rise substantially, the number of conflicts having grownfrom 20 to 21, more and more countries areaffected by the disputes (Heidelberg Institutefor International Conflict Research 2015).
Reasons given for the increase in combat
zones worldwide included the activities of
the terror organizations “Islamic State” and“Boko Haram”. Furthermore, in 2014, 424
political conflicts were counted worldwide– the highest number since the beginning of
the 1990s. The World Development Report
2011 (World Bank 2011) points out that noneof the countries affected by conflicts, civil
wars and violence, all of which show a low
pro capita income, has solved its hunger
problem and that development achievements
over the last 30 years have bypassed the 1.5
billion people in the conflict regions.
Not only do violent conflicts directly interrupt food supplies for the population, but
in the long term, they also have a negative
impact on the production cycle. Farmers
cannot till their fields for an initially unpredictable period and are therefore unable
to bring in any harvests. For example, still
today, 13 years after the end of the civil
war in Angola, agricultural production is

18 [ WorldRiskReport 2015

suffering there because landmines prevent
access to the fields.
Globalization of agriculture
Economic globalization has also resulted
in an increasing integration of marginal
countries in global economic cycles. International institutions such as the World Bankand the International Monetary Fund haverecommended many countries to orient theiragricultural sector on the world market andconcentrate on exports. Thus food security should not rely primarily on national
production but on cheaper imports. In thiscontext, it is the local market structures andinfrastructure for functioning urban-rurallinks and the rural regions that have above all
been neglected. The risks posed by declining
national production and rising prices on
the world market for local food supplies
were not sufficiently considered. This raised
susceptibility to crises in many countries
and crucially contributed to the 2008/2009
hunger crisis.
Forecasts indicate that a further two
billion people will have to be fed by 2050.
This alone is an enormous challenge forresource-friendly agricultural production,and in the medium and long term, it is goingto tighten demands on future food security.
Thus, all in all, in particular, an increase inlocal and regional insufficient food security
owing to the impacts of natural hazards,
climate change, crises and conflicts will haveto be expected. Rising demand using up morenatural resources and the climate-conditioned volatility of food supply are driving
factors in this context.

2.2 How food insecurity influences disaster risk
The authors:
Dr. Matthias Garschagenheads the Vulnerability
Assessment, Risk Management & Adaptive Planning
Section at UNU-EHS.
Dr. Michael Hagenlocher,
Dr. Julia Kloos and Joanna Pardoe are research
associates in the Section.

T

his chapter looks at whether, and if so,how, food insecurity results in higher
disaster risk. What direct but also indirect
influence does food insecurity have on
the type and the extent of natural hazards
and a society’s susceptibility? How do theconsequences of food insecurity influence
coping capacities and adaptive capacities
regarding natural hazards such as floods or
cyclones?
Causes of food insecurity
In order to analyze the influence of food insecurity on disaster risk, it is necessary to lookat the causes of food insecurity along the four
dimensions of availability, stability, access,and utilization (see Chapter 1). Over the last
decades, this has led to numerous discussions. Early approaches tended to concentrate on technological conditions affecting
the productivity of agro-ecosystems andthe biophysical carrying capacity of various
climate zones and soil conditions as the maincauses of food insecurity. The publication ofAmartya Sen’s seminal research on poverty
and famines (Sen 1981) brought institutional
explanations more to the fore, particularly
regarding access to food and the corresponding entitlements: Food insecurity is not only
determined by the limits of production andyields but crucially result from an unbalanced institutional and economic system.
Here, problems in the distribution and thefinancial as well as institutional availabilityof food are often the chief cause of food insecurity. Recently, the utilization dimension
has also been given increasing attention andhas raised questions regarding the quality
and use of food. Today, most scientists andpractitioners agree that all four dimensions
contribute to food insecurity and therefore have to be looked at in terms of their
combined effects.
Food insecurity therefore results from theinteraction of multiple environmental andsocio-economic factors: natural hazards,
the level of technology, and insufficient
redistribution or trade systems are examples.
Poverty is a central factor since it complicatesaccess to means of production and resultsin lower purchasing power on food markets(Smith et al. 2000). Insufficient infrastructure plays a role if it hinders access to meansof production, markets and transportation,
thus restricting production and distribution.
This problem is often caused by a lack ofgovernment or private sector investments.
Political instability, corruption and/or
conflicts also lead to a lower capacity of
governments to maintain food security.
Rapid increases in food prices, unstable foodmarkets, shifts in trade, and food speculation
can be further causes of food insecurity. In
addition, the rising demand for food owing topopulation growth, biofuels, livestock farming, and fodder cultivation is increasingly
being discussed as a threat to food security.
Looking at the household level, a large
share of dependent household members, forexample those who are too young or too old
to contribute their labor to food production,
are of central importance. If members of
the household who normally maintain foodproduction fall sick, this can put a considerable strain on the entire household.
The lack of sufficient land and water provides
further limitations to achieving food security.
Hence, environmental factors such as climate
variability (Wheeler/ von Braun 2013) andsoil degradation (Pimentel 2006) can threaten and reduce food security.
How food insecurity raises disaster risk
According to the WorldRiskIndex, disaster
risk, i.e. the risk of suffering harm in theevent of earthquakes, floods, cyclones,
droughts or sea level rise, is shaped by four
components: spatial and temporal exposure
to natural hazards, susceptibility, coping

WorldRiskReport 2015 ] 19

capacities, and adaptive capacities (see Chapter 3). Food insecurity can have an effecton all of these components, as science andpractice have clearly shown.
Food insecurity and exposure: Food insecurity often forces people to expand theiragricultural production into areas withgreater natural hazards. Due to scarcity ofland, migrants from regions with undernourishment often have to settle and farm inlocations with a greater exposure that havepreviously not been used by the local population. For example, it has been observed thatin years of drought, smallholders in West
Africa are increasingly extending their crops
to plains threatened by floods (Pardoe et al.
in press). In addition to these spatial effects,
food insecurity can also amplify temporalexposure patterns. This is primarily the casewhere people are forced to move their growing or production period to risky seasons.
For example, fishers in Southeast Asia often
have to extend their fishing activities into thetyphoon season, particularly in times of foodinsecurity (Arnason 2006). Also, croppingthat extends into the flood or dry season is
an issue in many cases. Such effects drive up
disaster risk not only with regard to physicalwellbeing but also in relation to economic
losses. In addition, food insecurity frequently
leads to a direct increase or intensificationof natural hazards, and therefore exposure,by exacerbating local overexploitation anddegradation of ecosystems (Munang et al.
2013). The research field of political ecology
deals with a wide range of case studies inwhich food insecure communities (haveto) overexploit their local environments
in a bid to secure their food-production.
Deforestation of hill-slopes, for instance, has
in many cases been stepped up in order tocreate some additional space for agricultural
production). However, while there are only
marginal additional yields, such measures
rapidly increase the risk of landslides andflash floods (Mugagga et al. 2012). In asimilar manner, overgrazing in semi-arid
ecosystems has, in many parts of the world,

20 [ WorldRiskReport 2015

resulted in the degradation of vegetation andan intensification of natural hazards such as
flooding or desertification. At global level,
too, intensive food production is indirectly
contributing to an amplification of climatechange-related natural hazards, since agriculture is currently contributing ten to twelve
per cent of annual greenhouse gas emissions(IPCC 2014a).
Food insecurity and susceptibility: Susceptibility can be understood as the inherent
predisposition to experience harm when
exposed to natural hazards. The susceptibility of communities and individuals strongly
depends on food supply, i.e. on the availability, stability, access to, and utilization of food.
For instance, undernourished children run agreater risk of suffering physical harm in theevent of flooding or another crisis situation.
In addition, undernourishment usually leads
to a lowering of physical performance, whichfurther impedes the food security of people
working in agriculture. At the same time,linkages between food and disaster risk can
be observed not only with regard to undernourishment but to an increasing degree
also in terms of obesity, diabetes, and otherconsequences of malnutrition, especiallyin countries with high and medium income(Shrimpton/ Rokx 2012). Effects include, forexample, a greater incidence of cardiovascular diseases during heat waves (Kenny et al.
2010).
Food insecurity and coping capacities: Food
insecurity has negative impacts on the ability
to cope with natural hazards and crisis situations. Typically, food insecurity also implies
a shortage or lack of food stock reserves atnational and local level (Hendriks 2015).
Hence, food cannot be obtained when it isneeded most: in times of acute disasters andcrises in which local food production comesto a standstill and trade or even external
emergency relief cannot be performed effectively due to infrastructure disruptions. In
addition, during crisis situations, there areshort- or long-term increases in food prices.

The Global Hunger Index
The Global Hunger Index (GHI) is a tool designed to comprehensively display hunger globally, regionally, and bycountry. Each year, the International Food Policy ResearchInstitute (IFPRI) calculates GHI scores in order to assess progress, or the lack thereof, in decreasing hunger. To reflect
the multidimensional nature of hunger, the GHI combines
the following four component indicators into one index:+ Undernourishment: the proportion of undernourishedpeople as a percentage of the population (reflecting theshare of the population with insufficient caloric intake)+ Child Wasting: the proportion of children under the ageof five who suffer from wasting (that is, low weight for
their height, reflecting acute undernutrition)+ Child Stunting: the proportion of children under the ageof five who suffer from stunting (that is, low height for
their age, reflecting chronic undernutrition)+ Child Mortality: the mortality rate of children under theage of five (partially reflecting the fatal synergy of inadequate nutrition and unhealthy environments).
There are several advantages to measuring hunger using
this multidimensional approach. It notably reflects the nutrition situation not only of the population as a whole, butalso of children, a vulnerable subset of the population forwhom a lack of dietary energy, protein, or micronutrients(essential vitamins and minerals) leads to a high risk of
illness, poor physical and cognitive development, or death.
Furthermore, it combines independently measured indicators to reduce the effects of random measurement errors.
The 2015 GHI has been calculated for 117 countries forwhich data on all four component indicators are available
and where measuring hunger is considered most relevant.
GHI scores are not calculated for some higher-income
countries where the prevalence of hunger is very low (vonGrebmer et al. 2015).

WorldRiskReport 2015 ] 21

WorldRiskIndex* and Global Hunger Index

Overlapping of WorldRiskIndex (WRI)* top 34 and Global Hunger Index (GHI) top 34
WRI*: Top 34 country (GHI: not Top 34 country)
GHI: Top 34 country (WRI*: not top 34 country)
WRI*: Top 34 country (GHI: no data)
WRI*: Top 34 country (GHI: not calculated since classified as industrialized country)

Figure 4a: Disaster risk* and hunger overlaps

Exposure and Global Hunger Index

Overlapping of exposure (top 34) and GHI (top 34)
Exposure: Top 34 country (GHI: not top 34 country)
GHI: Top 34 country (exposure: not top 34 country)
Exposure: Top 34 country (GHI: no data)
Exposure: Top 34 country (GHI: not calculated since classified as industrialized country)

Figure 4b: Exposure to natural hazards and hunger overlaps

Vulnerability* and Global Hunger Index

Overlapping of vulnerability* (top 34) and GHI (top 34)
Vulnerability*: Top 34 country (GHI: not Top 34 country)
GHI: Top 34 country (vulnerability*: not top 34 country)
Vulnerability*: Top 34 country (GHI: no data)

Figure 4c: Vulnerability* and hunger overlaps

22 [ WorldRiskReport 2015

Households affected by food insecurity are
therefore frequently forced to sell valuables
or assets, which in turn erodes their longterm coping and adaptive capacities and raises vulnerability to natural hazards as a whole.
Food security and adaptive capacities: Food
security ranks as one of the most fundamental development needs, and it is usually a key
policy goal. In many countries, resources areused chiefly for this purpose. In most cases,
excess resources can only be increasingly
allocated to other areas of sustainable development such as disaster preparedness or
adaptation to climate change once food security has been achieved. As the indicators of
the WorldRiskIndex show, activities relevant
to adaptation include, for example, measuresin the areas of education, environmental
protection, and healthcare. Reallocation of
resources into such areas can be observed,
once food-security has been taken care of, atvarious levels ranging from the household
level to national or global development
policies (FAO/ IFAD/ WFP 2011). At thesame time, food insecurity represents asignificant obstacle to generating resources
for adaptation. A recent study by the World
Food Programme, for instance, revealed thatchild undernourishment leads to significant
productivity losses (AUC et al. 2015). In
turn, the resources generated for example fordisaster risk reduction measures lag behind.
Similarly, food insecurity has a wide range ofimpacts on concrete adaptation parameterssuch as education (by tying children to securing food supplies at the expense of school
activities), gender balance (when precarious
food situations lead to a structural discrimination of women and girls) or environmental
protection (when, as described above,
unsuitable production methods result in an
intensification of environmental degradationand natural hazards).
Hunger and disaster risk at global level
What is the link between food insecurity
and disaster risk at global level? In order
to examine this question, the following

section looks at the correlation between
the WorldRiskIndex (WRI) and the Global
Hunger Index (GHI). The GHI serves as atool to represent the hunger situation worldwide. A global index for food insecurity could
so far not be compiled by the FAO due todata gaps. Therefore, the following analysis
focuses particularly on the level of correlation between hunger and the two dimensionsof the WRI: exposure and vulnerability. Since
susceptibility, one of the three sub-components of vulnerability in the WRI, contains
an indicator that relates directly to food (seeChapter 3) and would distort the results ofthe correlation analysis, vulnerability andthe WRI were newly calculated for the 171
countries leaving out the indicator “Share ofundernourished population” (in the following
marked as vulnerability * and WRI* respectively). The analyses were conducted with thelatest indexes from 2015.
Based on the correlation analysis of the country data, a moderate positive relationshipwas identified between hunger and disasterrisk (correlation coefficient r = 0.33 on ascale from -1 to +1). However, the individualcomponents of the WRI* vary with regard totheir statistical association with hunger. For
example, if vulnerability* (i.e. susceptibility
and the lack of coping and adaptive capacities) is considered exclusively, a very strong
association with the hunger situation emerges (r = 0.91). In contrast, the above-described
effects of hunger on exposure are spatially
distinct. A statistical correlation between
exposure (according to its measure in theWRI) and hunger (as measured in the GHI)
can therefore not be detected at the global
level (r = -0.02).
The three maps (Figures 4a, 4b and 4c) on
page 22 show in which countries disaster risk
and hunger overlap spatially (according to
GHI 2015) – and where they do not. In order
to visualize the differences and overlaps, 34
countries with (1) the highest disaster risk
(i.e. the highest WRI* values), (2) the highest
exposure, (3) the highest vulnerability * and(4) the highest GHI values respectively wereWorldRiskReport 2015 ] 23

included in the analysis. The threshold of 34
is chosen so as to include all countries with“very high” risk in the 2015 WRI*. Thus,
countries not highlighted in the map can still
be at “high” disaster risk, but were not taken
into consideration for this analysis.
Many coastal countries in South America
and Southeast Asia show a high disaster risk
mainly because of their high exposure, without however belonging to the 34 most highlylisted countries in the GHI (Figure 4a). Their
placing in the GHI can primarily be traced
back to a significant improvement in thefood situation in both regions over the last
decades that is based both on socioeconomic
progress and on special programs to promote
food security. For example, looking at the
GHI values of 1990, one clearly recognizes
that at the time, several countries in bothregions were faced with a serious or evenalarming hunger situation.
The maps also show that there are common
hotspots with high disaster risk and hunger.
Eight of the 34 countries included in theanalysis, meaning almost one quarter, show
a very high disaster risk and simultaneously
belong to the 34 countries with the biggest
hunger problem. They comprise Bangladesh,
Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Madagascar, Niger,
Sierra Leone, and Timor-Leste, as well as
Chad (Figure 4a).
Analyzing the overlaps of exposure andvulnerability* with hunger yields a spatiallymuch more differentiated picture (Figure4b): Just three of the 34 countries with thehighest exposure (9 per cent) overlap withthe 34 countries with the biggest hunger
problem: Bangladesh, Guinea-Bissau andTimor-Leste. On a global level, hunger ina given country is therefore not primarily
conditioned by exposure to natural hazards
and vice versa.
However, the maps also reveal that there
is a very strong regional overlap between
the countries characterized by hunger andcountries with a high degree of vulnerability*

24 [ WorldRiskReport 2015(see below regarding the issue of causality):
A total of 28 countries (approx. 82 per centof the considered countries) simultaneously
show a “very high” level of vulnerability*
and are among the top 34 countries withsevere hunger problems (see Figure 4c). The
great majority of these countries (around 89
per cent) are located in sub-Saharan Africa.
However, the percentages can only be taken
as a very rough reference value, since forseveral countries with a very high disasterrisk no data on the food situation is available(for instance Papua New Guinea, Solomon
Islands, Tonga, and Vanuatu). Hence there
is no assessment of the current hunger situation for these countries.
These results demonstrate that first, there isa global hotspot in which hunger and highvulnerability* co-exist and appear to mutually reinforce each other. Second, hunger isevidently linked more strongly to a country’s
prevalent socioeconomic and institutional
vulnerability* than to its exposure to natural
hazards. This link is also relevant to anunderstanding of the potential effects thatclimate change has on the hunger situation.
Despite remaining uncertainties in global
climate and yield models, the expected
impacts of climate change on food security
are strongest in those world regions that
already represent hotspots of hunger today(Wheeler/ von Braun 2013). In addition to
the potential yield effects, it is particularly
the dimensions of access, stability, and utilization that are relevant to disaster risk andlook set to increase owing to indirect effects
of climate change (ibid.).
Yet, since statistical significant correlation
does not necessarily imply causation, carehas to be taken when interpreting the above
results. The statistical analysis alone does notallow for drawing conclusions on the presence and details of causal effects, especiallysince both phenomena – hunger and disaster
vulnerability – might be caused by similar
external factors, such as poverty or weak
institutions. Therefore, complementary analyses, like the ones provided in the first partCountry example Burundi

Kindernothilfe conducted a food security project in thecontext of the self-help group approach. The project above
all addressed women and reached a total of 45,600 people: 9,120 members of 465 women’s self-help groups andtheir relatives.
These self-help groups in Burundi focused on improving
the food situation by raising agricultural yield and income
and on disseminating improved cultivation methods. For
example, under the instruction of experts, the womengrew maize, manioc, rice and potatoes in test fields using
different varieties and methods so that they were able toidentify the best cultivation methods by the results they
achieved. In addition, the self-help groups had themselves
registered at community level so that they could more
quickly benefit from government services such as seed,fertilizer or agricultural extension.

Empowering women to reduce
the risk of drought
Alongside Eritrea, Burundi is the only country whose foodsituation is referred to as “extremely alarming” in theWorld Hunger Index 2014. Undernourished people accountfor 67.3 per cent of the total population. At 10.9 per cent,child mortality among the under-five-year-olds is still extremely high. With these figures, Burundi is bottom of thelist of 76 countries in the Global Hunger Index.
Although nine out of ten of Burundi’s inhabitants workin agriculture, the annual food deficit has been put at
470,000 tons. The country is suffering from the late effects
of a civil war, population growth is high, government
structures are weak, and the average areas under cultivation are small. In addition, food prices have risen sharply
over the last few years – for instance, maize by 71 per centand rice by 88 per cent between 2010 and 2012 – whilepurchasing power has remained more or less unchanged.
Particularly in the rural regions, this has considerably aggravated the poverty and food situation. One big threat tothe population’s food security is the occurrence of extreme
weather incidents that lead to massive harvest losses.

In the final evaluation of the project, 59.4 per cent of thoseinterviewed stated that they were having three meals aday. At the beginning of the project, this had only been
the case with 6.7 per cent of the interviewees. 36.5 percent of the women interviewed in the self-help groups
were having two meals a day by the end of the project(previously there had been 69.8 per cent), and 4.2 per cent
only had enough resources for one meal a day. This share
had been at 21.4 per cent at the beginning of the project.
In addition, by the end of the four-year term of the project, 27.6 per cent of those interviewed were very satisfied
or satisfied (67.5 per cent) with the level of agricultural
production (compared with the initial levels of 74 per centunsatisfied and 23 per cent satisfied). Thus the project
has made a significant contribution to food security andstrengthened the rural population’s disaster resilience.
The project was sponsored by the European Union andKindernothilfe with funds totaling 621,000 euro. The
European Union provided 528,000 Euro and Kindernothilfe
93,000 Euro.

Tanja Pazdzierny, Referentin Humanitäre Hilfe und Barbara
Winker, Referentin Ko-Finanzierung bei der Kindernothilfe

Between October 2010 and January 2014, together with
its local partner organization “Réseau Burundi 2000 plus”,

WorldRiskReport 2015 ] 25

of the chapter, are necessary. Furthermore,
it has to be taken into consideration that theanalysis was conducted at country level andinferences regarding possible causal relationsat other measurement scales cannot be

automatically drawn. This becomes very clear
in the lack of any linkages between exposureand hunger at the national level, while these
are clearly evident at the local level, as shownin the examples above.

2.3. Food security in disaster and crisis situations
The author:
Prof. Dr. Katrin Radtke
works as a consultant
for Welthungerhilfe,
and is a lecturer andresearcher at Akkon
University of Human
Sciences Berlin undRuhr University Bochum.

W

hen an extreme natural event hits acountry and turns into a disaster, as was
the case with the 2015 earthquake in Nepal,
the cyclone in the Philippines in 2013, or the2010 floods in Pakistan, and the governmentis unable to cope with the size and impact ofthe disaster, the governments concerned often
ask the international community for help innumerous sectors, including food security.
However, external observers are frequently
hardly able to comprehend what happensin these cases, how food aid is performed indetail, which actors are involved, and whatstandards they are guided by. The media
above all report on large-scale food distribution. The numerous other approaches that are
not so suitable for media coverage remain in
the dark, as do many essential actors and thecoordinating structures behind emergency
relief. This article gives a brief overview of themost important procedures in the field of foodsecurity during disasters and explains the key
framework conditions.
Actors
It usually takes several days for the firstinternational emergency relief teams to reachthe disaster area. Until then, and usually
afterwards as well, local structures see to thechief share of humanitarian aid activities.
These are of crucial importance, for it has
been estimated that, for example, 98 per centof all people buried alive in an earthquake
are rescued from the debris within the firsttwo days. Usually, it is the next of kin, friends
and neighbors who come to their aid, as well
as local organizations such as the national
Red Cross and Red Crescent organizations
and other emergency management and civil

26 [ WorldRiskReport 2015

protection organizations (Munz 2007). The
same applies to food and drinking watersupply. Various studies show that in theimmediate period during and after a disaster,
there is a particularly high level of solidarity
among those hit. For example, they share foodand drinking water, thus providing mutual
support to survive the immediate emergency(Scanlon 2007, Fischer 1998).
Only later do the international relief organizations enter the stage. Even if the organizations
happen to be operating locally and maintaintheir own country offices or are working
together with partners, their programs areusually focused on long-term development
cooperation. Therefore, specialized emergency
relief teams are generally flown in who first of
all sound out the situation and establish thelocal needs. This needs assessment is often
conducted by the organizations themselves,
although it is increasingly being carried out
as a collaborative measure in order to ensure
better coordination and keep the strain on
the communities affected at a minimum level(IASC 2012).
Usually, the individual relief organizations
concentrate on a small number of regionsin the country hit by the disaster and do notcover the entire range of humanitarian aid
sectors. This decision depends among otherson what needs have been established, on anorganization’s profile, on where it is normallylocated in the country and on coordination
with other organizations. For example, in theaftermath of the earthquake in Haiti, the NGO
Welthungerhilfe handed out food packages
and provided drinking water as well as “Cashfor Work” measures to clear the debris,enabling people to earn money to buy food.
Later on, the organization again concentrated
on the agricultural projects it had been runningbefore the disaster to promote food security andon restoring and building houses. Ideally, theinternational relief organizations collaborate withlocal partner organizations, since the latter havealready gathered years of experience in the disaster region and sooner or later are to again assume
responsibility for running the programs.

Country example Philippines

Tools
Various approaches are available to achieve foodsecurity in immediate emergency relief. Whichapproaches are actually applied always depends
on the context (including a program’s objective,
the functioning of markets, implementing capacities), casts and preferences of the target group,and often, unfortunately, on the political interestsof the donor countries.
Basically, there are three different approaches:
in-kind, cash, and voucher. In-kind refers to thedirect distribution of food. Here, one can distinguish between food procured locally, regionally,
and globally. Whereas in the mid-1990s, just 13
per cent of food aid was bought locally or regionally, it was already 67 per cent in 2010. Manyof the donors, such as the European Union andCanada, were thus responding to research results
indicating that very often, food aid is not an efficient tool to reduce food surpluses of the donor
countries and also weakens the local and regional
markets in the crisis countries (Lentz 2015).
In order to be able to swiftly dispatch food towhere it is needed in an emergency situation,
the World Food Program (WFP) maintains
UN Humanitarian Response Depots. They aresituated in six strategic locations (in Ghana, theUnited Arab Emirates, Malaysia, Panama, Italy
and Spain) on the premises of airports, and in
the proximity of ports and main roads. In thismanner, relief goods can be delivered worldwide
within a matter of 24 to 48 hours (UNHRD 2014).
For some years, the significance of pure food aid(in-kind) has been declining. Instead, other foodsecurity measures are increasingly being used

Getting to the food package in awheelchair
The Philippines are among the countries with the highest disaster risk in the world. In the list of 171 countries in the WorldRiskIndex 2015, this island nation comes up third. In addition toearthquakes, it is above all the cyclones occurring each yearthat represent a considerable danger to the country. In November 2013, Cyclone Haiyan, one of the strongest cyclones evermeasured, resulted in high numbers of victims and destruction
on a massive scale in the islands of Samar, Leyte, Cebu andPanay. More than 6,000 people were killed, and hundreds ofthousands had to abandon their homes and seek refuge in tent
camps. Entire cities were hit, and destruction is still visible inmany towns and villages.
In Concepcion and Estancia, in the north of the island of Panay,
Christoffel-Blindenmission (CBM) had a team on site just a few
days after the cyclone had struck in order to hand out foodand provide other relief services in cooperation with the local
partner organization “Association of Disabled People Iloilo”(ADPI). This enabled 23,000 people to be supplied with, forexample, rice, noodles, tinned food, sugar, salt, and oil. The
families received food twice as well as non-food items such as
toothbrushes, soap and blankets to last for two to three weeks
respectively. A total of more than 200,000 euro worth of goods
was distributed.
k continued on page 28

WorldRiskReport 2015 ] 27

k Country example Philippines, continued from page 27
In the Philippines, too, there was the typical risk for such
centralized distribution measures of certain population groups
being left out, such as sick, elderly or disabled people andpregnant women. For them, the distribution point is often too
far off, or waiting in the queue while the goods are handed
out is too exhausting. Relatives caring for their next of kin who
cannot leave them alone for a longer period are also at a disadvantage. In order to prevent such families from missing out
on relief supplies, the municipal authorities provided CBM withdata on residents. On the basis of the data, some particularly
vulnerable households were identified that the relief packages
had to be brought to personally, which saved those affected
the tedious walk to the distribution point and waiting long in
the queues.
Also, whenever possible, already in the preparatory stages ofa distribution, it is important to choose a spot that is accessible for people with disabilities and easy and quick to get
to for all households in a region. In Concepcion, for example,
the local city hall was used for food distribution. It is situatedin the city center and provides access for everyone via wide
approaches and thanks to the hall being at ground level, sothat no steps have to be climbed and older as well as blind
people and wheelchair users can reach the distribution point
easily and without being at any risk. Thanks to the facility
being roofed, people waiting at the distribution point werealso protected from exposure to the strong sunshine typical of
the Philippines.
During the food distribution in Concepcion, CBM and their local
partner, ADPI, also trained more than 100 volunteers whohelped pack the food and distribute the goods – many of thempeople with disabilities. The integration of the local population
both in the preparatory phase and in distributing the goods
contributed to relief measures reaching those people more
quickly who were most in need. Moreover, involving disabled
people in distributing goods reduces prejudice by demonstrating the vital contributions that they can make in an emergency situation.

Oliver Neuschäfer, Emergency Coordinator at ChristoffelBlindenmission

28 [ WorldRiskReport 2015as an alternative or in addition to food aid.
The transfer of cash and vouchers is gaining
more and more importance. “Cash for work”,
in which cash is handed out in payment oflabor provided e.g. for road building, clearing
debris and the construction of dams to protect
the fields, is a special type of money transfer.
More and more frequently, such transfers are
implemented with the aid of more recent technology, such as electronic versions of vouchers
as SMS via mobiles. Between 2008 and 2011,
the number of these cash and voucher projects
increased tenfold, and it now accounts formore than a third of WFP activities (WFP
2012).
Most organizations apply a toolset comprising a number of approaches that is adapted toa specific context. For not all tools are suitable for every context. For example, while cashtransfers are believed to be cheaper and enjoy
a good reputation in terms of boosting theself-responsibility of the recipients because
they offer them more freedom of decision,
they will only work if local markets are ina healthy state, i.e. when food is available
in principle but cannot be bought by the
local population because of the high prices
charged. If not enough food is available,
in-kind deliveries make more sense. Here,
while locally and regionally produced food isthe first choice nowadays, no principle canbe derived from this either. For if prices in
the region are very high, buying in the region
may be counterproductive, and overseas
imports may well make sense. Thus more
flexibility of tools was also established in the“Food Assistance Convention”, which enteredforce in 2013 (Food Assistance Committee2012).
In addition, a wide range of tools are appliedthat can be assigned to the transition
to sustainable development and usuallyconcentrate on agricultural production
and marketing (LRRD approach: “Linking
Relief, Rehabilitation and Development”).
Following the United Nations International
Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR,
see Chapter 4), they center on the resilience

of the population, the aim being to alreadytake measures in the emergency situationor shortly afterwards that are to prevent adisaster from occurring in the long term.
Examples here include the constructionof protective barriers for agricultural land
involving cash for work measures or the
distribution of drought-resistant seed. In theideal case, building resilience is performed
cross-sectorally and takes the existing local
disaster preparedness and early warning
structures into account.

requirements for humanitarian aid in four
sectors: water, sanitation and hygiene / foodsecurity and (mal-) nutrition/ shelter andnon-food items / health. In the food securityand (mal-) nutrition sector, there are regulations on, for example, how to conduct needs
assessments and on the right approach toachieving food security for babies and infants
as well as in the case of acute malnutrition.
Proposals are also formulated on the composition of day rations in food aid – both withregard to the right number of calories and tocultural acceptance (SPHERE Project 2011).

Standards
Irrespective of the approach used, certain
standards are applied that many of the organizations working in the field of humanitarian
aid have agreed on. However, these standards
are voluntary commitments observing of
which is not controlled. For a long time,the most important standards included
the SPHERE Standards, the Humanitarian
Accountability Partnership (HAP), Peoplein Aid, as well as Quality COMPAS, each ofwhich was supported by different initiatives.
These four initiatives have since developed
the Core Humanitarian Standard, which waspresented in 2015. It will replace three ofthe four standards in future. The new Core
Humanitarian Standard is based on the principles of humanity, impartiality, neutrality,
and independence, and it comprises nineelements: (1) appropriateness and relevance,(2) effectiveness and timeliness, (3) strengthening of local capacities and avoidance ofnegative side-effects, (4) communicationand participation as well as feedback, (5)complaint mechanisms, (6) coordination andcomplementarity, (7) continuous learningand improving activities, (8) equal treatment,
fairness and support for humanitarian aid
workers, (9) responsible use of resources(Core Humanitarian Standard 2014).
For the time being, the SPHERE standards
remain in place as a set of rules in its own
right, while the other three standards areto be replaced by the Core HumanitarianStandard. They comprise detailed minimum

For several years, the “Do No Harm” approachhas played an important role in humanitarian
emergency relief. It evolved from the experiencethat poorly planned aid does more harm thangood, despite good intentions. For example, inthe food sector in particular, poorly planned
food aid projects can paralyze the self-initiativeand self-help potential of the population andlead to long-term dependence. In complex crisis
situations, ill-considered handing out of food(for example among individual groups in society
and / or conflict parties) may aggravate existing
conflicts and only further worsen food security.
The “Do No Harm” approach therefore requiresthat contexts be thoroughly analyzed ahead ofeach intervention.
Coordination
International organizations can only become
active with the consent of the government
concerned. If a government in the face of adisaster requests international support and isfurthermore not in a position to control thehumanitarian mission itself, the UN Officefor the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs(OCHA) takes over aid coordination. In order toensure that the frequently hundreds of different
relief organizations are well coordinated, forexample regarding who is working where andin which sector, OCHA introduced the cluster
approach in 2005 in the context of the “Humanitarian Reform”. It evolved as a response to
the failure of international emergency relief
in Darfur and now consists of eleven clusters
operating both at global level (global clusters)

WorldRiskReport 2015 ] 29

and in the crisis countries. Each cluster relates
to a certain sector (see illustration 8) andconsists of numerous relief organizations
that are coordinated by a lead agency. A leadagency in a global cluster may differ from thatin a crisis country itself. While the clusters
have, above all, been led by UN organizations
such as UNICEF and WFP, non-governmentalorganizations are now increasingly assuming
leadership responsibilities as well, especiallyat national level.
Aid in the field of food and nutrition is coordinated by two clusters: the Food Security
Cluster and the Nutrition Cluster. The former
coordinates measures in all four dimensionsof food security (for dimensions see Chapter1). The latter concentrates on malnutrition, and thus mainly on the dimension ofutilization of food. However, the access ofhouseholds to food also plays an importantrole, so that there are overlaps between thetwo clusters. At global level, the Food Security
Cluster is headed by the WFP and the Foodand Agriculture Organization (FAO), whereas
UNICEF coordinates the Nutrition Cluster.
The task of these two global clusters is above
all that of supporting the national clusters
through capacity building in the form of training measures, improved knowledge and information management, advocacy activities andmobilization of resources as well as promoting
partnerships between organizations at national and global level.
At the national level of clusters, which correspond to the respective cluster at global level,
operative coordination is of particular importance. The national cluster provides packets
of information such as needs assessments,
maps and situation reports. It regularly holds
coordinating meetings and makes the corresponding minutes of the meetings available.
In many countries, it also offers a platform toorganize various working groups. For example, in the context of the Food Security Cluster
in South Sudan, working groups are addressing the topics of “Cash Transfer and Markets”,“Crop Farming” and “Animal Husbandry”.

30 [ WorldRiskReport 2015

Examples of activities within these working
groups include the exchange of Best Practice
examples and the development of practiceguidelines on the basis of an exchange ofexperiences.
Outlook
Humanitarian aid in general and food assistance in particular have gone through various
changes in recent years, and in the courseof numerous reform processes (including
the Humanitarian Reform, the Food Aid
Convention turning into the Food Assistance
Convention, the development of the Core
Humanitarian Standard) they have been
adapted to the demands on professional andefficient aid. A large number of evaluations
have demonstrated that improvements havebeen achieved in many areas. Nevertheless,there still is scope for other improvements,
and practice partly still falls far short of what
would be ideal. Three areas are described as
examples in the following:
Local structures and initiatives: In many
disasters during the past years, cooperation
between local, national and international
structures has proven to be difficult. In
spite of the considerable importance that all
humanitarian aid actors attribute to local
ownership, i.e. coping with a disaster withthe society concerned assuming a maximumof self-responsibility, it is precisely this thathas seldom been achieved (IASC 2010). The
strong formalization of structures in thecluster approach has tended to aggravate
this problem. Existing civil protection andemergency response structures have not beenused or have even been weakened, owing bothto a lack of knowledge and analysis and also
to language problems. Whether the recent UN
Transformative Agenda improvement measures initiated by the UN in the meantime havebeen able to eliminate this shortcoming will
now have to be demonstrated in new disasters
such as the earthquake in Nepal. New impulses from the World Humanitarian Summit canalso be reckoned with (see Chapter 4).

Conflicting interests: Despite consolidated
insights on the advantages of flexible handling
tailored to contexts of the tools provided forfood aid, decisions on the correct compositionof the toolset are not always taken on the basisof objective criteria, but are also determinedby political and economic interests of various
actors. Especially the USA, which are responsible for 89 per cent of trans-ocean food aid
deliveries, is reluctant to restructure towards
more cash and voucher programs and local
procurement (Lentz 2015). Reasons for thisinclude lobbying by farmers’ and logistics
companies’ federations as well as by some
non-governmental organizations that fear
financial losses. For example, US President
Barack Obama’s move to amend farming
legislation so that 45 per cent of food aid
can be bought in the region concerned was
rejected by the US Senate in 2013. The broad
discussion that Obama’s attempt provoked in
the USA nevertheless seems encouraging.
Reactions instead of prevention: Against
better judgment, both a large number ofnational governments and the international
donor community are doing too little toaddress the causes of disasters and foodinsecurity: the high level of vulnerability
and the lack of resilience in the societies
affected. Instead, reactions usually only
come when the disaster has already developed. The 2011 hunger crisis in the Horn ofAfrica demonstrated this insight in a cruelmanner, for unlike with sudden events suchas earthquakes, this crisis had been building
up over several months. Long before thetrue famine broke out, various early warning
systems had sounded the alarm, but nothing
happened. And yet at this stage, the crisis
could have been mitigated, if not prevented.
The risk of natural events in the area of foodsecurity having disastrous consequences canbe considerably reduced through timely andlong-term measures addressing the causes offood insecurity (see Chapter 4).
The system of humanitarian aid is complex,
but it is also very dynamic. Each new crisis
leads to new challenges and reveals new
weaknesses. There is a long list of options
for improvements, and reform processes are
sometimes tedious. However, one can be optimistic about the problems being tackled andsolved sooner or later, depending above all on
the political will of the donor countries.

WorldRiskReport 2015 ] 31

2.4. The field of tension between
food security and disaster risk
The author:
Dr. Matthias
Lanzendörfer is
Emergency Relief andRehabilitation Advisor
for Misereor.

T

Extreme natural events turn into disasters
when people are vulnerable and, poverty,
for instance, prevents them from doing whatis necessary to protect themselves against
devastating impacts. Food insecurity is one of
the reasons for vulnerability, especially whena sufficient amount of food is already lacking
before the disaster, and access to, use, andstability of food supplies are not ensured.

diversification of production. Thus risks
such as unpredictable harvest yields or highdependence on price fluctuations on themarkets can be partly reduced. That smallholders use part of their produce for theirown needs has advantages and disadvantages.
On the one hand, it provides a substitute forexternal security nets, which are frequently
non-existent. On the other, it can quickly leadto a downward spiral, for example if farmanimals and tools have to be sold because of
short-term cash requirements or an accumulation of debts (HLPE 2013). It is difficult forthem to break out of this spiral – especially if
it is continued by further disasters as a resultof extreme natural events (Shepherd et al.
2013).

The World Food Program (WFP) stresses thatfour out of five people suffering from hunger
live in areas that are particularly susceptible
to disasters. In all, more than two thirds ofthe countries characterized by severe hunger
are among the 34 most vulnerable countries(see Chapter 2.2). Several hotspots can be
identified at regional level. These are countries or regions that have to simultaneously
struggle with a high level of food security anda high disaster risk (see Diagram on pages
38/39).

Against the background of climate change,
too, strategies aimed at a sustainable reduction of vulnerability and improving foodsecurity are of central importance. For owing
to the rising severity and frequency of extreme
weather events, food insecurity and disasterrisk can mutually reinforce each other. Studies
conducted by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) show that investing in agriculture in order to reduce poverty and hunger is
up to five times more efficient than measuresin any other sector (FAO 2015b).

The lack of resilience in agricultural and foodsystems leads to a downward spiral because
the immediate impacts of floods, droughts,
earthquakes, or cyclones are reinforced. Poorand marginalized people are most vulnerable.
As these people are often smallholders, they
are given special attention in this chapter.
They are often already living in insecure
conditions without any property rights, whichraises their risk. Usually, they do not have thefinancial options or, often, owing to the property relations, the incentive to mitigate risks.

Crisis resistance of smallholder production

his chapter describes the self-reinforcing
interaction between food insecurity anddisaster risk, refers to socially relevant structural framework conditions, and demonstrates
solutions.
Downward spirals

Smallholder production is often characterized by scarce resources and simultaneous

32 [ WorldRiskReport 2015

Some systems to secure livelihoods have
proved their worth over centuries but reach
their limits when growing population pressure
on the land makes more intensive forms of
cultivation necessary. For example, methods
that were appropriate for land lying fallow forten years can result in a decline in productivity
and soil exhaustion if applied with only short
fallow periods or with none at all. Resorting tosuch methods can lead to the impoverishmentof the families cultivating the land. Across theworld, many people are living in conditionsof inequality and dependence (for example,

80 %

OF HU
NG
I N D I S R Y P EO P L E L
ASTER- P RO N I V E
E AND
D EG

Step 1
Vulnerable household lives
in fragile, disasterprone areaand depends on agriculture. A
flood, drought, earthquake orstorm hits.

TER
DIS A SIMMEDIATE E

RADED

E
STRIK

S

F F EC T S

Step 2
Loss of lives and livelihoods.
Destruction of homes, land,
livestock, crops and essential food supplies.

SchoolStep 3
Children are taken out ofschool, people eat less andproductive assets, such as
tools and cattle, are sold.

Step 5
Reduced dietary diversity andoverall food consumption. Increased stunting and wasting
rates in children.

E
RATE M
DESPE
FOOD

AND N

UTRIT

ION CRTELONGANOTHER DISASTERA SURE

S

ISIS

RM IM

STRIK
E

S

AREA S

PACTS

Step 4
A critical food and nutrition
situation, which has beenbuilding up since the disaster, now explodes into a fullblown crisis.

Step 6
Hungry and malnourishedpeople are less able to copewith disasters and are more
vulnerable to their impacts.

Figure 5: How disasters amplify hunger (WFP 2015c)

WorldRiskReport 2015 ] 33

farm laborers, sharecroppers, families indebt bondage, people marginalized for ethnicor caste reasons) which prevent them fromachieving a more or less secure food situation.
In crises and disasters, this can quickly havean extreme impact.
Agricultural producers with industrial production methods (monocultures, high-yield seed,exclusive growing of crops for the market)
are often characterized by severe economic
vulnerability to extreme weather events(Zukunftsstiftung Landwirtschaft 2013). Oneof the big strengths of smallholder production
is diversification and, subsequently, risk minimization. Partly, however, this leads to people
clinging to handed down methods without
checking whether there are alternatives, which
increases the risk of action that is not or nolonger adapted to local conditions. For example, in the very dry northeast of Brazil, a strategy of creating alternative sources of incomeand “living with drought” would have been
more viable than the traditional approach of“combating drought”. There are counterexamples of farmer groups who are innovative andkeen to experiment, such as farmer groups in
Bangladesh who have bred their own rice seed
(FAKT/ Misereor 2011). But such initiatives
are as yet still an exception.
Ecological systems
The World Agricultural Report shows analarming concentration. Three quarters ofthe varietal diversity still available in 1900
is lost today, whereas 75 per cent of all food
throughout the world comes from just twelve
plant and animal species (ZukunftsstiftungLandwirtschaft 2013). This loss could wellgrow through the progressive patenting oftraditional seed, which has led to the termof “biopiracy” (Shiva 2000). Lower varietal
diversity makes the crop systems more
susceptible to crises. This is augmented byincreasing discrimination of traditional seedsystems through international agreements on
the protection of plant breeds, above all via
patenting legislation, that massively complicate the conservation, use, exchange, sale, and34 [ WorldRiskReport 2015

reproduction of traditional, locally adapted
seed (Stiglitz 2006).
Stopping soil exhaustion in order to supply
food for the world population in future represents a further challenge. Worldwide, around
20 to 25 per cent of all soil is already degraded(Hein-rich-Böll-Stiftung 2015). In addition,owing to increased investing, Africa is set toexperience developments similar to those in
Latin America – following an expansion ofareas under cultivation through clear-cutting,production is intensified along industrial
lines, resulting in an increasing contaminationof the soil and the water with fertilizer andpesticides.
Economic and political framework conditions
In the past decades, up to the mid-2000s, thestructural adjustment measures pursued by
the World Bank and the IMF, public investment in agriculture was massively scaled
down in many countries of the South. For
example, smallholders largely no longer haveaccess to consulting and veterinary services,loans, social security to compensate for failed
harvests, accessible warehousing, transportation support and buying options in emergency
cases. Neither politics nor research sufficiently
addresses their specific needs for sustainable
small-holder production (Welthungerhilfe2011).
Many countries of the South have poorly
developed domestic markets and an infrastructure biased towards export. Since the1980s, this has been exacerbated by the influence of international donor organizations,
resulting in the role of the local market structures in functioning urban-rural links being
inhibited. Given rising world market foodprices, declining national production can thenno longer ensure overall food supplies for the
population. These crucial factors have raised
susceptibility to crises in many countries andmade an important contribution to globalizing
poverty (Chossudovsky 2002). Special difficulties also become apparent in the event ofdisasters. Prices rise because an infrastructurethat was neglected in the first place can nolonger provide local, culturally adapted foodfor the population groups affected. The lack ofinfrastructure, market information and storage hamper the transportation of food to theregions in special need of supplies.
Often, the land use rights, especially the informal rights of smallholders, are not secured,
allowing domestic and foreign investors topurchase or lease vast tracts of land in Africa
and Latin America in order to grow agricultural produce such as animal feed or energy
plants for export. This “land-grabbing” isweakening local food production. It is noteworthy that the purchase of land is concentrated in countries in which people sufferingfrom hunger already constitute a major shareof the population (Zukunftsstiftung Landwirtschaft 2013).
The rising gross domestic product in emerging
economies and more affluent developing
countries is increasing the demand forhigh-value agricultural products, above all
for meat. Over the last fifty years, global meatproduction has quadrupled from 71 to 300
million tons a year. This is problematic for
global food security because meat production requires large amounts of grain andtherefore much cropland (ZukunftsstiftungLandwirtschaft 2013). In addition, globally
standardized food patterns are leading todependence on a handful of chief producers inthe sector of global grain production (mainly
the USA, Australia, Russia and Ukraine). The
further globalization of food markets and theincrease in derivative trading of soft commodities have led to significant price volatility
since the mid-2000s that shows through on
domestic markets.
Problem-solving approaches
kkFood sovereignty: Already in the 1990s,
the international smallholder federation La
Via Campesina shaped the concept of foodsovereignty, which has since been adopted and further developed by many social
movements. It centers on food producers

Country example Guatemala

Orchards and kitchen gardens insteadof destructive monocultures
Fifty years ago, almost impassable jungle covered the south of
the Petén, the largest of Guatemala’s Departments, situated in thenorth of this Central American country. Overfelling of precious timber, extensive animal husbandry and, most recently, the monocultures of oil palms have led to a massive destruction of the jungle.
Large-scale logging and the changes in the local climate that go
hand in hand with it as well as deep wells to irrigate the plantations have resulted in the drying up of springs and streams. Now
it is difficult for the people in the region’s settlements to maintaina supply of drinking water. The majority of them belong to the
Maya-Kekchí, and they come from the neighboring provinces tothe south, where they were driven from their home communities
by big landowners. The Kekchí were left with marginal land thatwas quickly exhausted and could not be shared among their descendants. They were therefore repeatedly forced to migrate andcultivate new areas elsewhere, also in the south of the Petén.
The organization “Sagrada Tierra” (ST) is currently working witharound 100 communities in the region in the field of food sovereignty and disaster prevention. medico international has been
supporting ST since 2012, with a total of 67,300 euro. “The people
want to learn how to improve the way they are cultivating theirland. They have appealed to various government and international
institutions, but none of these have provided the lasting support
that they are asking for. We responded to their request, out of
which our engagement developed,” says Jesus Antonio Villar of ST.
This is why ST is providing training and further education programs
to promote, among other things, a sustainable cultivation of staple
foods like maize and beans with local, non-genetically modified
seed. Further activities focus on keeping poultry and the introduction of non-traditional products such as mushrooms.
k continued on page 36

WorldRiskReport 2015 ] 35

k Country example Guatemala, continued from page 35“But our work cannot solely be to offer answers regarding risk
management and food security. What is in particular required isa process of strengthening the communities organizationally, of
boosting their participation and influence to overcome poverty andgenerally create better and fairer living conditions,” Rolando Pinelo
of ST adds. This is why his organization is also strengthening local
leadership resources and supporting the involvement of womenand youths. For example, ST runs further education workshops for
women and young people in civic participation so that they can influence local and national development plans vis-à-vis government
institutions.
In its more than 15 years of dedicated activities, ST can boast visible
success. Kitchen gardens and orchards have diversified cropping.
For example, a network of women are selling fruit and vegetable
preserves at their own shop and on local and regional markets. The
introduction and enhancement of small livestock husbandry has
also contributed to improving the nutritional basis of many families, as well as securing them a modest income.
Nevertheless, Rolando Pinelo states that poverty has grown in
Petén. “The changes in the microclimate are making maize andbean cultivation more and more risky, and the middlemen are
beating down the prices,” he explains. “The options for food supplements from the rivers and woods are drying up.” The peasantswere therefore forced to sell parts of their land – with some ofthem driven by buyers applying fraudulent methods to exert pressure on the smallholders. Today, many families no longer have any
land of their own.
“This is why we are constantly looking for concrete alternatives
to secure the food and income of families,” María Luisa Rosal of
ST stresses. “But this also requires political debates over land use
and the handling of natural resources, and this has to take placeat national level. Protests and demands are not all that we havein mind – we want the people concerned to get the opportunity toformulate concrete proposals, setting out from their local realities.”

Dieter Müller, Project coordinator for Central America and Mexico at
medico international

36 [ WorldRiskReport 2015

and consumers reclaiming control of thefood system. They want healthy, culturally
adapted and sustainably produced food. To
achieve this, agricultural producers needaccess to productive resources such as land,
water, seed and loans, and they need land
rights. The concept of food sovereignty gives
priority to local agricultural production andlocal markets ahead of production for export
and calls for fair trade relations as well as
fair pricing on the agricultural markets. The
government institutions have to create thelegal framework conditions to enable this sothat the foundations for crisis-resistant foodsystems are in place. Food sovereignty also
implies that in the event of a disaster, thoseconcerned are regarded as actors in their own
right, with priority to be given to the recoveryof their ability to act.
kkEmergency relief without doing harm:
Despite the SPHERE principles and the “Do
No Harm” approach (see Chapter 2.3), in
individual cases, it is not always clear to what
extent vital survival aid should be provided
and when it starts to have a negative impact.
Overdimensioned emergency relief can easily
stifle the self-help impulse that is still existentimmediately after a disaster, and it is difficult
for the population to assume full responsibility for their lives, even in the medium and longterm. In addition, food donations can alter
cultural food patterns, and free-of-charge foodaid can do lasting damage to local markets,and even ruin them in the worst case. Emergency relief therefore has to be organized witha view to avoiding these negative impacts (seeChapter 2.3).
kkAgricultural ecology: In close relation tofood sovereignty, agricultural ecology advocates sustainable, locally adapted and diversified agricultural systems that reduce thevulnerability of farmers to external influences.
Agro-ecological cycles with local resources
reduce dependence on external suppliers.
Varietal diversity lessens vulnerability throughfailed harvests. Erosion prevention, water
management and biodiversity and vegetationconservation measures have an immediateimpact on food security, the microclimate andsusceptibility to floods and droughts. Moreover, experience has shown that sustainably
managed farms show less damage and recover
more quickly after disasters.
A practical example
Successful rural development and food security strengthens resilience among the population and is therefore also always disaster
preparedness. At the same time, mitigating
the risk of disasters is an important element in
improved food security.
The example of typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines (where it is called Yolanda) shows thatsustainable agriculture oriented on agro-ecological criteria can help to durably improve
the food security of the population. Georie
Pitong, coordinator for the Misereor partnerorganization MASIPAG, a network of morethan 600 organizations, explains why:days after the typhoon, and those who had avariety of crops were much better off. Moreover, they were in a better position to quickly
resume their own production, for example
with fast-growing vegetable varieties, andthe fruit trees that had survived were alreadybearing new fruit after just a few months.
Peasant families can take precautions thatnatural events do not turn into major disasters
for them. Getting organized locally is very
important for peasant families, not only forthe food security of the households but alsowith regard to more far-reaching community
issues. Such organizations enable members to
improve their practical knowhow of sustainable crop-growing methods, and they develop agreater level of social awareness. This plays avery important role when it comes to making
a joint effort to cope with the negative impactsof natural disasters and recovering fromthem.”“In our region of Visayas, Typhoon Yolanda
2013 seriously affected food security among
peasant families in 2013. Those families who
had diversified their crops were in a muchbetter situation. They are growing not only
grain but vegetables, tubers, bananas, otherfruit, rice and other staple food as well, andthey keep poultry. Furthermore, they apply
cultivating practices such as mixed cropping, crop rotation and maintaining varietal
diversity in growing staple foods. In the days
following Yolanda, such peasant families
were able to gather bananas that had fallen
to the ground, and the root crops growing
underground, such as the sweet potato,
helped them survive. Other farms doing
conventional crop farming and specializing
in a single product were hard hit and had torely on help from outside, and even more so
if they were only growing forage maize. The
population affected received relief supplies
from the government and from internationalorganizations, although the fastest deliveries
only arrived after three days at the earliest.
Therefore, the families had to take care ofgetting food themselves during the first few

WorldRiskReport 2015 ] 37

40 [ WorldRiskReport 2015

3. The WorldRiskoIndex 2015

Vanuatu was hit by “Pam” on March 15, 2015. This cyclone has beenreferred to as the worst disaster in the history of the island nation.
Year after year, Vanuatu has been the country with the highest
disaster risk in the ranking of the WorldRiskIndex, which has been
established since 2011. So, was the disaster predictable? No, theWorldRiskIndex is not a crystal ball; it does not purport to predictextreme natural events. This is borne out by the great earthquake in
Nepal on April 25, 2015. According to the data available on exposurein the WorldRiskIndex, there was only a low likelihood of a quake.
Nevertheless, the consequences of this quake are a dire confirmationof the key statement in the Index: If a country with a high levelof vulnerability is hit by an extreme natural event, there is a highlikelihood that it will turn into a disaster.

WorldRiskReport 2015 ] 41

Exposure

Susceptibility
Public infrastructure

Population
exposed to:AS hare of the population without
access to improved sanitationB	Share of the population without
access to an improved water
sourceA Earthquakes
B Storms
Insufficient global
data available

C Floods

Housing conditions
	share of the population living inslums; proportion of semi-solidand fragile dwellings

D Droughts
E Sea level rise

NutritionS hare of populationC	undernourished

Number of people in a country who areexposed to the natural hazards
earthquakes (A), cyclones (B) and/or
flooding (C)Poverty anddependenciesD	
Dependency ratio (share of under15- and over 65-year-olds in relation to the

Number of people in this country who arethreatened by drought (D) and/or
sea level rise (E)working population)E	Extreme poverty population
living with USD 1.25 per day orless (purchasing power parity)(each weighted half owing to the uncertainty of the data base)

Economic capacity andincome distribution

Number of total population in country

F	Gross domestic product percapita (purchasing power parity)
G	Gini index

Exposure

Figure 6: Calculation of theWorld Risk Index

Exposure+
WorldRiskIndex

The concept
The authors:
Dr. Torsten Welle isa research associate
at the University of
Stuttgart’s Institute ofRegional Development
and Spatial Planning.
Prof. Dr. Jörn
Birkmann is theInstitute’s Director.

F

rom a scientific angle, the WorldRiskIndex
is a mathematical model and a visualization
instrument that systematically combines
exposure to extreme natural events and societal vulnerability in risk values and charts. It
is based on 28 indicators enabling statementson potentially threatened areas or countries
and on the social, economic and ecologicalconditions of societies. The individual dimensionless index values are transformed into a
Geo-Information System (GIS) and are represented in maps. This enables a comparison of

42 [ WorldRiskReport 2015

171 countries, a discussion of the results withdecision-makers and them being addressed inpublic debates.
The WorldRiskIndex is not a forecastingmodel, i.e. it does not make any statements on
when the next disaster is going to occur. Rather, it demonstrates that risks in the context
of natural hazards and the potential effects
of climate change are not solely the result of
extreme natural events but that they are also
determined by societal conditions. Nobody

Insufficient global
data available

Coping capacities

Adaptive capacities

Government and authorities

Education and researchA	Corruption Perceptions Index
B	Good governance (Failed States Index)

A	Adult literacy rate
B	Combined gross school
enrollment

Disaster preparedness and early
warning

Gender equity
C	Gender parity in education
D	Share of female
representatives in the
National Parliament	National disaster risk
management policy according
to report to the United Nations
Medical services

Environmental status /Ecosystem protectionC	Number of physicians per
10,000 inhabitantsD	Number of hospital beds per
10,000 inhabitants
Insufficient global
data available

E	
Water resourcesF	Biodiversity and habitat
protectionG	
Forest management
H	
Agricultural management

Social networks
	Neighbors, family andself-help

Insufficient global
data available

Material coverage
E	Insurances (life insurances excluded)

Adaptation strategies
	Projects and strategies toadapt to natural hazards andclimate change
Investment
I Public health expenditureJ	Life expectancy at birth
K	Private health expenditure

33 %
33 %

33 %

Vulnerability

can influence the strength of an earthquake
or a tropical cyclone, but preventive measures
can be taken to reduce the impacts of thesenatural hazards, for example through quakesafe building methods or well organizedcivil protection and emergency management(Bündnis Entwicklung Hilft 2011, IPCC
2014b).
The WorldRiskIndex consists of the four
components exposure (exposure to natural
hazards), susceptibility, coping capacities

and adaptive capacities. The Index as a wholeis calculated from 28 indicators using datathat is available worldwide and accessible
to the public (Birkmann et al. 2011, Welle etal. 2014). Assigning of specific indicators to
the four components and their weightings
is described in the modular structure of theIndex in Figure 6 above on this page. The
four components and their combination in
the WorldRiskIndex are explained in thefollowing:

WorldRiskReport 2015 ] 43

kkExposure means that an entity (population, built-up area, infrastructure component, environmental area) is exposed to
one or more natural hazards (earthquakes,
cyclones, droughts, floods, and sea levelrise).
kkSusceptibility is understood here as thelikelihood of experiencing harm in theevent of a natural hazard process. Thus,susceptibility describes structural characteristics and framework conditions of asociety.
kkCoping and coping capacities comprisevarious abilities of societies and exposed
elements to minimize negative impactsof natural hazards and climate change
through direct action and the resources
available. Coping capacities encompass
measures and abilities that are immediately available to reduce harm and damages
in the occurrence of an event. The opposite
value, i.e. the lack of coping capacities,
which results from the value 1 minus the
coping capacities, was used for the calculation of the WorldRiskIndex.
kkAdaptation, unlike coping, is understoodas a long-term process that also includes
structural changes (Lavell et al. 2012;
Birkmann et al. 2010) and measures andstrategies dealing with and attempting toaddress the negative impacts of natural
hazards and climate change in the longrun. In analogy to the coping capacities,
the lack of adaptive capacities is includedin the WorldRiskIndex.
kkVulnerability comprises the componentsof susceptibility, lack of coping capacities
and lack of adaptive capacities (Bündnis
Entwicklung Hilft 2011) and relates tosocial, physical, economic and environmental factors which make people orsystems vulnerable to the impacts ofnatural hazards and the adverse effects ofclimate change or other transformation
processes. Moreover, the term vulnerability also covers the abilities and capacities of

44 [ WorldRiskReport 2015

people or systems to cope with and adapt
to the negative impacts of natural hazards.
So in a comprehensive sense, the term
relates to the vulnerability of societies.
kkThe WorldRiskIndex is calculated by multiplying exposure with vulnerability, sincerisk is understood as interaction between
exposure and vulnerability.
A detailed description of the concept, theindicators used and the method to calculate
the WorldRiskIndex (Birkmann et al. 2011)is given in the WorldRiskReport 2011 and at
www.WorldRiskReport.de.
The WorldRiskIndex 2015 calculates the riskfor 171 countries from 28 indicators, five indicators of which relate to the area of exposureand 23 to the area of vulnerability. In all, 15of the 23 vulnerability indicators have been
updated (see table in the menu item “Indicators” at www.WorldRiskReport.de). For theremaining eight indicators, the data from theprevious year was used, since no updated data
was available. There has been no new data for
the five indicators on exposure since 2012.
Within the component of susceptibility,
updated data sets are available for five of theseven indicators:
C k share of population undernourishedD k share of under 15- and over 65-year-olds
in relation to working urban population
E k share of population living with USD 1.25
per day or less (purchasing power parity)
F k per capita gross domestic product(purchasing power parity)
G k Gini Index.
Within the component of coping capacities,
three of the five indicators have been updated:
A k corruption perception
B k good governanceC k number of physicians per 10,000
inhabitants.

Seven out of eleven indicators in theWorldRiskIndex have been updated for thecomponent adaptive capacities:

I k public health expenditureJ k life expectancy
K k private health expenditure.

A k literacy rate
B k combined gross school enrollment
C k gender parity in education
D k share of female representatives in the
National Parliament

The worksheets for the 28 indicators together
with the latest data sets and their sources areavailable at www.WorldRiskReport.de.

Results of the WorldRiskIndex 2015

S

ince no new data is available on exposure,the changes in the country rankings relate
exclusively to changes in vulnerability, as
they already did in the WorldRiskIndex 2013
and 2014. The results of the individual values
for 171 countries are listed in the table in theannex. The graphic representations of theIndex can be viewed on Map C on the rightfold-out page of the cover and on the World
Map on pages 48/49.

From a scientific angle, changes in the indicators over a short or limited period have to
be interpreted with caution since data qualityand data currency in the individual indicators
sometimes differ considerably (Freudenberg
2003; Meyer 2004). Nevertheless, taking
these uncertainties into account, the values
and classifications of the countries for lastyear’s and this year’s Index can be criticallyreviewed, and clear shifts within the vulnerability components can be analyzed (Bündnis
Entwicklung Hilft/United Nations University2014).
The indicators chosen and their changes overtime allow certain options for risk reduction
to be derived from them. In this respect, theranking lists ought to serve the purpose of
initiating discussions and measures among
political decision-makers in the context ofdisaster preparedness and development
planning.

Susceptibility
Almost all of the countries with the highest
levels of susceptibility are located in the Sahel
Zone and the tropical regions of Africa, as
Map B1 on the left fold-out page of the coverand the Top 15 table demonstrate. Among
the Top 15, with the exception of Haiti, allcountries belong to the African continent. In
comparison to last year, among the Top 15
countries, the Central African Republic andTanzania have seen the biggest changes. The
Central African Republic dropped from rank
10, with a value of 61.54 in the previous year,
to rank 3 and the value of 63.51 in 2015. Thisis above all due to an increase in the undernourished population from 28.2 per cent to37.6 per cent and a reduction in the per capita
gross domestic product from USD 980.81
to USD 606.16. In contrast, although theundernourished population share rose by 1.6
per cent, Tanzania improved, having climbed
from rank 3, with a value of 64.27, to rank 11
and a value of 59.46. The main reasons forthis are above all a reduction in the share of
the population having to live on less than USD
1.25 per day and an increase in the per capita
gross domestic product. In detail, the poverty
indicator fell from 67.87 per cent to 43.48
per cent, and the gross domestic product rosefrom USD 1,684.41 per capita to USD 2,591.15.

WorldRiskReport 2015 ] 45

The 15 countries with the highest
susceptibility worldwide

The 15 most exposed countries
worldwideCountrySus. (%)

Rank

CountryExp. (%)

Rank

Madagascar
MozambiqueCentral Afr. Rep.
BurundiLiberia
ZambiaHaiti
Eritrea
Chad
MalawiTanzania
Niger
Comoros
Togo
Sierra Leone

65.08
63.66
63.51
63.29
62.32
62.29
61.67
61.59
61.14
60.43
59.46
59.04
58.64
57.97
57.32

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

Vanuatu
Tonga
Philippines
Japan
Costa Rica
Brunei Darussalam
Mauritius
Guatemala
El Salvador
Bangladesh
Chile
Netherlands
Solomon Islands
Fiji
Cambodia

63.66
55.27
52.46
45.91
42.61
41.10
37.35
36.30
32.60
31.70
30.95
30.57
29.98
27.71
27.65

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

Lack of coping capacities

The 15 countries with the highest lackof coping capacities worldwide

The 15 countries with the highest
vulnerability worldwide

CountryCountry

Vuln. (%)

Rank

Central Afr. Rep.
Chad
Haiti
Eritrea
Afghanistan
Liberia
Niger
Sierra Leone
GuineaMozambique
Guinea-Bissau
BurundiMali
Madagascar
Comoros

74.78
74.19
73.36
72.91
72.49
71.97
71.87
71.67
70.63
70.16
70.09
70.03
69.69
69.58
68.19

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

Sudan
Afghanistan
Chad
Haiti
Yemen
Central Afr. Rep.
Guinea-Bissau
GuineaEritrea
Iraq
Zimbabwe
BurundiUgandaNigeria
MyanmarLack of C. C. (%) Rank

92.89
92.36
91.14
90.76
90.51
90.35
89.61
89.32
89.21
88.98
88.75
87.75
87.57
87.42
87.15

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

The 15 countries with the highest lackof adaptive capacities worldwide

The 15 countries that are most at risk
worldwideCountryCountry

Risk (%)

Rank

Vanuatu
Tonga
Philippines
GuatemalaSolomon Islands
Bangladesh
Costa Rica
Cambodia
Papua New Guinea
El Salvador
Timor-Leste
Brunei Darussalam
Mauritius
Nicaragua
Guinea-Bissau

36.72
28.45
27.98
20.10
19.29
19.26
17.17
16.82
16.82
16.80
16.23
16.15
14.66
14.63
13.78

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

Sierra Leone
Central Afr. Rep.
Mali
Chad
Niger
GuineaAfghanistan
Liberia
Eritrea
Haiti
Guinea-Bissau
Cote d’Ivoire
Benin
Ethiopia
Yemen

Lack of A. C. (%)

Rank

72.05
70.49
70.44
70.28
70.20
69.86
69.33
68.91
67.93
67.64
67.42
65.95
65.11
64.91
63.89

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

46 [ WorldRiskReport 2015

The cartographic representation of the lack of
coping capacities (Map B2, left fold-out pageof the cover) shows hotspot regions in Africa
and Asia, as the Top 15 table also demonstrates. The biggest shifts in ranks in all 171
countries have been recorded for Saudi-Arabia and Rwanda. Saudi Arabia moved fromrank 96 to 110, through a slight improvementin the “Governance” indicators (“Corruption
perception” and “Good governance”), but
primary through an increase in the numberof physicians from 9.39 to 24.91 per 10,000
inhabitants. This is expressed in a shift fromthe former “medium lack of coping capacities”
class to the class with a “low lack of coping
capacities”. In contrast, Rwanda worsened byeight ranks, from rank 62 to rank 54, which
can be traced back mainly to the “Corruption perception” index, followed by “Goodgovernance”.
Lack of adaptive capacities
The hotspot regions for the lack of adaptive
capacities (Map B3, left foldout page of thecover) can be found mainly in West Africa
and the Sahel Zone as well as in parts ofSoutheast Asia. However, the biggest shifts
have occurred in other regions. In comparison
to the previous year, Brazil, for example,
moved from the class with a “medium lackof adaptive capacities” to the class with a“low lack” and climbed seven positions fromrank 97 to 104. The crucial factors here are a
reduction in the illiteracy rate and increasein the number of female representatives in
the National Parliament as well as a rise inpublic health expenditure by 46 per cent andprivate health expenditure by 19.25 per cent.
A comparison with the Top 15 table from2014 shows that Afghanistan improved fromrank 1 to rank 7 while the Central African
Republic dropped from rank 13 to rank 2.
In Afghanistan, changes mostly concern an
improvement in the literacy rate and public
as well as private health expenditure, whereas
in the Central African Republic, public andprivate health expenditure dropped by 26 percent and 27.3 per cent respectively.
Vulnerability
Both the map for vulnerability (Map B, rightfoldout page of the cover) and the Top 15
table show that the countries with the highest
vulnerabilities can be found mainly on the
African continent. With the exception of Haiti
and Afghanistan, all 15 countries with thehighest levels of vulnerability are in Africa. In
comparison to the previous year, the Central
African Republic significantly worsened interms of susceptibility and adaptive capacities(see above), so that rank 1 has been recorded
for vulnerability (still at rank 5 in the previousyear). Other conspicuous examples from thelist of the 171 include Brazil, which, comparedto the previous year, improved by five ranks,
having moved from the class with “medium
vulnerability” to the class with “low vulnerability (above all thanks to improved adaptive
capacities, see above). In the previous year,
South Africa had ranked 103rd, while thisyear, it is at rank 97, which has also resulted ina shift from the class with “low vulnerability”
to the class with “medium vulnerability”. The
reasons for this can be found in the component “lack of adaptive capacities”, in concreteterms above all in a decline in combined grossschool enrollment and in gender parity in
education.

WorldRiskIndex 2015
The global hotspot regions of risk have notchanged in comparison to the previous years
and continue to be in Oceania, Southeast Asia,
Central America and the Southern Sahel. In
comparison to 2014, Togo and Indonesia haveswapped classes. Last year, Togo was in theclass with a “high risk”, and now it is in theclass with a “very high risk”. This is becauseof Togo’s worsening vulnerability that is due
to an 85 per cent increase in people having tolive on less than USD 1.25 per day and a rise in
the unequal distribution of income (Gini Index
from 39.29 to 45.96), which has led to a difference in ranks of five. In contrast, Indonesia
has slightly improved in terms of vulnerability
thanks to an increase in its coping capacities,
in concrete terms in the area of the “governance” indicators and the adaptive capacities
owing to a rise in public and private healthexpenditure. Thus, Indonesia now bears thevalue that the “high risk” class starts off with.

Exposure to natural hazards
No updated information has been available inthis component since the WorldRiskReport
2012 as the data concerned is not updated
annually but only at longer intervals becauseof the small temporal changes in exposure.
For this reason, the world map for exposure(Map A, right foldout page of the cover) shows
the same global hazard zones as in the previous years. The hotspot regions are Central
America and the Pacific coastal countries ofSouth America, parts of Southern Europe andWest Africa, as well as Southeast Asia and thePacific islands.

WorldRiskReport 2015 ] 47

50 [ WorldRiskReport 2015

4. Food security: recommendations
for action and perspectives

Food insecurity hardly ever results from natural circumstances but
is crucially conditioned by social injustice and economic imbalances.
It can be aggravated both by political instability and climate change.
In all cases, those suffering from an insecure food situation are
ill-prepared to face extreme natural hazards – there is a much higher
disaster risk. Thus, in combating food insecurity, each investment
pays its way double becauseit simultaneously reduces disaster risk.
The reverse effect is that if disaster risk drops, food security willrise. These relationships have to be accepted by political decisionmakers at global and national level as well as actors in development
cooperation and business as the starting point for effective measures.

WorldRiskReport 2015 ] 51

The international agenda
The authors:Peter Mucke isManaging Director of
Bündnis Entwicklung
Hilft. Prof. Dr. Jakob
Rhyner is Vice-Rectorof the United Nations
University in Europe
and Director of
UNU-EHS.

2015 and 2016 are two particularly
important years for achieving the goalsof food security and significantly reducing
disaster risk. Five fundamental international
processes are reaching important milestones
that feature international conferences andtheir corresponding agreements (see Figure 7
below).
Regarding their topics and goals, the international agreements negotiated during these
conferences are closely intermeshed. The
Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015 – 2030 (“Sendai Framework”)

Disaster risk
reduction:

Financing global
development:

THIRD UNITED
NATIONS WORLDCONFERENCE ON
DISASTER RISKREDUCTION

THIRD INTERNATIONALCONFERENCE ON
FINANCING FOR
DEVELOPMENT

Result:Sendai Frameworkfor Disaster Risk
Reduction2015 – 2030

14 to 18 March
2015 in Sendai

Result:Addis Ababa Action
Agenda (AAAA)

13 to 16 July
2015 in Addis
Ababa

Sustainable­Development
Goals:UNITED NATIONSSUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT
SUMMIT
Result:Adopting the
17 Sustainability
Goals

25 to 27
September 2015
in New York

Figure 7: International conferences relating to food security and risk reduction

52 [ WorldRiskReport 2015

follows the Hyogo Framework for Action
2005 –2015, and contains an extensive package of measures to reduce disaster risk. Here,food security plays a key role in two respects.
First, poverty and hunger are mentioned asunderlying factors of disaster risks. Tacklingpoverty and hunger forms a central element
in reducing these risks. Second, the Sendai
Framework attaches more importance tobeing well prepared for crisis situations rather than opting for pure intervention during
the crisis. Here too, food security plays acrucial role (United Nations General Assembly 2015a).

Climate change:

Humanitarian aid:

21TH CONFERENCE OF
THE PARTIES (COP21)WORLD
HUMANITARIAN
SUMMIT

Aim:
A new worldwide
agreement on reaching the two degree
target30 November to 11
December 2015 in
Paris

Aim:
Developing solutions
to the mosturgent challenges
and a forwardlooking agenda forhumanitarian action

24 to 26 May
2016 in Istanbul

The Sendai Framework is also to be reflectedin the more comprehensive Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs), the successorsof the Millennium Development Goals,
although with a much broader remit.
Whereas the Millennium Goals were above
all focused on combating poverty and its
consequences, and therefore on the developing countries, the SDGs have been designedwith a view to worldwide sustainable development and therefore represent an agenda
for all nations (United Nations General
Assembly 2015b). Moreover, the SDGs alsoprescribe a higher benchmark in poverty
eradication. Whereas Millennium Goal 1
called for a halving of extreme poverty andhunger by 2015 (see Chapter 1 on implementation), SDG 2 demands a complete elimination of both poverty and all forms of undernourishment and malnutrition by 2030. SDG
13 focuses on measures to reduce risks andto prepare for disaster situations (awarenessraising), especially in the context of climatechange. Like the Sendai Agreement, this
Goal attributes considerable importanceto preparatory and preventive measures.
In addition to direct measures such asbuilding dykes, setting up early-warning
systems or quakeproof designs for buildings,
addressing the underlying factors having an
unfavorable impact on risk development –above all poverty, conflicts, discrimination,
bad governance, and corruption – plays animportant role.
The national states are responsible for
implementing both the goals of the Sendai
Agreement and the SDGs. However, theprocess will be moderated by the United
Nations in order to combine the goals in
a common framework and feed them into
international agreements. The Sendai Agreement calls on the governments to formulate
and implement national goals for risk reduction. However, it is just as important, albeit
not yet sufficiently considered, to improve
the international support mechanisms forcrisis situations that the coping capacities
of individual states are inadequate for.
This is pointed out e.g. in the preparatory

documents for the World Humanitarian
Summit (OCHA 2013). Here too, the transition from mechanisms focusing predominantly on intervention (i.e. providing
assistance in crisis situations) to increasingly
preventive measures is going to be of importance. In providing international aid, carehas to be taken that support is oriented on
local needs rather than on the interests of
those providing it, that it integrates local
actors as much as possible, and that it does
not endanger existing mechanisms, e.g.
those in the food sector (see Chapter 2.3).
The 2015 Climate Conference in Paris(COP21) is to result in a binding agenda on
compliance with the so-called Two Degree
Goal. A global rise in temperatures of two
degrees in comparison to the values before
the Industrial Revolution is generally regarded by researchers as a limit above which
complete adaptation is no longer possible
and grave damage has to be reckoned within the long term. The Two Degree Goal wasreiterated at the precursor conference inLima in December 2014 (COP20 2015).
In spite of many uncertainties regarding
modeling as well as insufficient data, there
are many indications that global warming
has the greatest influence on agricultural
yields where the biggest problems with foodsecurity already exist today, i.e. in Africa andSouth Asia (Wheeler/von Braun 2013).
Finally, the conference in Addis Ababa
addressed fundamental aspects of financing
future development agendas and presented
them in the Addis Ababa Action Agenda(AAAA) (United Nations General Assembly
2015c). The AAAA calls on the industrializedcountries to honor their pledge to provide
0.7 per cent of their gross domestic productfor development cooperation, a promise thathas so far been kept by only a few countries.
However, the AAAA also clarifies that theconsiderable financing requirements cannot
be met solely by traditional development
cooperation and aid programs. Rather,
it is necessary to increasingly involve theprivate sector without freeing bilateral aid

WorldRiskReport 2015 ] 53

from responsibility. Further important
requirements that the AAAA refers to include
sustainable industrialization, eliminating
trade obstacles, developing national andinternational taxation mechanisms, combating illegal business and facilitating knowledge and technology transfer. All these topics
are of central importance to food security

and reducing disaster risk in the long term.
One concern that the AAAA finally voices
is so-called additionality: Money from theprivate sector should really constitute additional resources and should not be passed
to account as government development
cooperation.

Raising food security through a lower disaster risk
Disasters often have a negative impact onfood security (see Chapter 2.1). The fewer
disasters a country has to cope with, thebetter this will be for food security. Therefore,
specific measures have to be implemented toreduce vulnerability and promote resilience
towards disasters. In the following, basic
recommendations are given that do not,however, lay claim to completeness, as is also
the case with those in the further sections of
this chapter.
1. Knowing the needs
In order to effectively promote resilience inthe food sector, a corresponding knowledge
base has to be developed.
Recommendations:kkThe national governments of those countries most susceptible to crises and mostdependent on humanitarian aid have to
set up monitoring centers. Data on thefood situation and on coping strategies
in the event of a disaster should be established regularly. These measures require
the support of international donors.
kkThe development cooperation actors ought
to take stock of the impact and effectiveness of measures to promote resilience on
a continuing basis. Data, e.g. on food security, should be established at various levels(individuals, households, communities,
further environment) and for different

54 [ WorldRiskReport 2015

socioeconomic or ethnic groups of the
population.
kkScience and research ought to check theeffectiveness of early warning systems
in order to identify the institutional andpolitical obstacles to an early response.
The insights gained from such checking
processes have to be implemented by thenational governments, which may require
the support of international institutions.
2. Being proactive rather than merely
responding
Being prepared can mitigate crises andprevent disasters. Measures to this end
include lowering susceptibility, strengthening
coping capacities and developing adaptive
measures (see Chapter 1). The respective
national governments are responsible for this.
Recommendations:kkThe national governments have to include
measures to build up resilience in thedisaster preparedness strategies. One
example is the improved storage of food. It
ensures that no food stocks are lost before
or during a disaster, thus raising the resilience of the population.
kkThe farmers ought to work towards adiversification of food production andthus mitigate the effects of increasingclimate change. In addition, they ought
to use seed that is adapted to the weather conditions and soil quality of theenvironment they are living in. In orderto achieve this, the national governments
and international institutions have to stop
the monopolization of the seed sector
by a few large companies. For example,
local farmers’ seed exchange systems
linked with communicating experienceand knowhow can raise resilience towards
disasters.
kkDevelopment cooperation actors ought
to support farmers protecting their fields
against floods as well as desertification.
Suitable measures include building dykes,
irrigation and drainage systems based on
ditches and rainwater retention basins orbuilding terraced fields.
kkAgriculture ought to abandon monocultures, for they damage the ecology of thesoil and one-sidedly withdraw nutrientsfrom it, thus creating a gateway for pests
and necessitating the use of pesticides
and herbicides that put a further strain
on the soil and destroy biodiversity. In
addition, owing to a lack of boundaries
such as hedges and dykes, the soils aremuch more susceptible to erosion anddrifting.
kkThe insurance industry ought to expand
the potential of micro farming insurances,which provide smallholders with coverage for weather-related damages andfailed harvests, enabling them to makea new start. Micro farming insurances
may require subsidies from government
authorities or international aid programs.

3. Reducing climate vulnerability, limitingchanges in climates
The international community of states bears
the chief responsibility for strategies to limit
climate change and its impacts. This mustby no means be restricted to adaptation
measures alone but also has to address themultitude of causes of climate change.
Recommendations:kkNational governments have to devise andimplement food security strategies to copewith extreme weather events. Public orgovernment financing must be provided
for projects to strengthen the resilience ofcommunities through better food security.
kkThe chief negotiators in the international
climate negotiations have to rigorously
limit climate change and support the twodegree limit. In the food sector, this also
includes restricting CO2 emissions fromindustrialized agriculture in the foodsector.
kkGiven the increase in extreme weather
events, development cooperation actors
ought to support smallholders farming ona sustainable basis in particular in adapting their production to the (new) local
conditions. This increases the prospects of
preventing food supply bottlenecks in theevent of a crisis. One example is the useof drought-resistant or appropriate seed.
International donors ought to promote
this e.g. in the framework of climate funds.

Lower disaster risk through higher level of food security
Hunger aggravates disaster risk (see Chapters
2.2 and 2.4). Reducing hunger is therefore
also a fundamental prerequisite for risk
reduction. The human right to food is anenshrined international right. Hence foodsecurity measures are not charity but acommitment (see Chapter 1).

k continued on page 58

WorldRiskReport 2015 ] 55

k continued from page 55
1. Strengthening rural areas
Three out of four people suffering fromhunger live in rural areas (WFP 2015c), which
is where food is usually produced. Therefore,rural areas in developing countries ought tobe strengthened with the aim of people there
being able to achieve permanent access to
sufficient, healthy, and culturally adapted
food.
Recommendations:kkThe national governments have to focus
on developing infrastructure, transportcapacities, and markets in rural areasand provide government financing to thisend where required. This ought to be partof the national risk reduction strategies.
Here, owing to its especially importantrole in local food security and to safeguard
it in the short term in the event of a disaster, supporting smallholder agriculture isparamount.
kkSince the absence or unclear formulationof land ownership and use rights has avery negative impact on food security andreadiness to be prepared, the national
governments have to give high priority toclarifying and securing these rights – eventhough this represents one of the biggest
challenges some countries are facing. This
gives smallholders in particular legal security while also offering the landless newprospects.
kkThe national governments and thedevelopment cooperation actors have topromote alternative sources of income
to agriculture that in particular offer
the opportunity to cover at least part offarmers’ demand in the event of a failed
harvest. This can significantly lower
the risk of food insecurity – also after
disasters.

58 [ WorldRiskReport 2015

kkFarmers themselves ought to grasp theinitiative to achieve more yield security inagricultural production. Suitable methods
include improved growing methods,
diversified cultivation, resource-friendly
agriculture (e.g. irrigation management
and higher soil fertility through composting and the use of mulch), promoting thecultivation of nutritious regional food andavoiding post-harvest losses. Development
cooperation actors ought to assist farmers
in implementing these measures.
kkThe development cooperation actors
ought to support smallholders in gettingorganized in cooperatives in order tocommonly store, process and sell agricultural produce. In addition, smallholders
ought to be offered training in innovative
approaches and access to agriculturalextension services.

2. Redesigning framework conditions
In rural regions, intact agriculture attuned to
local and regional needs can make an important contribution to food security in timesof crisis, which is why regional and local
markets must have the opportunity to holdtheir own given an industrially and world
market oriented agriculture and food model.
This cannot be achieved solely by the laws of
the market. Here, the concept of food sovereignty and its role in risk reduction can serve
as a basis for strengthening local markets (seeChapter 2.4).
Recommendations:kkNational governments in developing
countries have to be allowed to promotesustainable agriculture without having toface accusations of inadmissible subsidies
in the context of international trade agreements. The reform of national and international trade rules has to strengthen local
markets and regional economic cycles.
To promote food sovereignty, developing
countries must have the opportunity toprotect themselves against cheap foodimports, orient pricing of agricultural
produce on the production costs andgive priority to achieving the right tofood for the population ahead of exportorientation.
kkThe national governments and authorities must see to it that purchase of landor leaseholds are socially compatible.
Especially in the case of large area investments, care should be taken to involve
local organizations. Steps have to betaken to counter the growing practice of
landgrabbing. The Voluntary Guidelines
on the Responsible Governance of Land,
Fisheries and Forests (FAO 2012) ought tobe observed.
kkIn the industrialized countries, politicaldecision-makers, business and consumers
should reject any produce originatingfrom farming practices that destroy thenatural resources in the long term – suchas animal feed from soy monocultures or
the use of agricultural commodities suchas cane sugar as biofuel. They should put
an end to all practices of food speculation
and, furthermore, prevent wheneverpossible all forms of food waste and loss
along the entire value chain of agricultural
products up to the point of consumption.
3. Promoting research and innovation in thefood sector
More research and knowledge transfer isneeded to improve the resilience of local
food systems and smallholder production.
This applies both to new technologies and toresearch on traditional cultivation methods
or food fortified with micronutrients. Climatechange and the necessary adaptation measures are also an important topic.
Recommendations:kkNational governments and authorities
have to support a broad debate on theapplication of new insights in science andtheir combination with local knowledge
and knowhow.
kkThe national governments have to ensurethat agricultural ecology innovations are
introduced in large area agriculture inorder to simultaneously meet the demandsof the growing cities and the needs of alargely poor rural population in developing
countries. Here, the innovative potential
and the economic potential of the private
sector need to be integrated.
kkNational governments, especially those ofcountries with changing climate conditions
alternating between extreme drought andheavy rainfall, must support the develop­
ment of suitable adaptation measures.
Examples here are the optimization ofirrigation and reservoir systems, resistantgrain varieties and better storage.
kkScience and research ought to further
examine biofortification, i.e. breeding foodplants with higher micronutrient content,
because it can make an important contribution to food security. However, researchin this area should also examine possible
risks and long-term negative impacts (e.g.
through transgenic methods). This andother initiatives based on fortifying foodwith micronutrients should be integrated
in comprehensive food policies.

WorldRiskReport 2015 ] 59

Aspects of measures to achieve more food security in theevent of a crisis
Unintentional effects of measures to achieve
more food security aid can be caused bothby unsuitable approaches and a lack ofparticipation in developing them as well asa lack of professionalism and a poor coordination in the implementation of the disasterintervention.

Since food insecurity can have disastrous
consequences in the event of a disaster, it
is important not to make any mistakes inan acute situation and work as efficiently
as possible. Over the last few years, there

HealthWHO

kkDonor countries have to ratify the Food
Assistance Convention (Food AssistanceCommittee 2012). The transition fromthe Food Aid Convention to the Food
Assistance Convention, which provides
for more flexibility in food aid, has to beconsistently implemented.

Logistics
WFP

Emergency
Telecommunications
WFP

M it

Early
Recovery
UNDP

Shelter
IFRC/
UNHCR

ep

are

dne

ss

D is a s t e r

R

o
esp

co

n
Pr

Water,
Sanitationand Hygiene
UNICEFCamp
Coordination andCamp Management
IOM/UNHCR

Re

ti o

ve

iga

ry

P r e v e n ti o nProtection
UNHCR

Humanitarian &Emergency Relief
CoordinatornseFigure 8: The international cluster system in humanitarian aid (OCHA 2012)

60 [ WorldRiskReport 2015

R e c o n s t ru c t i o n

Nutrition
UNICEF

Education
UNICEF &Save theChildren

Recommendations:kkInternational organizations and donor
countries must provide food aid in disastersituations that has been tailored to therespective context and is based on thorough analysis. Action must not be guided
by seeking reductions in levels of surplus
produce.

1. Helping without doing harm

Food Security
WFP & FAO

have been considerable developments in
the humanitarian system (see Chapter 2.3).
Nevertheless, it is still being criticized for
doing harm despite its good intentions.

kkActors in development cooperation andhumanitarian aid have to ensure thatthe transition is made from emergency
relief projects to long-term development
projects in the food sector and is alreadytaken into consideration in planningemergency relief measures. Development
programs with the aim of raising resiliencealways ought to contain components
developing local capacities and strengthening local structures. In this manner,
dependence can be reduced and exit strategies for relief organizations can be put inplace.
kkActors in humanitarian aid have tocontinuously monitor the developmentof emergency relief standards. In future,complying with standards has to be subject
to accountability on the part of the actors,
which needs to be newly introduced ataninternational level.

2. Focusing on vulnerable groups of the
population and strengthening participation
Special attention has to be given to considering weaker groups of the population such as
smallholders, landless people, or indigenous
peoples. This also applies to people with
impairments, since they are often the mostvulnerable in hazardous situations. Furthermore, the considerable contribution to foodsecurity made by women has to be recognized, as do the special needs of pregnant
women and infants (see Chapter 1).
Recommendations:kkNational governments have to see to it thatsuitable forms of participation in the fieldof food security and disaster preparedness
are created at local, national, and international level.
kkNational governments have to give special
attention to vulnerable groups of the
population. Women’s equality must enjoy
high priority. This includes securing land
rights for them or preventing them fromlosing these where necessary.
kkIt is up to the national governments
to support educational measures onsustainable cultivating methods, thepreservation of food, and healthy dietary
practices, taking women into particularconsideration.
kkFor actors in humanitarian aid anddevelopment cooperation, the top priority
must be that of securing food supplies for
infants and pregnant women. Wherevernecessary, in addition to directly ensuring
food supplies, improvements have to beachieved in mother-and-child care throughadequate access to healthcare (e.g. becauseof malnutrition due to infestation withparasites and/or disease) and hygiene.
kkActors in humanitarian aid and deve­
lopment cooperation have to ensure thatvulnerable groups of people in particular,such as persons with impairments orelderly people, are not disadvantaged infood programs or during food handouts inemergency situations. The measures therefore have to be inclusive and barrier-free.
3. Improving coordination, strengthening
local disaster protection
In many disaster situations, there has been
justified criticism of a lack of coordinationand ill-guided aid. Those offering help have toaddress this and respond accordingly. Wherever criticism is justified, consequences ought
to be drawn immediately.
Recommendations:kkActors in humanitarian aid ought tocontinuously improve the coordination ofinternational and national aid in disasterevents and give priority to involving those
hit by the disaster and the local actors.
Special attention ought to be given to not
weakening the capacities of the national
and local authorities and civil society. Suitable partners have to be identified in time
among the national and local authorities.
Emergency relief programs then have towork with these structures and build theiractivities on them; they must not work inparallel to them. Otherwise, there will be
too big a danger of communities and countries becoming permanently dependent on
humanitarian aid.
kkOrganizations heading a cluster haveto eliminate the lack of participatory
approaches, which has also been identified
for the cluster of “food security”, for example by getting rid of language barriers,
better access to coordination meetings andmore public relations activities.
kkActors in humanitarian aid and national
governments have to ensure that, witha view to sustainability, communication
between the clusters and national structures is performed in each phase – fromWorldRiskReport 2015 ] 61

disaster preparedness through responses
to rehabilitation.
kkScience and research are called on to
reduce the knowledge deficit amonginternational actors regarding the disasterprotection structures at local level andprovide analyses in this area before thedisasters occur and the UN clusters are
set up.

Options for implementation and intervention
The international processes described above
provide a comprehensive basis for the implementation of the recommendations. While theSDGs form the framework in this context, theSendai Framework and the preparatory documents of the World Humanitarian Summit
focus on important special topics. The formulations in these agreements and documents
are, of necessity, general and have to be put
into concrete terms at various levels.
One important instrument for the implementation of the SDGs will be a system of indicators that is planned to be developed by March2016. It should be insisted that this systemremain adaptable over the next few years andgive experience gained due consideration.
Also, so-called assessment procedures will
have to be created for the monitoring of
progress made in implementation. Here,national statistics authorities are going toassume an important role. One challenge
will be to develop systems of indicators andassessments in a manner making them meaningful while not putting too much of a burden
on the responsible authorities. This challenge
also arises from the fact that some of the indicators will be difficult to measure.
The above-described international processes
are closely linked to the issue of food security
in many ways – with regard to all four dimensions defined by the FAO: availability, access,stability and use. Availability is strongly
codetermined by agricultural yields, and these
are in turn considerably influenced by climate
factors, both in a positive and a negative
sense. The strongest negative influences areapparent in the countries of Sub-Saharan

62 [ WorldRiskReport 2015

Africa and South Asia, i.e. in countries thatare already experiencing problems regarding
food security and also showing a high level ofvulnerability towards natural hazards (Wheeler/von Braun 2013). This unfavorable coincidence will have to be considered in every risk
reduction strategy in these countries, both atnational and at international level.
However, this relationship also implies the
positive consequence of enormous synergies.
Progress in food security is going to reduce
disaster risk in many respects and lead tomore resilience among the population. Efforts
at national and international level are also
required for access to food supplies andstable food supplies, both to create suitable
institutional and infrastructural conditions
at national level and to promote fair tradesystems and world market structures. Here,fair above all means that local and regional
markets can hold their own in international
systems. This is of crucial importance since,
especially in crisis situations, they represent
a stabilizing and hence risk-mitigating factor.
One very important objective has to be tosupport functioning national and local structures and not to weaken them by intervening
from outside. This also applies to development cooperation, humanitarian missions aswell as private sector activities.

WorldRiskIndex, countries in alphabetical orderCountry
Afghanistan
Albania
Algeria
AngolaArgentina
Armenia
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
BahamasBahrain
Bangladesh
Barbados
BelarusBelgium
BelizeBenin
BhutanBolivia
Bosnia a.Herzegov.
Botswana
BrazilBrunei Darussalam
Bulgaria
Burkina Faso
BurundiCambodia
Cameroon
CanadaCape VerdeCentr. Afr. Republic
Chad
Chile
China
Colombia
Comoros
Congo
Costa Rica
Cote d'Ivoire
Croatia
Cuba
CyprusCzech Republic
DenmarkDjibouti
Dominican Rep.
EcuadorEgypt
El Salvador
Equatorial Guinea
Eritrea

WRI

Rank

Country

WRI

Rank

Country

9.55 %
10.03 %
7.53 %
6.62 %
3.62 %
6.18 %
3.98 %
3.61 %
5.98 %
4.21 %
1.76 %
19.26 %
1.22 %
3.07 %
3.26 %
6.60 %
11.41 %
7.71 %
4.82 %
6.18 %
5.43 %
4.21 %
16.15 %
4.26 %
9.48 %
10.59 %
16.82 %
11.12 %
3.14 %
10.17 %
7.02 %
11.05 %
11.20 %
6.80 %
6.72 %
7.48 %
7.35 %
17.17 %
9.06 %
4.21 %
6.12 %
2.76 %
3.46 %
2.95 %
9.94 %
11.34 %
7.44 %
2.26 %
16.80%
4.69 %
6.23 %

40.
37.
61.
84.
131.
94.
124.
132.
98.
122.
164.
6.
168.
145.
140.
85.
24.
58.
112.
93.
104.
123.
12.
119.
41.
33.
8.
28.
142.
36.
73.
29.
26.
80.
82.
63.
67.
7.
42.
121.
96.
150.
137.
149.
38.
25.
65.
159.

Estonia2.42 %
Ethiopia7.45 %
Fiji
13.47 %
Finland2.26 %
France2.76 %
Gabon
6.25 %
Gambia12.11 %
Georgia6.55 %
Germany
3.00 %
Ghana
8.65 %
Greece7.06 %
Grenada1.44 %
Guatemala20.10 %
Guinea8.50 %
Guinea-Bissau
13.78 %
Guyana11.61 %
Haiti
11.93 %
Honduras
10.70 %
Hungary
5.41 %
Iceland1.55 %
India
6.88 %
Indonesia
10.39 %
Iran (Islamic Rep.) 4.83 %Iraq
4.76 %
Ireland
4.46 %
Israel2.39 %
Italy
4.54 %
Jamaica
12.07 %
Japan
13.35 %
Jordan4.68 %
Kazakhstan
3.67 %
Kenya
6.95 %
Kiribati
1.73 %
Korea, Republic of 4.79 %Kuwait3.26 %
Kyrgyzstan
8.25 %
Lao P. D. Republic
5.67 %
Latvia3.42 %
Lebanon4.96 %
Lesotho
6.97 %
Liberia7.89 %
Libyan Arab Jam.
3.95 %
Lithuania
2.98 %
Luxembourg
2.46 %
Madagascar
11.16 %
Malawi8.27 %
Malaysia
6.44 %
Mali
8.75 %
Malta
0.62 %
Mauritania
8.14 %
Mauritius
14.66 %
Mexico6.23 %

156.
64.
16.
160.
151.
90.
19.
86.
146.
46.
71.
167.
4.
48.
15.
22.
21.
31.
106.
166.
78.
35.
111.
114.
118.
157.
117.
20.
17.
116.
129.
75.
165.
113.
141.
52.
100.
138.
109.
74.
57.
125.
147.
154.
27.
51.
88.
45.
170.
53.
13.
92.

Mongolia
MoroccoMozambique
MyanmarNamibia
Nepal
Netherlands
New Zealand
Nicaragua
Niger
Nigeria
NorwayOman
Pakistan
PanamaPapua N. Guinea
Paraguay
Peru
Philippines
PolandPortugal
Qatar
Rep. of Moldova
Romania
RussiaRwandaSaudi Arabia
SenegalSerbiaSeychelles

10.
115.
91.

WRI

Rank

Country

2.96 %
6.76 %
8.93 %
9.01 %
5.59 %
5.23 %
8.29 %
4.23 %
14.63 %
11.41 %
8.12 %
2.28 %
2.75 %
7.03 %
7.30 %
16.82 %
3.65 %
6.82 %
27.98 %
3.27 %
3.56 %
0.08 %
4.88 %
6.50 %
3.84 %
7.32 %
1.10 %
10.89 %
6.89 %
2.56 %
10.50%
2.24 %
3.52 %
3.57 %
19.29 %
5.43 %
3.10 %
7.37 %
8.02 %
8.36 %
7.55 %
2.22 %
2.46 %
5.59 %
7.16 %
6.38 %

148.
81.
44.
43.
102.
108.
50.
120.
14.
23.
54.
158.
152.
72.
69.
9.
130.
79.
3.
139.
135.
171.
110.
87.
128.
68.
169.
30.
77.
153.

Trinidad and7.48 %
TobagoTunisia5.46 %
Turkey5.37 %
Turkmenistan
6.90 %
Uganda6.63 %
Ukraine3.09 %
United Arab
1.84 %
Emirates
United Kingdom
3.58 %
United Republic of
7.94 %
Tanzania
United States
3.87 %
Uruguay
3.93 %
Uzbekistan
8.56 %
Vanuatu36.72 %
Venezuela
5.89 %
Viet Nam
12.89 %
Yemen
6.00 %
Zambia7.55 %
Zimbabwe
9.88 %

The f. Yugoslav
Rep. of Macedonia

6.14 %

95.

Timor-Leste
Togo
Tonga

16.23 %
10.59 %
28.45 %

11.
32.
2.

Sierra Leone
Singapore
Slovakia
Slovenia
Solomon Islands
South Africa
Spain
Sri Lanka
Sudan
Suriname
Swaziland
SwedenSwitzerland
Syrian Arab Rep.
Tajikistan
Thailand

34.
161.
136.
134.
5.
105.
143.
66.
55.
49.
60.
162.
155.
101.
70.
89.

WRI

Rank
62.
103.
107.
76.
83.
144.
163.
133.
56.
127.
126.
47.
1.
99.
18.
97.
59.
39.

Countries not listed
in the WorldRiskIndex
AndorraAntigua and Barbuda
Dem. People‘s Republic of Korea
Demokratic Republic of the Congo
Dominica
Federated States of Micronesia
Liechtenstein
Maledives
Marshall Islands
MonacoMontenegro
Nauru
Palau
Samoa
San Marino
São Tomé und Príncipe
Somalia
St. Kitts and Nevis
St. Lucia
St. Vincent and the Grenadines
South Sudan
TuvaluWorldRiskReport 2015 ] 63

WorldRiskIndex overview

Rank

Country

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.

Vanuatu
Tonga
Philippines
GuatemalaSolomon Islands
Bangladesh
Costa Rica
Cambodia
Papua New Guinea
El Salvador
Timor-Leste
Brunei Darussalam
Mauritius
Nicaragua
Guinea-Bissau
Fiji
Japan
Viet Nam
GambiaJamaica
Haiti
GuyanaNiger
Benin
Dominican Republic
Chile
Madagascar
Cameroon
Chad
SenegalHonduras
Togo
BurundiSierra Leone
Indonesia
Cape Verde
Albania
Djibouti
Zimbabwe
Afghanistan
Burkina Faso
Cote d'Ivoire
Myanmar
Mozambique
Mali
Ghana
Uzbekistan
GuineaSuriname
Netherlands
Malawi
Kyrgyzstan
Mauritania
Nigeria
Sudan
United Rep. of Tanzania
Liberia
Bhutan64 [ WorldRiskReport 2015

WorldRiskIndex

Exposition

Vulnerability

Susceptibility

Lack of coping
capacities

Lack of adaptive
capacities

36.72 %
28.45 %
27.98 %
20.10 %
19.29 %
19.26 %
17.17 %
16.82 %
16.82 %
16.80 %
16.23 %
16.15 %
14.66 %
14.63 %
13.78 %
13.47 %
13.35 %
12.89 %
12.11 %
12.07 %
11.93 %
11.61 %
11.41 %
11.41 %
11.34 %
11.20 %
11.16 %
11.12 %
11.05 %
10.89 %
10.70 %
10.59 %
10.59 %
10.50 %
10.39 %
10.17 %
10.03 %
9.94 %
9.88 %
9.55 %
9.48 %
9.06 %
9.01 %
8.93 %
8.75 %
8.65 %
8.56 %
8.50 %
8.36 %
8.29 %
8.27 %
8.25 %
8.14 %
8.12 %
8.02 %
7.94 %
7.89 %
7.71 %

63.66 %
55.27 %
52.46 %
36.30 %
29.98 %
31.70 %
42.61 %
27.65 %
24.94 %
32.60 %
25.73 %
41.10 %
37.35 %
27.23 %
19.65 %
27.71 %
45.91 %
25.35 %
19.29 %
25.82 %
16.26 %
22.90 %
15.87 %
17.06 %
23.14 %
30.95 %
16.03 %
18.19 %
14.89 %
17.57 %
20.01 %
15.56 %
15.13 %
14.65 %
19.36 %
20.26 %
21.25 %
16.34 %
14.96 %
13.17 %
14.32 %
13.67 %
14.87 %
12.73 %
12.55 %
14.48 %
16.18 %
12.03 %
18.12 %
30.57 %
12.34 %
16.63 %
12.47 %
12.06 %
11.86 %
12.01 %
10.96 %
14.81 %

57.68 %
51.47 %
53.33 %
55.36 %
64.34 %
60.76 %
40.29 %
60.84 %
67.46 %
51.53 %
63.09 %
39.28 %
39.25 %
53.75 %
70.09 %
48.63 %
29.08 %
50.87 %
62.81 %
46.75 %
73.36 %
50.70 %
71.87 %
66.84 %
49.00 %
36.19 %
69.58 %
61.13 %
74.19 %
62.00 %
53.50 %
68.10 %
70.03 %
71.67 %
53.67 %
50.19 %
47.19 %
60.86 %
66.04 %
72.49 %
66.17 %
66.29 %
60.60 %
70.16 %
69.69 %
59.72 %
52.94 %
70.63 %
46.13 %
27.12 %
66.98 %
49.61 %
65.29 %
67.39 %
67.61 %
66.11 %
71.97 %
52.07 %

35.69 %
28.78 %
32.00 %
34.52 %
44.55 %
39.05 %
21.60 %
39.50 %
55.29 %
29.83 %
51.31 %
17.76 %
18.24 %
37.03 %
53.24 %
24.84 %
17.64 %
25.90 %
44.57 %
26.40 %
61.67 %
28.97 %
59.04 %
53.97 %
28.67 %
19.69 %
65.08 %
42.60 %
61.14 %
46.77 %
35.10 %
57.97 %
63.29 %
57.32 %
31.21 %
32.86 %
20.13 %
36.34 %
55.76 %
55.77 %
54.03 %
46.81 %
34.85 %
63.66 %
54.29 %
44.52 %
29.75 %
52.72 %
27.51 %
15.09 %
60.43 %
26.66 %
48.03 %
53.26 %
51.38 %
59.46 %
62.32 %
30.35 %

81.16 %
81.80 %
80.06 %
80.08 %
85.66 %
86.55 %
64.34 %
86.95 %
84.07 %
74.90 %
81.46 %
63.28 %
61.53 %
80.37 %
89.61 %
75.10 %
37.88 %
76.73 %
83.21 %
72.03 %
90.76 %
78.83 %
86.35 %
81.44 %
73.80 %
58.03 %
83.69 %
84.75 %
91.14 %
80.33 %
81.39 %
85.28 %
87.75 %
85.63 %
80.28 %
70.54 %
74.00 %
82.84 %
88.75 %
92.36 %
83.83 %
86.09 %
87.15 %
84.50 %
84.34 %
77.48 %
77.73 %
89.32 %
70.85 %
42.47 %
84.03 %
76.08 %
86.20 %
87.42 %
92.89 %
83.57 %
84.67 %
74.19 %

56.20 %
43.82 %
47.94 %
51.48 %
62.82 %
56.69 %
34.94 %
56.07 %
63.02 %
49.85 %
56.48 %
36.80 %
37.98 %
43.85 %
67.42 %
45.93 %
31.72 %
49.98 %
60.65 %
41.81 %
67.64 %
44.31 %
70.20 %
65.11 %
44.53 %
30.84 %
59.98 %
56.05 %
70.28 %
58.90 %
44.00 %
61.04 %
59.04 %
72.05 %
49.51 %
47.18 %
47.43 %
63.39 %
53.62 %
69.33 %
60.65 %
65.95 %
59.80 %
62.32 %
70.44 %
57.15 %
51.36 %
69.86 %
40.01 %
23.80 %
56.49 %
46.08 %
61.66 %
61.51 %
58.56 %
55.30 %
68.91 %
51.68 %

Rank

Country

59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.
90.
91.
92.
93.
94.
95.
96.
97.
98.
99.
100.
101.
102.
103.
104.
105.
106.
107.
108.
109.
110.
111.
112.
113.
114.
115.
116.

ZambiaSwaziland
Algeria
Trinidad and Tobago
Comoros
Ethiopia
Ecuador
Sri Lanka
Congo
RwandaPanamaTajikistan
GreecePakistan
Central African Republic
LesothoKenya
Turkmenistan
Serbia
India
Peru
China
MoroccoColombia
UgandaAngolaBelizeGeorgia
Romania
Malaysia
Thailand
Gabon
Eritrea
MexicoBosnia and Herzegovina
ArmeniaT. f. Y. Rep. of Macedonia
Cuba
Yemen
Azerbaijan
Venezuela
Lao P. D. Republic
Syrian Arab Republic
Namibia
Tunisia
BotswanaSouth Africa
Hungary
TurkeyNepal
LebanonRepublic of Moldova
Iran (Islamic Republic of)
Bolivia
Korea, Republic of
Iraq
Equatorial Guinea
JordanWorldRiskIndex

Exposition

Vulnerability

Susceptibility

Lack of coping
capacities

Lack of adaptive
capacities

7.55 %
7.55 %
7.53 %
7.48 %
7.48 %
7.45 %
7.44 %
7.37 %
7.35 %
7.32 %
7.30 %
7.16 %
7.06 %
7.03 %
7.02 %
6.97 %
6.95 %
6.90 %
6.89 %
6.88 %
6.82 %
6.80 %
6.76 %
6.72 %
6.63 %
6.62 %
6.60 %
6.55 %
6.50 %
6.44 %
6.38 %
6.25 %
6.23 %
6.23 %
6.18 %
6.18 %
6.14 %
6.12 %
6.00 %
5.98 %
5.89 %
5.67 %
5.59 %
5.59 %
5.46 %
5.43 %
5.43 %
5.41 %
5.37 %
5.23 %
4.96 %
4.88 %
4.83 %
4.82 %
4.79 %
4.76 %
4.69 %
4.68 %

11.37 %
12.76 %
15.82 %
17.54 %
10.97 %
11.12 %
16.15 %
14.79 %
11.65 %
11.98 %
16.45 %
12.98 %
21.11 %
11.36 %
9.39 %
11.40 %
10.69 %
13.19 %
18.05 %
11.94 %
14.40 %
14.43 %
13.25 %
13.84 %
10.16 %
10.18 %
13.31 %
14.69 %
15.77 %
14.60 %
13.70 %
11.95 %
8.55 %
13.84 %
14.02 %
14.51 %
14.38 %
17.45 %
9.04 %
13.16 %
13.15 %
9.55 %
10.56 %
10.41 %
12.45 %
10.55 %
12.08 %
15.61 %
12.25 %
9.16 %
11.14 %
11.11 %
10.19 %
8.98 %
14.89 %
8.08 %
8.22 %
10.53 %

66.46 %
59.18 %
47.58 %
42.68 %
68.19 %
67.04 %
46.07 %
49.86 %
63.13 %
61.11 %
44.35 %
55.15 %
33.45 %
61.91 %
74.78 %
61.17 %
65.03 %
52.31 %
38.18 %
57.59 %
47.38 %
47.10 %
51.00 %
48.57 %
65.26 %
65.00 %
49.60 %
44.62 %
41.25 %
44.10 %
46.55 %
52.28 %
72.91 %
45.01 %
44.06 %
42.57 %
42.70 %
35.09 %
66.32 %
45.42 %
44.80 %
59.38 %
52.97 %
53.71 %
43.86 %
51.48 %
44.94 %
34.68 %
43.83 %
57.09 %
44.50 %
43.91 %
47.44 %
53.66 %
32.17 %
58.87 %
57.08 %
44.44 %

62.29 %
44.84 %
22.63 %
19.74 %
58.64 %
56.15 %
27.99 %
25.33 %
50.98 %
54.09 %
27.05 %
34.36 %
17.78 %
36.71 %
63.51 %
48.50 %
53.82 %
27.03 %
18.07 %
36.37 %
28.05 %
25.27 %
27.48 %
27.71 %
54.32 %
48.86 %
27.77 %
24.95 %
21.73 %
19.10 %
19.63 %
33.25 %
61.59 %
23.72 %
19.62 %
20.65 %
20.53 %
17.74 %
44.57 %
21.84 %
23.48 %
39.52 %
25.89 %
45.80 %
20.68 %
36.35 %
29.63 %
16.12 %
20.01 %
40.97 %
19.68 %
21.82 %
19.80 %
37.45 %
14.53 %
29.22 %
30.48 %
21.42 %

79.97 %
79.92 %
77.05 %
68.51 %
84.79 %
80.04 %
73.97 %
78.23 %
85.86 %
80.27 %
67.18 %
76.43 %
50.82 %
86.50 %
90.35 %
78.36 %
85.92 %
75.96 %
65.95 %
79.75 %
73.38 %
70.57 %
75.27 %
74.76 %
87.57 %
85.84 %
74.19 %
63.77 %
61.12 %
67.13 %
75.14 %
73.72 %
89.21 %
71.56 %
69.68 %
70.86 %
63.85 %
56.84 %
90.51 %
70.05 %
74.73 %
84.33 %
84.49 %
71.00 %
72.92 %
67.64 %
68.94 %
53.13 %
68.36 %
80.69 %
70.33 %
67.52 %
80.66 %
79.62 %
46.79 %
88.98 %
84.93 %
68.08 %

57.11 %
52.79 %
43.07 %
39.78 %
61.14 %
64.91 %
36.25 %
46.03 %
52.56 %
48.96 %
38.82 %
54.64 %
31.75 %
62.51 %
70.49 %
56.65 %
55.35 %
53.94 %
30.51 %
56.64 %
40.69 %
45.46 %
50.25 %
43.25 %
53.90 %
60.31 %
46.83 %
45.15 %
40.90 %
46.07 %
44.89 %
49.86 %
67.93 %
39.75 %
42.88 %
36.19 %
43.72 %
30.69 %
63.89 %
44.36 %
36.18 %
54.30 %
48.54 %
44.32 %
37.98 %
50.44 %
36.23 %
34.80 %
43.12 %
49.62 %
43.50 %
42.40 %
41.87 %
43.91 %
35.18 %
58.42 %
55.83 %
43.82 %

WorldRiskReport 2015 ] 65

RankCountry

117.
118.
119.
120.
121.
122.
123.
124.
125.
126.
127.
128.
129.
130.
131.
132.
133.
134.
135.
136.
137.
138.
139.
140.
141.
142.
143.
144.
145.
146.
147.
148.
149.
150.
151.
152.
153.
154.
155.
156.
157.
158.
159.
160.
161.
162.
163.
164.
165.
166.
167.
168.
169.
170.
171.

Italy
Ireland
Bulgaria
New Zealand
Croatia
BahamasBrazilAustralia
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya
Uruguay
United States
RussiaKazakhstan
Paraguay
Argentina
Austria
United Kingdom
Slovenia
Portugal
Slovakia
Czech Republic
LatviaPolandBelgium
KuwaitCanadaSpain
UkraineBelarusGermany
Lithuania
Mongolia
Denmark
CyprusFranceOman
Seychelles
Luxembourg
Switzerland
Estonia
Israel
NorwayEgypt
FinlandSingapore
SwedenUnited Arab Emirates
Bahrain
Kiribati
Iceland
GrenadaBarbados
Saudi Arabia
Malta
Qatar

66 [ WorldRiskReport 2015

WorldRiskIndex

Exposition

Vulnerability

Susceptibility

Lack of coping
capacities

Lack of adaptive
capacities

4.54 %
4.46 %
4.26 %
4.23 %
4.21 %
4.21 %
4.21 %
3.98 %
3.95 %
3.93 %
3.87 %
3.84 %
3.67 %
3.65 %
3.62 %
3.61 %
3.58 %
3.57 %
3.56 %
3.52 %
3.46 %
3.42 %
3.27 %
3.26 %
3.26 %
3.14 %
3.10 %
3.09 %
3.07 %
3.00 %
2.98 %
2.96 %
2.95 %
2.76 %
2.76 %
2.75 %
2.56 %
2.46 %
2.46 %
2.42 %
2.39 %
2.28 %
2.26 %
2.26 %
2.24 %
2.22 %
1.84 %
1.76 %
1.73 %
1.55 %
1.44 %
1.22 %
1.10 %
0.62 %
0.08 %

13.85 %
14.74 %
11.66 %
15.44 %
11.53 %
10.71 %
9.53 %
15.05 %
7.80 %
11.10 %
12.25 %
9.38 %
9.11 %
7.03 %
9.55 %
13.60 %
11.60 %
11.59 %
10.93 %
10.21 %
10.82 %
9.26 %
9.79 %
11.66 %
9.04 %
10.25 %
10.23 %
7.50 %
8.46 %
11.41 %
8.88 %
6.52 %
10.87 %
7.44 %
9.25 %
6.41 %
5.99 %
9.12 %
9.56 %
7.23 %
6.41 %
8.58 %
4.72 %
8.19 %
7.82 %
7.97 %
5.93 %
4.27 %
3.05 %
5.67 %
3.13 %
3.46 %
2.93 %
1.65 %
0.28 %

32.75 %
30.28 %
36.51 %
27.42 %
36.55 %
39.36 %
44.23 %
26.48 %
50.64 %
35.41 %
31.58 %
41.00 %
40.30 %
51.97 %
37.91 %
26.53 %
30.88 %
30.80 %
32.56 %
34.47 %
31.95 %
36.89 %
33.45 %
27.98 %
36.01 %
30.68 %
30.31 %
41.14 %
36.28 %
26.32 %
33.52 %
45.33 %
27.15 %
37.11 %
29.78 %
42.82 %
42.79 %
27.02 %
25.73 %
33.46 %
37.26 %
26.51 %
47.89 %
27.59 %
28.62 %
27.89 %
31.08 %
41.21 %
56.68 %
27.34 %
46.23 %
35.27 %
37.55 %
37.76 %
30.13 %

17.20 %
15.53 %
18.64 %
16.57 %
18.03 %
18.84 %
24.06 %
15.78 %
25.09 %
20.26 %
16.38 %
21.27 %
17.62 %
28.74 %
20.32 %
14.91 %
17.21 %
14.95 %
17.57 %
14.42 %
15.11 %
21.17 %
17.40 %
16.25 %
11.58 %
15.22 %
16.64 %
18.66 %
16.60 %
15.47 %
17.62 %
30.07 %
15.39 %
14.73 %
16.67 %
15.71 %
22.01 %
12.88 %
14.57 %
18.03 %
19.54 %
14.08 %
20.99 %
15.85 %
14.05 %
15.53 %
10.36 %
12.88 %
41.19 %
14.74 %
24.70 %
17.06 %
14.76 %
15.25 %
9.04 %

54.92 %
46.47 %
55.88 %
44.05 %
55.74 %
53.32 %
66.25 %
42.68 %
76.48 %
50.71 %
48.71 %
58.91 %
62.58 %
78.80 %
58.50 %
37.23 %
46.80 %
50.98 %
47.73 %
54.27 %
50.11 %
53.18 %
53.11 %
38.09 %
63.86 %
46.72 %
48.71 %
61.15 %
60.54 %
37.49 %
49.16 %
64.50 %
39.43 %
58.13 %
44.12 %
63.70 %
63.12 %
41.06 %
37.78 %
50.94 %
58.92 %
39.12 %
76.81 %
39.51 %
49.94 %
41.67 %
56.35 %
66.69 %
83.69 %
43.16 %
69.15 %
50.69 %
65.96 %
59.94 %
44.88 %

26.14 %
28.83 %
35.02 %
21.63 %
35.88 %
45.93 %
42.39 %
20.98 %
50.35 %
35.27 %
29.65 %
42.83 %
40.70 %
48.37 %
34.91 %
27.47 %
28.62 %
26.48 %
32.37 %
34.71 %
30.62 %
36.33 %
29.84 %
29.60 %
32.58 %
30.10 %
25.58 %
43.61 %
31.69 %
26.00 %
33.77 %
41.40 %
26.63 %
38.49 %
28.54 %
49.05 %
43.23 %
27.11 %
24.84 %
31.39 %
33.31 %
26.34 %
45.88 %
27.41 %
21.88 %
26.46 %
26.53 %
44.07 %
45.17 %
24.11 %
44.82 %
38.07 %
31.92 %
38.08 %
36.47 %

Bibliography

ARNASON, R. (2006): Global Warming, Small Pelagic Fisheries andRisk. In: Hannesson, R./Barange, M./Herrick, S.F.(eds.), Climate
Change and the Economics of the World’s Fisheries. Examples ofsmall pelagic stocks. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 1-32.
AUC/NEPAD/UNECA/WFP (2015): The Cost of Hunger in Africa:
Burkina Faso 2015. http://www.wfp.org/content/cost-hunger-africa-burkina-faso-2015 (accessed 26.08.2015).
BIRKMANN, J./BUCKLE, P./JAEGER, J./PELLING, M./SETIADI, N./GARSCHAGEN, M./FERNANDO, N./KROPP J. (2010): Extreme eventsand disasters: A window of opportunity for change? Analysis ofchanges, formal and informal responses after megadisasters.
Natural Hazards, 55(3), 637-669.
BIRKMANN, J./WELLE, T./KRAUSE, D./WOLFERTZ, J./SUAREZ, D.-C./
SETIADI, N. (2011): WorldRiskIndex: Concept and results. In:
Bündnis Entwicklung Hilft, WorldRiskReport 2011. Berlin: Bündnis
Entwicklung Hilft (Alliance Development Works), 13-41.
BORNHORST, B. (1999): Der Hurrikan Mitch: Ursachen und Folgen
einer Katastrophe. In: Matices. Zeitschrift zu Lateinamerika,
Spanien und Portugal, 21, 22-24.
BROT FÜR DIE WELT/DIAKONIE KATASTROPHENHILFE/GERMANWATCH(2011): Verschärft sich die Ernährungskrise? Klimawandel,
Ernährungssicherheit und das Recht auf Nahrung. Stuttgart:
Diakonisches Werk der Evangelischen Kirche in Deutschland e.V.
BÜNDNIS ENTWICKLUNG HILFT (2011): WorldRiskIndex 2011. Berlin:
Bündnis Entwicklung Hilft (Alliance Development Works).
BÜNDNIS ENTWICKLUNG HILFT/UNITED NATIONS UNIVERSITY (2014):
WorldRiskReport 2014. Berlin: Bündnis Entwicklung Hilft (Alliance
Development Works).
CBM (2014): Childhood Disability and Malnutrition in Turkana Kenya.
http://www.cbm.de/static/medien/Malnutrition_and_Disability_
Full_Report.pdf (accessed 17.09.2015)
CHOSSUDOVSKY, M. (2002): Global Brutal. Der entfesselte Welthandel,
die Armut, der Krieg. Frankfurt am Main: Zweitausendeins.
COP 20 (2015): FCCC/CP/2014/10/Add.1 - Lima Call for Climate
Action. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2014/cop20/eng/10a01.
pdf#page=2 (accessed 08.09.2015).
CORE HUMANITARIAN STANDARD (2014): Core Humanitarian Standard
on Quality and Accountability. http://www.corehumanitarianstandard.org/files/files/Core%20Humanitarian%20Standard%20-%20
English.pdf (accessed 09.07.2015).
DIAKONIE KATASTROPHENHILFE (2009): Katastrophenvorsorge in
Zeiten des Klimawandels. Stuttgart: Evangelisches Werk für
Diakonie und Entwicklung, Diakonie Katastrophenhilfe.
FAKT/MISEREOR (2011): Evaluierung des Förderbereichs Ländliche
Entwicklung, Schwerpunkt Ernährungssicherheit. Synthese-Bericht.
http://www.misereor.de/fileadmin/redaktion/foerderbereichsevaluierung_laendliche_entwicklung.pdf (accessed 27.08.2015).
FAO (2012): Voluntary Guidelines on the responsible Governance of
tenure of land, fisheries and forests in the context of national
food security. http://www.fao.org/docrep/016/i2801e/i2801e.pdf(accessed 07.09.2015).
FAO (2015a): FAO Food Price Index. http://www.fao.org/worldfoodsituation/foodpricesindex/en/(accessed 03.08.2015).
FAO (2015b): Food security and the right to food. FAO and the Post2015 Development Agenda Issue Papers. http://www.fao.org/
fileadmin/user_upload/mdg/doc/foodsecurity-1.pdf (accessed
27.08.2015).
FAO (2015c): The Impact of Natural Hazards and Disasters on
Agriculture and Food Security and Nutrition. Rome: Food andAgriculture Organization of the United Nations.
FAO/IFAD/WFP (2011): The State of Food Insecurity in the World. How
does international price volatility affect domestic economies andfood security? Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of theUnited Nations.

FAO/IFAD/WFP (2013): The State of Food Insecurity in the World. The
multiple dimensions of food security. Rome: Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations.
FAO/IFAD/WFP (2015a): Achieving Zero Hunger: The critical role ofinvestments in social protection and agriculture. Rome: Food andAgriculture Organization of the United Nations.
FAO/IFAD/WFP (2015b): The State of Food Insecurity in the World.
Meeting the 2015 international hunger targets: Taking stock ofuneven progress. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of theUnited Nations.
FISCHER, H. (1998): Response to Disaster: Fact Versus Fiction and Its
Perpetuation. Lanham: University Press of America.
FOOD ASSISTANCE COMMITTEE (2012): Food Assistance Convention.
http://www.foodassistanceconvention.org/convention/
FoodAssistance.pdf (accessed 03.09.2015).
FREUDENBERG, M. (2003): Composite Indicators of Country
Performance: A Critical Assessment. OECD Science, Technology andIndustry Working Papers. Paris: OECD Publishing.
HAESELER, S. (2012): Dürre mit anschließenden Überschwemmungen
im Bereich der Sahelzone in Westafrika 2011/2012. Offenbach:Deutscher Wetterdienst.
HEIDELBERG INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL CONFLICT RESEARCH(2015): Conflict Barometer 2014. Heidelberg: HIIK.
HEINRICH-BÖLL-STIFTUNG/INSTITUTE FOR ADVANCED SUSTAINABILITYSTUDIES/BUND FÜR UMWELT- UND NATURSCHUTZ DEUTSCHLAND/LEMONDE DIPLOMATIQUE (2015): Bodenatlas 2015. Daten und Faktenüber Acker, Land und Erde. Berlin: Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung.
HENDRIKS, S.L. (2015): The food security continuum: a novel tool forunderstanding food insecurity as a range of experiences. In: Food
Security, 7(3), 609-619.
HLPE (2013): Investing in smallholder agriculture for food security.
A report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security
and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security. Rome:
Committee on World Food Security.
IASC (2010): Cluster Approach Evaluation 2, Synthesis Report. http://
www.humanitarianresponse.info/system/files/documents/files/
Cluster%20Approach%20Evaluation%202.pdf (accessed 07.07.2014).
IASC (2012): Operational Guidance for Coordinated Assessments
in Humanitarian Crises. http://docs.unocha.org/sites/dms/
Documents/ops_guidance_finalversion2012.pdf (accessed
08.07.2015).
IPCC (2014a): Climate Change 2014. Mitigation of Climate Change.
Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment. Reportof the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
IPCC (2014b): Summary for policymakers. In: IPCC (eds.), Climate
Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global
and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press, 1-32.
KENNY, G./YARDLEY, J./BROWN, C./SIGAL, R./JAY, O. (2010): Heat stressin older individuals and patients with common chronic diseases. In:
Canadian Medical Association Journal, 182(10), 1053-1060.
LAVELL, A./OPPENHEIMER, M./C. DIOP,/HESS, J./LEMPERT, R./LI, J./
MUIR-WOOD, R./MYEONG, S. (2012): Climate change: new dimensions in disaster risk, exposure, vulnerability, and resilience. In:
IPCC (eds.), Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to
Advance Climate Change Adaptation. A Special Report of Working
Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press, 25-64.
LENTZ, E. (2015): The Future of Food Assistance: Opportunities andChallenges. In: Penn State Journal of Law & International Affairs,
3(2), 84-98.

WorldRiskReport 2015 ] 67

Bibliography

MEYER, W. (2004): Indikatorenentwicklung. Eine praxisorientierte
Einführung. CEval-Arbeitspapiere 10. Saarbrücken: Centrum für
Evaluation.

UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY (1966): A/RES/21/2200 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
New York: United Nations.

MOSBRUCKER, G. /MOSBRUCKER H. (2008): Hurrikan Mitch in
Honduras. http://www.bpb.de/internationales/amerika/lateinamerika/44765/hurrikan-mitch?p=1 (accessed 03.08.2015).

UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY (2015a): A/70/282Implementation of the International Strategy for Disaster
Reduction. http://www.unisdr.org/files/resolutions/N1524453.pdf(accessed 02.09.2015).

MUGAGGA, F./KAKEMBO, V./BUYINZA, M. (2012): Land use changes on
the slopes of Mount Elgon and the implications for the occurrenceof landslides. In: Catena, 90, 39-46.
MUNANG, R./THIAW, I./ALVERSON, K./LIU, J./HAN, Z. (2013): The roleof ecosystem services in climate change adaptation and disasterrisk reduction. In: Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability,
5(1), 47-52.
MUNZ, R. (2007): Im Zentrum der Katastrophe: Was es wirklich
bedeutet, vor Ort zu helfen. Frankfurt/New York: Campus.
NEPAL FOOD SECURITY CLUSTER (2015): Nepal: A report on the foodsecurity impact of the 2015 earthquake. http://reliefweb.int/sites/
reliefweb.int/files/resources/150527_food_cluster_wfp_food_security_impact.pdf (accessed 29.07.2015).
OCHA (2012): Global Clusters Lead. http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/map_2809.pdf (accessed 07.07.2015).
OCHA (2013): Humanitarianism in the network age. http://docs.
unocha.org/sites/dms/Documents/WEB%20Humanitarianism%20
in%20the%20Network%20Age%20vF%20single.pdf (accessed
04.09.2015).
PARDOE, J./KLOOS, J./ASSOGBA, P. (in press): Seasonal variability:
Impacts, adaptations and the sustainability challenge. In: Yaro,
J. A./Hesselberg, J. (eds.), Adaptation to Climate Change andVariability in Rural West Africa. Berlin: Springer.
PIMENTEL, D. (2006): Soil Erosion: A Food and Environmental
Threat. In: Environment, Development and Sustainability:
A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice ofSustainable Development, 8(1), 119-137.
SCANLON, J. (2007): Unwelcome Irritant or Useful Ally? The MassMedia in Emergencies. In: Havidan Rodriguez et al. (eds.),
Handbook of Disaster Research. New York: Springer, 413-429.
SEN, A. (1981): Poverty and famines: an essay on entitlement anddeprivation. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
SHEPHERD, A/MITCHELL, T./LEWIS, K./LENHARDT, A./JONES, L./SCOTT,
L./MUIR-WOOD, R. (2013): The Geography of Poverty, Disasters
and Climate Extremes in 2030. London: Overseas Development
Institute.
SHIVA, V. (2004): Geraubte Erde. Biodiversität und Ernährungspolitik.
Zürich: Rotpunktverlag.
SHRIMPTON, R./ROKX, C. (2012): The double burden of malnutrition:a review of global evidence. Washington: International Bank for
Reconstruction and Development, The World Bank.
SMITH, L.C./EL OBEID, A.E./JENSEN, H.H. (2000): The geography andcauses of food insecurity in developing countries. In: Agricultural
Economics, 22(2), 199–215.
STIGLITZ, J. (2006): Die Chancen der Globalisierung. München: Siedler
Verlag.
THE SPHERE PROJECT (2011): Humanitarian Charter and MinimumStandards in Humanitarian Response. http://www.spherehandbook.org/(accessed 08.07.2015).
UNHCR (2015): World at War. Global Trends, Forced Displacement in2014. Geneva: United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
UNHRD (2015): Humanitarian Response Depot. http://www.wfp.org/
logistics/humanitarian-response-depot (accessed 08.07.2015).
UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY (1948): A/RES/217 A (III) Universal Declaration of Human Rights. New York: United Nations.

68 [ WorldRiskReport 2015

UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY (2015b): A/69/L.85 - Draft
outcome document of the United Nations summit for the adoptionof the post-2015 development agenda. http://www.un.org/ga/
search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/69/L.85&Lang=E (accessed
02.09.2015).
UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY (2015c): A/RES/69/313 - Addis
Ababa Action Agenda of the Third International Conference on
Financing for Development. http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/69/313 (accessed 07.09. 2015).
VON GREBMER, K./BERNSTEIN, J./DE WAAL, A./PRASAI, N./YIN, S./
YOHANNES, Y. (2015): 2015 Global Hunger Index: Armed Conflict
and the Challenge of Hunger. Bonn/Washington/D.C. Dublin:
Welthungerhilfe, International Food Policy Research Institute, andConcern Worldwide.
VON GREBMER, K./SALTZMAN, A./BIROL, E./WIESMANN, D./PRASAI,
N./YIN, S./YOHANNES, Y./MENON, P./THOMPSON, J./SONNTAG, A.
(2014): 2014 Global Hunger Index: The Challenge of Hidden Hunger.
Bonn/Washington D.C./Dublin: Welthungerhilfe, International Food
Policy Research Institute, and Concern Worldwide.
WELLE, T./BIRKMANN, J./RHYNER, J. (2014): The WorldRiskIndex
2014. In: Bündnis Entwicklung Hilft and United Nations University,
WorldRiskReport 2014. Berlin: Bündnis Entwicklung Hilft (Alliance
Development Works), 39-51.
WELTHUNGERHILFE (2011): Nachhaltige Ernährungssicherung
und Klimawandel. http://www.welthungerhilfe.de/ueberuns/mediathek/whh-artikel/nachhaltige-ernaehrungssicherung-und-klimawandel.html (accessed 26.08.2015).
WFP (2012): Wie Bargeld und Gutscheine Hungernden helfen. http://
de.wfp.org/sites/default/files/de/file/wfp_bargeldtransfers_fuer_
hungernde_2012.pdf (accessed 07.07.2015).
WFP (2015a): How disasters drive hunger. http://documents.wfp.org/
stellent/groups/public/documents/communications/wfp274298.pdf(accessed 30.07.2015).
WFP (2015b): Lack Of Funds Forces WFP To Halve Its Food Rations To
Displaced Iraqis. http://www.wfp.org/news/news-release/lackfunds-forces-wfp-halve-its-food-rations-displaced-iraqis (accessed
17.09.2015).
WFP (2015c): Who are the hungry? http://www.wfp.org/hunger/
who-are (accessed 09.09.2015).
WHEELER, T./VON BRAUN, J. (2013): Climate Change Impacts on Global
Food Security. In: Science, 341(6145), 508-513.
WORLD BANK (2011): World Development Report 2011: Conflict,
Security, and Development. Washington: World Bank.
WORLD BANK (2012): Turn Down the Heat: Why a 4°C Warmer World
Must be Avoided. Washington: World Bank.
WORLD BANK (2013): Turn Down the Heat. Climate Extremes, Regional
Impacts, and the Case for Resilience. Washington: World Bank.
ZUKUNFTSSTIFTUNG LANDWIRTSCHAFT (2013): Wege aus derHungerkrise. Die Erkenntnisse und Folgen des Weltagrarberichts:
Vorschläge für eine Landwirtschaft von morgen. Berlin:
Zukunftsstiftung Landwirtschaft.

Publisher of the WorldRiskReport 2015:
Bündnis Entwicklung Hilft (Alliance Development Works),
andUnited Nations University – Institute forEnvironment and Human Security (UNU-EHS)
Concept and implementation:Peter Mucke, Bündnis Entwicklung Hilft, Project Leader
Lars Jeschonnek, MediaCompany
Prof. Dr. Katrin Radtke, Welthungerhilfe
Scientific lead:
Dr. Matthias Garschagen, UNU-EHS
Authors:
Dr. Matthias Garschagen, Dr. Michael Hagenlocher, Dr. Julia Kloos,
Joanna Pardoe, all UNU-EHS
Dr. Matthias Lanzendörfer, MisereorPeter Mucke, Bündnis Entwicklung Hilft
Prof. Dr. Katrin Radtke, WelthungerhilfeProf. Dr. Jakob Rhyner, UNU-EHS
Bernhard Walter, Brot für die Welt
Dr. Torsten Welle, Prof. Dr. Jörn Birkmann, Universität Stuttgart
In collaboration with:
Tanja Funkenberg, terre des hommes
Lotte Kirch, Stefanie Knapp, Marie-Kathrin Siemer,
all Bündnis Entwicklung Hilft
Stephan Luther, Universität Bonn
Dieter Müller, medico international
Oliver Neuschäfer, Christoffel-Blindenmission
Tanja Pazdzierny, Barbara Winker, Kindernothilfe
Torsten Sewing, freelance journalist
Andrea Sonntag, Welthungerhilfe
Editors:
Lars Jeschonnek, MediaCompany, editor in chiefPeter Mucke, Bündnis Entwicklung Hilft
Prof. Dr. Katrin Radtke, Welthungerhilfe
Julia Walter, MediaCompany
Graphic design and information graphics:
Naldo Gruden, MediaCompany
Cooperation partner:
Universität Stuttgart, Institut für Raumordnung und
Entwicklungsplanung (IREUS)
Translation:
Mike Gardner
ISBN 978-3-9814495-9-4
The WorldRiskReport has been published annually since 2011 by
Bündnis Entwicklung Hilft
Responsible: Peter MuckePhoto credits:
Cover photo: Doña Irene in her little kitchen garden, Bolivia© Pauline & Wim Opmeer
pages 4/5: A market scene in a village in the mountains of Sumatra ©
Carsten Stormer/Brot für die Welt
pages 12/13: A camp for flood victims near Charsadda, Pakistan© Thomas Lohnes/Brot für die Welt
page 15: A project to improve the health situation of infants and theirmothers in Burkina Faso © terre des hommes
page 25: A woman in a trial field for maize cultivation, Murengeza,
Province of Bubanza, Burundi © Réseau Burundi 2000+
page 27: Father and son in front of their house destroyed by Typhoon
Haiyan, Philippines © Christoph Ziegenhardt/cbm
page 35: A local group of Kekchí women looking after their kitchen
garden in Sayaxché, Province of Petén, Guatemala © Sagrada Tierra
page 40/41: Drought in Ethiopia ©Christof Krackhardt/Brot für die Welt
page 50/51: Chili harvesting in Angola © Jörg Böthling/Brot für die
Welt
Printers:
DBM Druckhaus Berlin-Mitte
printed on 100 % recycled paper.
Online:Detailed scientific explanations, in-depth information and tables can befound at www.WorldRiskReport.org and are downloadable.

Publisher

Bündnis Entwicklung Hilft

United Nations University – EHS

Chausseestraße 128/129
10115 Berlin
Tel. 030 – 278 77 390
Fax 030 – 278 77 399
kontakt@entwicklung-hilft.dewww.entwicklung-hilft.dePlatz der Vereinten Nationen 1
UN Campus
53113 Bonn
Tel. 0228 – 815 0261
Fax 0228 – 815 0299
www.ehs.unu.edu

Sieben Organisationen – ein Bündnis

ISBN 978-3-9814495-9-4