Resources: Global Risk Data Platform

The Global Assessment Report 2011 website is hosting an interesting interactive tool for those working on disaster risk reduction and analysis of geological and atmospheric hazards. The Global Risk Data Platform allows you to zoom to anywhere in the world and see overlay maps for actual events, hazard probabilities, and risk probabilities. Events outlined, include hazards such as landslides, earthquakes, volcanic events, fires, floods and droughts (although they are not all available for all aspects of the program). It also allows maps to be printed and e-mailed, and data to be downloaded and put into GIS programs.

The tool aims to share spatial data information on risk from natural hazards. A first glance evaluation suggests it would be useful for giving an overall look at regions of countries, and help development professionals understand some of the risks posed to an area. Its limitations are the resolution at which data can be provided, and the 'single-hazard' approach it takes rather than a 'multi-hazard' approach. There is a 'multiple risk' map, although it is unclear how this is calculated, does not incorporate some major hazards etc.  

Landslide Risk in Chile: Produced on Global Risk Data Platform

Despite its limitations, I'd definitely recommend people explore this tool and see if is beneficial to them as a first stage review of an area, before more detailed hazard analysis is done. I look forward to exploring its potential in time, and seeing what it can produce. 

Earthquake Prediction and Disaster Risk Reduction

Exposed Fault Line (Greece)

After 'what type of rock is this?' the question I probably get asked most as a geologist is 'can we or will we ever be able to predict earthquakes?' Accurate earthquake prediction is considered one of the 'holy grails' of the geosciences. It remains elusive however, and is likely to be elusive for the foreseeable future.

Earthquakes are triggered when stress builds up on these fault lines, as the stress overcomes a critical value the fault ruptures, releasing this stress (or transferring it to other parts of the fault). This release of stress generates seismic waves which shake the ground. Earthquakes cause considerable damage and loss of life across the globe - seen recently in places as diverse as Spain, Japan, New Zealand, Burma, Chile and Haiti. 

Major Plate Boundaries

Geoscientists have a good idea of roughly where earthquakes are likely to happen (although new fault lines are still being discovered). They have an indication of the maximum magnitude we can expect in certain places (though again, there can be surprises, such as the March 2011 earthquake in Japan). Studies of palaeoseismology (historical earthquakes) can also give us an indication of what time frames to expect between large earthquakes. Despite this knowledge and ability to understand these factors - geoscientists have no way to predict exactly when, where and how big a particular earthquake will be. 

Research is examining possible methods of earthquake prediction, including study of animal behaviour and study of electrical disturbances in our atmosphere. This research is a long way away, however, from giving us the vital information we need for earthquake prediction, and current opinion remains uncertain as to whether it will eventually help. 

Bendandi (Source: Luca Lorenzi)

Despite geologists stating that earthquake prediction is a distant dream - predictions are occasionally mentioned, such as the May 11th 2011 Rome earthquake. Rumours had circulated that a dead seismologist (Raffaele Bendandi, pictured left) had predicted that the city would be destroyed on this date. Rumours which caused widespread panic and thousands to stay away from the city. This situation highlights something that isn't talked about very much - the potential dangers of earthquake prediction. Currently earthquake prediction (with precise days and times etc) mainly causes unfounded panic and distress. It damages economies, and has the potential to lead to people not paying attention to genuine warnings and evacuation orders. Even if we do get into a situation where we can predict earthquakes using scientific monitoring techniques, there is of course the potential that those predictions will be wrong. The potential for panic, damage and reluctance to pay attention to genuine warnings means that distributing these warnings must be carefully considered. Earthquake prediction also places a huge burden on local, national and international governments to ensure they can manage and finance evacuations, as well as effectively mobilising communities. While this isn't a danger to, or reason not to predict - it does mean international governments and agencies must be ready to step in and support struggling countries.

Finally, while we cannot (and may not ever) predict earthquakes in the sense of specific location, magnitude and time - we do have a wealth of scientific and technical knowledge about how earthquakes behave, how soils and rock respond to seismic waves, how buildings respond... not to mention many locations prone to earthquakes, and significant historical records giving us an indication of time intervals and magnitude of earthquakes. The huge amounts of scientific data and technical knowledge we have means that we can develop effective disaster risk reduction methods. Earthquakes, and other natural hazards, only become natural disasters when there is risk and vulnerability. If this vulnerability can be reduced, and resilience increased then the impacts of hazards such as earthquakes will be dramatically reduced. The types of things that can be implemented to ensure risk is reduced are things such as changes to urban planning - ensuring that cities are built with stricter building codes, more organisation and planning, and better assigned routes for evacuation and emergency vehicles. This is particularly important in developing countries, where rapid urbanisation in vulnerable areas could lead to potential mega-disasters. Other things such as education and drills, ensuring that people know what to do and how to do it, is crucial. This can be particularly important in institutions such as schools and health centres.

So while earthquake prediction is widely considered the 'holy grail' of the geosciences - we mustn't deflect from the importance of what we can already do. We have the ability to significantly reduce the impacts of disasters - and must work to ensure disaster risk reduction is incorporated into policy, well financed and given our full backing.   

Read more:

BBC Article - Earthquake Prediction

Geology for Global Development - Key Themes: Geohazards

Newswatch: Geohazards

To end the week in which the Global Platform on Disaster Risk Reduction took place in Geneva, here is a collection of interesting news stories from around the web relating to geohazards, disaster risk reduction and international development:

Risk of tsunamis in some cities is much larger than previously thought…

Research suggests that the risk of tsunamis in coastal towns close to strike-slip faults is higher than previously thought. A strike-slip fault (where two plates move alongside each other) does not generally cause vertical displacement (associated with the generation of tsunamis), however research suggests they can trigger submarine landslides leading to a higher tsunami risk. Cities this research could have implications for include Kingston (Jamaica), Istanbul (Turkey) and Port au Prince (Haiti).

Millions face high risk of massive Andes quake…

Research suggests that the possibility of a large earthquake in the eastern Andes is much higher than previously thought. Hazard assessments had previously put the expected maximum magnitude at 7.5, but it is now previously thought to extend to M8.9. The implications of this are significant, as there are millions living in the region (especially the city of Santa Cruz, Bolivia) in poor infrastructure, with inadequate building standards in place.

Catastrophic droughts loom if temperatures rise by 1.5-2°C…

Staying on the theme of South America, research revealed at the end of last year indicates that if temperatures rise by 1.5-2°C, parts of Peru and Bolivia will become almost desert like. Palaeoclimate research, analysing fossilised pollen within lake sediments, suggests that almost 85% of Lake Titicaca dried up in the past due to evaporation and higher temperatures. This palaeoclimate research gives us an important indication as to the effects of climate change, and how communities need to adapt to increase their resilience.

Seas could rise by up to 1.6m by 2100…

Reuters reports the results of research suggesting sea level rises could be much larger than previously expected… reaching 1.6m by 2100. This higher value is based on observations of quickening climate change in the Arctic and Greenland’s ice melting. The implications of this would include large scale flooding of low-lying and coastal areas. Developing nations such as Bangladesh and many Pacific islands would be particularly vulnerable, in addition to more developed countries such as China and the UK. To see the implications of sea-level rise around the world, check out this clever map made using Google Earth and NASA data. This is set to a conservative 1m sea-level rise, but you can also adjust this to 2, 3, 4m etc.

UK to lead space disaster charter…

Finally, the BBC reports that the UK has taken over the Chair of the International Charter on Space and Major Disasters for the next six months. This organisation is responsible for taking satellite images when there is a natural disaster. These satellite maps can be vital to planning emergency response, giving a clear indication of the level of damage, possible evacuation/emergency supply routes etc. The Charter has been used 12 times already in 2011, providing photos for the Japan earthquake and tsunami, as well as a range of other disasters.

Global Platform 2011 - Why is DFID ending aid to the UNISDR?

Earlier this year, DFID announced the results of two major aid reviews. The first, at the start of March, was the UK Aid and Multilateral Aid Review. The second, at the end of March, was the Humanitarian Emergency Response Review (HERR), conducted by Lord Paddy Ashdown. One of the key findings of the HERR was the importance of making disaster risk reduction (DRR) an intrical part of DFID's work, increasing anticipation, resilience and innovation. These are tasks in which geologists have the potential to play an important role. The HERR, interestingly, came after DFID announced earlier that month that they were ending their contributions to the United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction.

The core mandate of the UNISDR, as stated on their website, is to serve as the focal point in the United Nations system for the coordination of disaster reduction and to ensure synergies among disaster reduction activities. The UNISDR main work includes:

- COORDINATING and sustaining partnerships to build disaster resilience and promote disaster risk reduction.

- CAMPAIGNING to build awareness of disaster risk reduction and reduce communities vulnerability to the impact of hazards.

- ADVOCATING for greater investment in disaster risk reduction

- INFORM and connect people by providing practical services and tools.

DFID's justification for the decision to end funding was based upon an assessment of value for money, effectiveness, results, leadership and accountability. In the Multilateral Aid Review, it states:

"UNISDR has not performed its international co-ordination role well. Other more effective institutions such as UNDP and GFDRR are judged to provide better value for money and DFID will increase its funding to them. UNDP is central to the delivery of the MDGs and is at the heart of the UN development system and currently plays an important co-ordination role on disaster risk reduction at the national level. GFDRR is more effective at mainstreaming DRR and climate change adaptation in country development strategies.

The UK will still be a member of UNISDR as it is part of the UN Secretariat, but DFID will no longer provide additional voluntary funding. This funding averaged £0.9m between 2002 and 2010."

However, in light of the HERR, was this the right decision to make? I recently came across an interesting article by Dr Tom Mitchell, who works at the Overseas Development Institute, which discusses the possible reasons behind DFID's decision. In the article, Dr Tom Mitchell suggests a number of reasons for this decision, labelling them as either wrong, very unlikely or very likely. The suggested reasons include things such as... was it very expensive to the taxpayer, is DRR not a priority for DFID, is there a better organisation to take its place or is DFID following a global trend in ending funding - all of these were labelled very unlikely or wrong. The reasons labelled as likely are more related to the appearance of a 'co-ordinating agency' in an era of results and weaknesses in the Multilateral Aid Review process. Dr Tom Mitchell concludes with an assessment that this was the wrong decision, and a hope that the HERR will stimulate a rethink.

So these are the two sides of this debate, and I'm sure there are many other points that others could contribute to this discussion. Dr Tom Mitchell states that many in the field would recognise that the UNISDR has considerable shortcomings - so it seems clear that there is a need for reform and improvements, the key question is whether DFID short be withdrawing its funding, and whether that decision should have been made before the HERR? Disaster risk reduction needs to be a central part of the UK's development programme - its results are not always obvious, until after a disaster happens, but it has the potential to make a significant difference - it is preventative, rather than a cure... and that surely must be an important part of global development.

Any thoughts, comments, feedback very welcome.

Global Platform 2011 - Developing a Global Hazard Database

The Guardian's 'Bright Idea' section has an interview with volcanologist, Bill McGuire from the Benfield UCL Hazard Research Centre in London, discussing the possibility of developing a global databank or central information source on natural hazards/disasters that could be used by world governments. A central information source or global databank would give details of all major natural threats. This wealth of data would be stored, updated and evaluated on a regular basis. It would be accessible by governments and other stakeholders, giving them information and details on events that could threaten particular cities.

There is a real need for excellent communication between all stakeholders in the area of disaster risk reduction. Natural disasters are complex events, combining some or all of interactions between ground conditions, geology, atmospheric dynamics, urban planning, education, public communication and many other factors. Developing appropriate disaster risk reduction schemes, increasing resilience and reducing vulnerability partly relies on excellent communication between experts in these and many other areas. A paper was published about a year prior to the earthquake in Haiti, suggesting that there was a significant threat of a major earthquake affecting the area - but this information failed to be communicated to or acted upon by the emergency planners, and an adequate risk reduction plan was not implemented.

Port au Prince, Haiti

This is, in theory, where the global databank would be useful. With respect to geological and geotechnical data... it would collate data, be regularly updated and evaluated - and made easily accessible to stakeholders. At the moment information is published in numerous journals, by government agencies and geological surveys, and disseminated by universities, conferences and online blogs. A central place that brings all this information together would theoretically help people assess the risk and act upon the science.

There are however a number of questions that need to be addressed...

(1) How is this Data Reviewed?

Data in this database would have to be monitored and reviewed, in the same way information in academic journals is reviewed. The huge amounts of data to be inputted, and huge numbers of authors and contributors means that the review process could be very difficult. Would the simplest solution be a databank where people are free to upload and edit (in a wikipedia fashion)?

(2) Accessibility of Data

The data needs to be contributed in a way in which it is easily understandable and usable by people from a variety of backgrounds. Details of ground conditions need to be communicated clearly to urban planners, and details of seismic probability communicated to emergency planners etc. The databank can not simply be an online archive of academic papers and journals (although this could form a part of it). Some work will have to be done on understanding the best way to communicate this knowledge so that it can be used to its full effect.

(3) Ensuring Communication of Data

It is stated that a paper was published a year before the disaster in Haiti, and was either not communicated to emergency planners or not acted upon by them. It is not altogether clear how this databank would prevent that happening again. The databank would depend on the paper being uploaded, accessed and understood by those with responsibility for emergency planning in Haiti and then acted upon. In my mind, the break-up in communication that occurred in the actual scenario is just as likely to occur in the scenario in which a global databank exists. If a researcher concludes that there is a real risk of an earthquake in a particular part of the world, they have a responsibility to disseminate that information to key stakeholders, and those receiving the information have a responsibility to act upon it. In both the situation with a global database and without a global database the same failures could potentially occur.

(4) Developed vs Developing Countries

Finally, it is unclear what impact this would have on reducing disasters in developing countries. There is the initial problem that it costs money to mitigate against a disaster. I would also imagine that the data available for many developing countries (disproportionately affected by natural disasters due to poverty increasing vulnerability) is significantly less than the data available for developed countries. It is intuitive that countries with a higher GDP can expect to invest more in research and development, have more and better established universities conducting research, and have collected data over a longer time frame. Geological and geotechnical maps, for example, exist to a high level of detail for many of the world's large cities in developing countries. In developing countries, this crucial data is often readily available for large scale areas, but not the small scale needed to understand differential ground motion in an earthquake, for example.

Thus, if urban planning and building resilience are to occur in the developing megacities - an investment in good and detailed ground investigation, slope stability assessments etc is crucial. This investment in gathering information as much as collating existing information will be beneficial to disaster risk reduction in developing countries.

In conclusion, the development of a global databank for natural hazards is an idea worth considering. It could help improve disaster risk reduction in some areas, although as McGuire himself recognises - there are many cases where it would not have made any difference (where there was no pre-existing knowledge of fault lines etc). It is also susceptible to the same breakdowns in communication as exist currently and likely to highlight the lack of information available for some of the most impoverished, and at risk communities. This lack of information is an issue that must be addressed in order to support disaster risk reduction in developing countries, as well as the improvement of communication between stakeholders . 

Global Platform 2011 - Introduction

Tomorrow sees the start of the Global Platform for Disaster Reduction 2011, in Geneva, and hosted by the United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR). The biennial conference will gather policymakers, stakeholders, reconstruction experts from a wide range of fields including the public and private sectors, NGOs and academia. Over the next few days, as the conference takes place in Geneva, this blog will focus on this important theme. It's a theme in which geologists play a crucial role, and have a huge responsibility for ensuring the information they gather is effectively communicated to other stakeholders. At a time in which we've seen devastating earthquakes, from Haiti to Japan, Chile to New Zealand, the importance of building resilience to natural hazards and reducing vulnerability is more stark than ever. 

The video below is a trailer produced by the UNISDR, highlighting the conference starting tomorrow, you can download the key discussion material here.