Coasts at Risk

Front cover photos: left, a woman collects cockles in Nicaragua. Credit: CRC middle, a reef of hard and soft corals in the Indo-Pacific Ocean. Credit: Nancy Sefton right, a fisherman along The Gambian coastline. Credit: James Tobey, CRC

Back cover photos: left, erosion damages a beach in the Marshall Islands. Credit: James Tobey, CRC middle, a fisherwoman with her harvest in Thailand. Credit: CRC right, many vulnerable coastal areas along Ghana’s Western Region are highly populated. Credit: CRC i | Coasts A t Risk Coasts at Risk

An Assessment of Coastal Risks and the Role of Environmental Solutions

Coasts at Risk (C@R) was made possible through funding from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the Pew Marine Fellowship pro- iii gram and the Lyda Hill Foundation. USAID funding was | Coasts provided through the Sustainable Coastal Communities and Ecosystems (SUCCESS) Leader with Associates A Award to the University of Rhode Island, under t Risk Cooperative Agreement Number EPP-A-00-04-00014-00. The contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the U.S. Government.

Citation: Coasts at Risk: An Assessment of Coastal Risks and the Role of Environmental Solutions. Edited by Michael W. Beck. A joint publication of United Nations University - Institute for Environment and Human Security (UNU-EHS), The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and the Coastal Resources Center (CRC) at the University of Rhode Island Graduate School of Oceanography. Published 2014.

Editor: Michael W. Beck

Graphic Design: Karen Ward Design

Copy Editor: Carol McCarthy

Cooperating Partners:

United Nations University-Institute for Environment and Human Security (UNU-EHS)

The Nature Conservancy (TNC)

The University of Rhode Island, Graduate School of Oceanography, Coastal Resources Center (CRC)

This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part and in any form for educational or non-profit services without special permission from the authors, provided acknowledgement of the source is made. iv Coasts At Risk | Brian Crawford andHilaryStephens (CRC) TorstenMichael Beck (TNC), Welle (UNU-EHS) Concept andImplementation: They allprovided valuable feedback. and Richard Volk, Jonathan Cook andAlexApostos (USAID). including Julie Ekstrom (Natural Resources Defense Council) We provide specialthankstoreviewers ofthewholereport (FAO) andCarmen Revenga (TNC). Cassandraseveral chapters:Imen De Meliane (TNC), Young We thankthefollowing individualsforreviewing oneor Acknowledgements v TABLE OF CONTENTS | Coasts A t Risk

1. Introduction ...... 1 JAMES Tobey and Hilary Stevens, CRC

2. The Coasts at Risk Index ...... 5 torsten Welle, UNU-EHS, Michael w. Beck, TNC, and Joern Birkmann, UNU-EHS

3. The Role of Mangroves in Coastal Risk Reduction ...... 25 Anna McIvor and Mark Spalding, University of Cambridge and TNC

4. Coral Reefs and Risk Reduction ...... 39 cHristine Shepard and Rachel Fabian, University of California Santa Cruz, Filippo Ferrario, University of Laval, Quebec, and Michael W. Beck, TNC

5. Marine Fisheries, Social Vulnerability and Risk ...... 49 vera N. Agostini and Shawn W. Margles, TNC

6. Recommendations for Meeting Risk Reduction & Conservation Goals ...... 61 Michael W. Beck, TNC figures Tables

Figure 1 Scheme of the concept of C@R Index...... 6 Table 1 Top 10 most exposed coastal countries...... 13

Figure 2 Indicators, components and subcategories Table 2 Top 10 most susceptible coastal countries...... 14 of C@R Index...... 9 Table 3 Top 10 coastal countries with highest lack Figure 3 Structure, indicators and weights for of coping capacity...... 15 vi susceptibility component...... 10

| Table 4 Top 10 coastal countries with highest lack Figure 4 Structure, indicators and weights for of adaptive capacity...... 16 coping capacity component...... 10 t Risk Table 5 Top 10 most vulnerable coastal countries...... 17 Figure 5 Structure, indicators and weights for Table 6 Top 10 coastal countries with highest risk...... 18 Coasts A adaptive capacity component...... 11

Figure 6 Structure and weights for aggregation Table 7 Top 10 tropical countries for susceptibility...... 20 of C@R Index...... 11 Table 8 Top 10 countries with lowest environmental values ...... 21 Figure 7 Exposure map...... 13 Table 9 Economic values of coastal defense provisions Figure 8 Susceptibility map...... 14 of coral reefs...... 41

Figure 9 Lack of coping capacity map...... 15 Table 10 Numbers of people who may receive coral reef risk reduction benefits...... 42 Figure 10 Lack of adaptive capacity map...... 16 Table 11 Top 10 countries with the highest number Figure 11 Vulnerability map...... 17 of fishing jobs ...... 51

Figure 12 C@R Index map...... 18

Figure 13 Results for tropical index of susceptibility, vulnerability and risk...... 19

Figure 14 Environmental scores for tropical countries based on 8 indices...... 21

Figure 15 Some of ways that mangroves contribute to risk reduction...... 26

Figure 16 Global distribution of mangrove forests...... 26

Figure 17 Waves passing through mangroves...... 27

Figure 18 Schematic showing factors influencing wave reduction by mangroves...... 27

Figure 19 Dense coastal mangrove vegetation...... 28

Figure 20 Use of mangroves in hybrid structures...... 29

Figure 21 Dense aerial roots of mangroves...... 30

Figure 22 Schematic diagram, mangroves and risk reduction...... 30

Figure 23 Mangroves provide important habitat...... 32

Figure 24 Diagram and aerial photo of whole reef zones...... 40

Figure 25 Benefits of coral reef restoration...... 43

Figure 26 Dependence on marine fish for protein...... 51

Figure 27 Global/regional country dependence on marine fish for protein...... 52 Acronyms List

BCPR Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery (United Nations)

C@R Coasts at Risk

CIESIN Center for International Earth Science Information Network vii |

CRC Coastal Resources Center, University of Rhode Island, Graduate School of Oceanography Coasts A

CreSIS Center for Remote Sensing of Ice Sheets t Risk

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

FAOSTAT Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Statistical Databases

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

GRIP Global Health Research Initiative Program

GRUMP Global-Rural-Urban Mapping Project

IFRC International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

SIDS Small Island Developing States

TEV Total Economic Value

TNC The Nature Conservancy

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

UNEP United Nations Environment Programme

UNFCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

UN-HABITAT United Nations Human Settlements Programme

UNISDR United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction

UNU-EHS United Nations University-Institute for Environment and Human Security

ix Executive Summary | Coasts A

oastal development and climate change are rapidly environment and social vulnerability in assessing risk for t Risk changing the world’s coastlines and dramatically coastal nations. C increasing risks of catastrophic damage. Erosion, Many prior papers and reports focus on recommenda- inundation and extreme weather events affect hundreds tions for either risk reduction or conservation objectives of millions of vulnerable people, important infrastructure (e.g., early warning systems for risk reduction or protect- and tourism—with significant losses to national econo- ed areas for conservation). mies and human suffering. Environmental degradation compounds these risks, increasing communities’ expo- This report takes an integrated approach by focusing on sure to natural hazards and reducing their access to natu- analyses and recommendations that can benefit both ral resources (e.g., fish stocks). Coastal and marine habi- people and nature across risk reduction and environ- tats, particularly coral reefs and wetlands, are at the front mental conservation objectives. line of many of these changes and are increasingly lost and degraded. Often the loss of these habitats and fish There are several key findings and considerations raised stocks is greatest around population centers. That is, where in the report that help guide the recommendations. First, the most people could benefit from these natural resources the nations most at risk overall are tropical and Small is often where their damage and loss are the greatest. Island Developing States (SIDS). Second, environmental degradation increases vulnerability and exposure. Third, This Coasts at Risk (C@R) report 1) examines the risks environmental conservation and restoration can reduce that nations face from vulnerability and exposure to exposure and improve social vulnerability. Lastly, it is coastal hazards; 2) identifies where environmental degra- highly likely that future coastal risks will increase with dation contributes to these risks; and 3) explores where climate change, population growth and further coastal environmental solutions can contribute to risk reduction. development. Based on the findings, this report offers a Risk is defined as the interaction between a natural haz- series of recommendations relevant to policy-makers, ard event (including the adverse impacts of climate scientists, conservationists and risk managers. change) and the vulnerability of societies. This report The C@R Index helps to understand the risks that nations applies an indicator-based approach to assessing the risk face from coastal hazards and identifies where environ- that coastal nations face with respect to natural hazards. mental degradation contributes to vulnerability. Indeed, The C@R Index builds on the framework and methodol- environmental indicators (fisheries, habitat) were linked ogy of the index presented in the WorldRiskReport, which to vulnerability (r2=0.10, p ≤ 0.01), and this connection was led by the Alliance Development Works and the between people and environment was strongest in tropi- United Nations University Institute for Environment and cal countries (r2=0.15, p ≤ 0.01). Human Security (UNU-EHS). The WorldRiskReport highlighted that across all countries and hazards (e.g., earth- After assessing risks globally, this report provides review quakes, floods, sea level rise, storms and drought); coastal chapters on mangrove forests, coral reefs and fisheries to countries were consistently at the greatest risk. This re- examine how environmental degradation of these report and the C@R Index focus only on coastal countries sources contributes to risk, and more importantly, how and adds new indicators for fisheries and coastal habitats conservation and restoration could contribute risk reduc- (natural capital) to highlight the connection between tion solutions. Reefs and mangroves provide important Coasts At Risk | x P P disaster development choices formeasures andopportunities better post- There isaneedtoincreaseriskprevention identified. reduction, thefollowing keyrecommendations were the role of reefs, mangrovesrisk risk and in andfisheries Based onourfindingsfrom theC@R Index and reviews of from coastalhazards.risk vulnerability central toevaluating and managingoverall makes addressing andsocial thelinksbetween fisheries to livelihoods, andcoastaleconomies foodsecurity animal protein (FAO 2012). The significanceoffisheries 3 billionpeoplerely source onfishasanimportant of capture andaquaculture) fortheirlivelihoods, andnearly ed 660-820millionpeopledependonfish(bothfrom wild and fish-related forfoodandjobs. industries Anestimat- Most oftheworld’s coastalcommunitiesdependonfish reefs andmangroves. most likelyreceive direct reduction risk benefitsfrom a reef ormangrove habitat. These are thepeoplewho areas onthecoast(<10melevation) andwithin10kmof More than250millionpeoplelive inlow-lying exposed benefits are tohundreds important ofmillionspeople. livelihoods andreduceport socialvulnerability. These 97%) andtheprovision ofnatural resources, whichsup- reductions inexposure (e.g., reefs reduce wave energy by reductionrisk benefits topeople. Thesebenefitsinclude lying areas. about rebuilding low- inthehighestrisk, efforts and multinationalfunderswere more cautious goalsifnationalgovernmentstion andconservation Post-disaster reduc bothrisk choicescouldsupport - thatisneeded. for thesupport er agenciesandgroups couldpushmore effectively Larger andmore coordinated coalitionsofstakehold- cost effective butthemostdifficulttosupport. Pre-disaster (i.e., prevention) actionsare particularly

P these restorationefforts exist reduction, andopportunities tofocus Habitat restorationcancontributetorisk P P P P foropportunities investment tocreatebetter risk reductionservices Targeted research isneededonenvironmental P P most at risk from naturalmost atrisk hazards. larly relevant thatare intropical, coastalcountries reduction,fective optionsforrisk - whichisparticu Coral reef andmangrove restoration offerscost-ef- and betterpost-disasterdevelopment choices. future through adaptation(prevention) measures nations,most at-risk buildadaptive capacityforthe A greater commitmentisneeded tohelpSIDS,the ers (e.g., cost: benefitanalyses). decision-making frameworks usedby hazard manag- needed, andtheapproaches shouldalign withthe More is accountingforecosystem services rigorous andfoodsecurity.connection between fisheries of habitatdegradation oncoastalerosion andonthe there needstobemore direct measures oftheeffects environmental degradation For onrisk. example, Scientists shouldadvance research ontheeffectsof suchasenvironmental degradation. ofrisk, drivers more integrated assessmentsthatbetteraccountfor risk Governments andmultinationalfundersshoulddevelop restoration couldalsocost-effectively reduce risk. ate countries, increased oyster reef andsaltmarsh and mangrove restoration toreduce risks. In temper forcoralU.S.) have theneedandopportunities reef Even large temperate (e.g., countries Chinaandthe added inareas withgreater populationdensity. low populationdensity).More projects shouldbe occurinremote efforts conservation areas (i.e., with reduction. risk support For example, manymarine towork effectively to will needtomodifypriorities groupsEnvironmental agenciesandconservation - xi |

P Many nations have substantial critical infrastructure P Further research on the link between fisheries and Coasts A (e.g., ports, airports, power plants, sewage treatment climate change is critical. In the future, tropical areas

plants) in low-lying and highly exposed areas; gov- are predicted to see declines in fisheries productivity. t Risk ernments need to better account for how this affects Thus, those countries most at risk overall may face their national risk. the greatest pressures from climate-related declines in fisheries. Leaders need to demand more cost-effective solutions and recognize opportunities to These recommendations require a new level of coopera- create sustainable investments in natural tion between aid, development, and conservation agen- infrastructure cies and groups. Some of that cooperation is already hap- P Adaptation and development funders should pening, and there are many important reasons why it can encourage better mainstreaming of cost-effective and must expand. There is great need and opportunity in solutions for risk reduction. Where natural solutions further integration to meet risk reduction and environ- are cost effective, they should become the preferred mental conservation management objectives. alternatives. This is already starting to happen as re-insurers assess the cost effectiveness of habitat restoration, and engineering agencies and firms are developing more nature-based coastal defense projects.

P Nature-based risk reduction can be increasingly viewed as an opportunity for investment and business. Engineering firms can find business in designing nature-based defenses. Construction firms and marine contractors can find business in developing restoration projects.

Fisheries management and research need to improve and recognize opportunities to reduce social vulnerability

P Our understanding of the links between fisheries and food security needs to be improved. This research will help drive actions by identifying where to focus conservation for food security.

P Fisheries management can fruitfully be approached from a risk reduction and adaptation viewpoint, which could lead to new partnerships (e.g., with aid groups); new and refined funding investment strategies; and better buy-in towards fisheries enhancement. xii Coasts At Risk | Credit: James Tobey, CRC Erosion damagesabeachintheMarshall Islands. 1 | 1. Introduction Coasts A t Risk By James Tobey and Hilary Stevens

oastal development and climate change are rapidly changing the world’s coastlines and dramatically increasing risks of catastrophic damage. The proportion of the C world’s GDP annually exposed to tropical cyclones has increased from 3.6% in the 1970s to 4.3% in the first decade of the 2000s (UNISDR, 2011). Erosion, inundation and extreme weather events affect hundreds of millions of vulnerable people, important infrastructure and tourism—with significant losses to national economies and human suffering.

Environmental degradation compounds these risks, in- impacts on the most fisheries-dependent and vulnerable creasing communities’ exposure to waves, wind and wa- communities. ter, and leads to further losses of fish stocks. Coastal and Billions of dollars are invested in reducing risks from marine habitats, particularly coral reefs and wetlands, are at the front line of many of these changes and are incoastal hazards and climate change, creating both threats creasingly lost and degraded. Global losses of coastal and opportunities for natural systems. Total Fast Start habitats are as high as 85% for oyster reefs, 30-50% for Finance commitments under the United Nations wetlands and over 25% for coral reefs. Often the loss of Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) these habitats is greatest around population centers. That include roughly U.S. $3 billion for climate adaptation is, where the most people could benefit from these eco- assistance. In the United States the Federal Emergency systems is often where their damage and loss have been Management Agency (FEMA) spends U.S. $500 million/ the greatest. Owing to overfishing and habitat degrada- year to reduce flooding hazards. Middle income countries tion, fish stocks have suffered major declines. Most global such as Colombia, Brazil and China are making multibil- fish stocks are managed unsustainably with many col- lion dollar investments to address risks of flooding and lapsed or collapsing, and these losses have the greatest other disasters. Most of these funds are destined for the Coasts At Risk | 2 at thegreatest For risk. example, thetop15mostat-risk were anddrought), coastal countries storms consistently and hazards (e.g., earthquakes, fires, floods, rise, sealevel The WorldRiskReport highlightedthatacross allcountries its reliability. methodology oftheindexisvalidated by scientists for operation between scientistsandpractitioners, andthe by annuallythrough closeco- UNU-EHSisconstructed tion withtheUNU-EHS. The WorldRiskIndex developed was ledby theAllianceDevelopment Works incoopera- the WorldRiskReport (www.worldriskreport.com), which framework andmethodologyoftheindexpresented in The C@RIndex wasprepared ofrisk by buildingonthe with actualorfuture hazard events. institutional, educationalandeconomicabilitytodeal disaster emergencies, andadaptive capacityislong-term event. Coping capacityistheabilityofasocietytohandle orbeadversely impactedbyence harm acoastalhazard ity. Susceptibility- isthelikelihoodthatpeoplewillexperi ity are susceptibility, copingcapacityandadaptive capacity ofcommunities. The three componentsofvulnerabil- geophysical hazard (e.g., flood)andthesocialvulnerabil- Risk isafunctionofexposure ofpeopleandassetstoa reductionrisk community(UNISDR,2011;IPCC, 2012). proaches anddefinitionsdeveloped withinthedisaster inChapter2andfollowscoastal nationsisdescribed ap- natural hazards. in The methodologyforcalculatingrisk thatcoastalnationsfacewithrespectsessing therisk to This report appliesanindicator-based approach toas - play inreducing current andfuture risks. tothem;andtherole thattheenvironmenttribute may thefactorsthatcon- decision-makers abouttheirrisks; report national,regional isintended toinform andglobal edge thattheywillincrease with climatechange. This to reduce inthecontextofknowl theserisks, particularly - andraises oftakingsocietalaction risks theimportance the linksbetween coastalnatural resources anddisaster reduction. torisk tions cancontribute The report exposes and3)exploresto theserisks; where environmental solu- identifies where environmental degradation contributes from vulnerability andexposure tocoastalhazards; 2) The C@Rreport thatnationsface 1) examinestherisks natural alternatives. andhybrid reductioncost effective forrisk whencompared tomore degradewill further coastalecosystemsandmaynotbe creation of “grey infrastructure” suchasseawalls, which reasons, protecting existingreefs and restoring reefs that incomegeneration.food supplyandalternate For these for fisheries ofhabitatthatsupports capital intheform Coral reefs alsoreduce vulnerability by providing natural shore atalevel comparable breakwaters. toartificial mangroves, theyreduce thewave energy thatreaches the natural hazards, includingclimatechangeeffects. Like can reduce adjacentcoastalcommunities’ from risks oceans andgenerally intheshallower depths. Coral reefs tropical regions ofthe Western Atlantic andIndo-Pacific Coral reefs are foundinthetropical andsub- primarily groves are avaluable resource in reducing risk. large amountsofcarbon.For allthesereasons, man- climate change, asthesoilsinwhichtheygrow canstore surge ortsunami.Mangrovessuch asstorm alsomitigate erosion and candampentheeffectsofextreme events, shown toreduce shoreline wave energy, whichlessens Mangrovefuel andconstruction. standshave alsobeen ing birds andjuvenile fishandare asource ofwoodfor Mangroves provide habitatfornumerous speciesinclud- tion andrestoration reduction. torisk couldcontribute andmore torisk, tributes importantly, where- conserva how environmental degradation intheseresources con- reefs (Chapter5)toexamine (Chapter4)andfisheries chapters focusonmangrove forests (Chapter3),coral coastal resources, reduction. andrisk risk Individual review chaptersthatexaminethelinksamongnatural After assessingnationalrisks, theC@Rreport provides withtropical environments.tries reef andmangrove habitats, whichoccuronlyincoun- dicators were globalinscaleexcept fortheindicators of WorldRiskReport 2012(Welle etal.2012).Allofthesein- assessment ofsocialvulnerability assuggestedinthe mental indicatorswere addedtoeachcomponentofthe forcoastalnations.risk These coastallyfocusedenviron- tween environment andsocialvulnerability inassessing have beenaddedtoconcentrate ontheconnectionbe- andcoastalhabitats(naturaltors forfisheries capital) index focusonlyoncoastalnations. Second, newindica- coastal andenvironmental risks. First, this report and This report focuson andindex have addedaparticular mate changerelated. exposed tonatural hazards, includingthosethatare cli- lation andeconomicactivity, buttheyare alsohighly nations. The world’s coastalregions are centersofpopu- nations inthe2012globalreport were allcoastal,tropical have become degraded are important approaches to Environmental degradation can increase risk for fisher- risk reduction. ies, coral reefs and mangroves, and environmental health has a strong influence on vulnerability. Consequently, Marine fisheries also represent natural capital that is environmental conservation and restoration of coastal linked to risk reduction by providing animal protein as habitats and the application of strategies to increase the well as direct and indirect employment and income for productivity of fisheries can reduce vulnerability. the world’s coastal communities. The fisheries chapter describes and graphically illustrates these benefits and This report concludes with recommendations for reduc- highlights climate change risks to fisheries. It also dis- ing these risks with a particular focus on measures rel- 3 |

cusses the importance of fisheries vulnerability assess- evant across management objectives of risk reduction, Coasts A ments and risk reduction strategies. adaptation and conservation (Chapter 6). t Risk

References

IPCC (2012). Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and UNISDR (2011). Global Assessment Report on Disaster Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation. A Risk Reduction Vol. 178. United Nations International Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Strategy for Disaster Reduction, Geneva, Switzerland. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, Welle, T., Beck, M., Mucke, P. (2012). Environmental deg- C.B., V. Barros, T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, D.J. Dokken, K.L. radation as a risk factor. In: WorldRiskReport 2012, Ebi, M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, G.-K. Plattner, S.K. Alliance Development Works, 28-32. Allen, M. Tignor, and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA, 582. Coasts At Risk | 4 Credit: CRC Western Region are highlypopulated. Many vulnerablecoastalareas along Ghana’s 5 | 2. The Coasts at Risk Index Coasts A t Risk By Torsten Welle, Michael W. Beck and Joern Birkmann

he C@R Index is an indicator-based approach that assesses the risk of coastal nations exposed to natural hazards such as cyclones, floods, storm surges, tsunamis Tand sea level rise. This Index also examines where environmental degradation of coastal resources contributes to this risk. The C@R index is built on the concept of the WorldRiskIndex developed by UNU-EHS (Birkmann et al., 2011, Welle et al., 2013) with the addition of a particular focus on coastal and environmental risks. The index is intended to inform national, regional and global decision-makers about their risks and the factors that contribute to them so that they can seek solutions in disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation. The C@R Index is based on the premise that it is not only the intensity of a natural event that is responsible for a coastal hazard turning into a disaster, but also the social, economic and ecological factors of a society. Hence, planning processes and proactive measures could reduce the risk of coastal nations related to coastal hazards and the impacts of climate change.

2.1 Theoretical concept

The concept of the C@R Index is based on the core un- (including the adverse impacts of climate change) and derstanding of risk within the natural hazards and disas- the vulnerability of societies (UNISDR, 2004; Wisner et al., ter risk reduction community. In this context, risk is de- 2004; Birkmann, 2013). Social vulnerability is composed fined as the interaction between a natural hazard event of susceptibility, coping capacity and adaptive capacity. Coasts At Risk | 6 Figure 1: Scheme oftheconceptC@R Index ing populationdensitysuggest50millionpeopleperyear projections andincreas takingintoaccountsealevel rise - surgesing eachyear andcyclones, duetostorm while some 10millionpeoplealready coastalflood- experience to dosoby 2030(Adger etal.,2005).It isestimatedthat lation) live within100kmofthecoastand50%are likely rise. Globally, 1.2billionpeople(23%oftheworld’s popu- the growing impactsofclimatechange, suchassealevel hazards (e.g. storms, tsunamis, floods, surges) and storm thatsuchnationsfacefrom naturalcause ofthehighrisks With theC@R Index, thefocusisoncoastalnationsbe- vulnerability that are ofmaps. visualized inaseries results are exposure asetofglobalindicatorsforrisk, and susceptibility, copingcapacityandadaptive capacity. The onvulnerabilitybined withinformation composedof examining thelevel ofexposure tonatural hazards com- 2012, 2013). The WorldRiskIndex ranks 173nationsby Entwicklung Hilft (AllianceDevelopment Works 2011, non-governmentalGerman organization Bündnis WorldRiskReport, whichisreleased year by every the The WorldRiskIndex isthemaincomponentof 2.2 FromtheWorldRiskIndex totheC@R (Birkmann etal.,2011;IPCC, 2012). The C@RIndex is ing whetheranatural hazard willresult inadisaster tors aswell asgovernance- playamajorrole indetermin Consequently, social,economicandenvironmental fac- processes andframework conditionswithinasociety. hazard by event butalsoisdetermined thestructure, come oftheprobability andmagnitudeofthenatural isnotsolelyanout- This conceptemphasizes thatrisk NATURAL HAZARD EXPOSURE coastal hazards Exposure to SPHERE COMPONENTS OFTHEC@RINDEX SUSCEPTIBILITY suffering harm Likelihood of VULNERABILITY –SOCIETAL SPHERE capital) to national risk. capital) tonationalrisk. of environmental degradation (e.g., lossorlackofnatural (e.g., andthecontribution coastalhabitatsandfisheries) mental indicatorsdesignedtorepresent natural capital coastal nationsandhazards withtheadditionofenviron - WorldRiskIndex (Figure 1). This C@RIndex focuseson The C@RIndex isbasedon andaddstothe and climatechange. making themallthemore susceptibletocoastalhazards andaquacultureas fishing,ports fortheirlivelihoods, areas andislandstatesare dependentonresources such comitant coastalflooding. Additionally, mostcoastal moreexperience frequent, andtheircon- intensestorms fresh water, anditishighlylikelythatmanyareas will will heightenissueswithcoastalfloodingandlimited suchasintenserainfallpatterns ordrought inmanyareas gling withinundationandlandloss. Changingweather aswell.level Some rise areas worldwideare already- strug munities are literally inthefront linesofcopingwith sea bywill beatrisk 2080(Adger etal.,2005).Coastal com- disaster. The indexcannotforecast individualdisasters. with oneanother, providing ofapotential adescription sults oftheC@RIndex ofcountries enableacomparison tibility, copingandadaptive capacity(Figure 1). The re - four componentsofexposure tonatural hazards, suscep- data andisbasedonamodularstructure dividedinto composed of33indicatorsusingfreely available global COPING CAPACITY negative consequences Capacity toreduce ADAPTIVE CAPACITY strategies forsocialchange Capacity forlong-term many indicators might allocated among subcategories Coastal hazards and exposure of differently. For example, a good economic situation in coastal populations terms of savings would make people less susceptible Exposure refers to entities (e.g., people, resources, infra- compared to those without savings and would increase structure and goods) exposed and prone to be affected by the coping capacities of the former group. a hazard event (UNISDR, 2009). Within the C@R Index, exposure is narrowed to refer to entities who may be affected by coastal natural hazards. Coastal hazards are Susceptibility of coastal populations 7 natural events that happen along the coastline. The fol- Susceptibility refers to the conditions of exposed people, | Coasts A lowing coastal hazards were taken into account for the infrastructure (built capital) and ecosystems (natural calculation of exposure: storms, storm surges, floods, capital) that make populations more or less likely to ex- t Risk tsunamis and sea level rise. perience harm and to be affected by natural hazards and climate change. If susceptibility is high, the likelihood of The data used for exposure consider the frequency and the community to suffer harm is also high. Susceptibility magnitude of the hazard events, thus exposure is closely is closely linked to social and economic conditions such linked to characteristics of the hazard phenomena. The as nutrition, economic capacities and public infrastruc- number of exposed people is based on models taking into ture. It provides a metric of the underlying likelihood that account previous storms, floods, tsunamis, storm surges a society can suffer harm due to any stressor from natural and population density (for details: http://preview.grid. hazards. Conceptually, susceptibility has been divided unep.ch/). The exposure to sea level rise is calculated by into five subcategories that represent the livelihood situa- considering a conservative estimate of the number of tion and living conditions of people within a coastal people who would be affected by one meter sea level rise country. The subcategories are: (Welle et al., 2013). The number is conservative because exposure is based on current population without consid- P Public infrastructure ering future population growth.1 However, the authors note that the gradual increase of one meter sea level rise P Nutrition is expected to occur only by 2100 and does not include a P Poverty and dependencies probabilistic component. P Economic capacity and income

Vulnerability of coastal populations P Natural capital

In this study the vulnerability of coastal populations is defined by three components: susceptibility, adaptive capacity Coping capacity of coastal and coping capacity (Figure 1), which are described in fur- populations ther detail in the next three subsections below. In short, Coping is defined as the ability of a society to use direct these components aim to characterize the current socio- action and its own resources to face and manage near- economic condition of countries and their abilities to cope term emergencies, disasters or adverse conditions from a with near-term hazards and to adapt to longer-term hazards hazard event (UNISDR, 2009). Coping mechanisms usu- and climate change (Birkmann, 2013). ally build on experiences that have been made during Susceptibility and coping capacity are closely interlinked past disasters. Hence, coping mechanisms are often and clear separation of indicators in practice is thus often based on the assumption that what has happened in the difficult because some aspects overlap. This index in- past is likely to re-occur in a familiar pattern (Bankoff et cludes logical subcategories allocated with correspond- al., 2004). Coping capacities encompass measures, re- ing indicators. Nonetheless, the authors are aware that sources and abilities that are immediately available to

1 The combination of projected future extent of a hazard (sea level rise) with present population is a commonly accepted approach particularly when spatial patterns of future social and economic growth are highly uncertain. Coasts At Risk | 8 subcategories (Figuresubcategories 2). The selected indicatorsforthe susceptibility, copingandadaptation andtheirrespective could beallocatedtothefour components:exposure, best reflected thecircumstances ofcoastalnationsthat ria. The challenge wastoidentifysuitableindicatorsthat lected anddesignedbasedon theabove-mentioned- crite The individualindicatorsineachcomponentwere se- Indicators to interpret andcomparable (Meyer, 2004). scope, oftheassessment;understandable, interms easy and statisticallysound;reproducible; in appropriate perspective); allindicatorsshouldberational, analytically to berelevant fordifferent hazards (i.e., multi-hazard nature,pacity indicatorsshouldbeofageneric inorder natural hazards; susceptibility, copingandadaptive ca- for exposure shouldspanarange ofthemain coastal global inscale. Specific were criteria followed: indicators of theC@RIndex. Alldata usedwere freely available and vidual indicators, theglobaldatasetsandcalculation This sectionprovides anoverview ofsometheindi- 2.3 Dataandmethods Adaptive capacityofcoastalpopulations four subcategories werefour subcategories adaptive used todescribe process.tion isunderstoodasalong-term The following mental statusoreducation.In contrast tocoping,adapta- existing structures withinasociety, suchastheenviron - pacities andmeasurements focusmore onthechangeof promote changeandtransformation. Hence, theseca- adaptation isamore structured behaviourthataimsto O’Brien and Vogel (2003)stress thatcompared tocoping, natural hazards andfuture climatechangeimpacts. transform inorder todealwiththenegative impactsof and strategies thatenablethesocietytochangeor Adaptation oradaptive capacityencompassesmeasures coping withintheC@RIndex: ented. The following three characterize subcategories coping ishazard- ori related short-term andprimarily whenadisasterstrikes.minimize harm Consequently, the tropical C@RIndex). Under copingcapacity, thefish (indicator J),whichwasonly used fortheassessmentof eration ofthenatural capitalfrom reefs andmangroves captured (indicatorI)ineachnationaswell asconsid- natural capitalincludesameasure fish ofthetotalmarine sity compared toothercountries. of The newsubcategory more susceptiblebecausetheyhave lower incomediver revenuehigh marine in relation tooverall GDPare perse thus increase theirsusceptibility. Coastal with countries relatedimpacts canaffectmarine incomesources and ciety’s vulnerability becausecoastalhazards andtheir This economicrevenue componentofaso- isacritical relatedof coastalsocietiesdependonmarine resources. H) wasaddedtorepresent theextentthateconomies eties. Marine economicrevenue related toGDP(indicator thefooddependencyofcoastalsoci- indicator describes undersusceptibility(indicatorD). portion nutrition This age ofanimalprotein from fish,whichwasaddedinthe ed (Figure 2). These newindicatorsincludethepercent- lation oftheC@RIndex, several newindicatorswere add- Berlin (Fachtagung WorldRiskIndex, 2009).For thecalcu- among scientistsandpractitioners atasymposiumin WorldRiskIndex were and discussed,verified validated

climate changeandnatural hazards. more resilient andadaptabletothepotentialimpactsof designed toaddress theseelements maymakesocieties capacities within the C@R Index. In actions the long term, P P P P P P P Environmental status/ecosystemprotection equity Gender Education andresearch Investments Economic coverage Medical services Government andauthorities - EXPOSURE SUSCEPTIBILITY COPING CAPACITY ADAPTIVE CAPACITY

POPULATION PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE GOVERNMENT AND AUTHORITIES EDUCATION AND RESEARCH EXPOSED TO A. Percentage of population A. Corruption perception index A. Adult literacy rate A. Cyclones without access to improved B. Good governance B. Combined gross school sanitation B. Floods [Failed States Index] enrollment B. Percentage of population C. Fish management C. Sea Level Rise without access to improved effectiveness index GENDER EQUITY water source C. Gender parity in education D. Storm Surges MEDICAL SERVICES E. Tsunamis NUTRITION D. Percentage of female D. Number of physicians per representatives in the 9 |

C. Percentage of population 10,000 inhabitants National Parliament Coasts A undernourished E. Number of hospital beds per D. Percentage of animal protein 10,000 inhabitants ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS / from fish ECOSYSTEM PROTECTION ECONOMIC COVERAGE t Risk POVERTY AND DEPENDENCIES E. Water resources [taken F. Insurances [life insurances from EPI2] E. Dependency ratio [share of excluded] F. Biodiversity and habitat under 15-and over 65-year-olds in protection [EPI] relation to the working population] G. Livelihood diversity index G. Forest management [EPI] F. Extreme poverty population living with USD 1.25 per day or less H. Agricultural management [purchasing power parity] [EPI] I. Fish stock status ECONOMIC CAPACITY AND INCOME INVESTMENT G. Gini-Index J. Public health expenditure H. Marine economic revenue K. Life expectancy at birth (OHI1 ) / GDP per country L. Private health expenditure NATURAL CAPITAL I. Fish catch J. Percentage of population that may receive risk reduction from reefs and mangroves [for tropical analyses only]

1 OHI = Ocean Health Index 2 EPI = Environmental Performance Index 2012

Figure 2: Indicators, components and subcategories of the C@R Index management effectiveness index (indicator C) was added the indices for susceptibility, coping capacity and adapta- under the Government and Authorities component tion capacity, including their respective weights. because good management is important to food provision and livelihoods that depend upon fish and seafood. Additionally, the livelihood diversity index (indicator G) Exposure was added to focus on the distribution of employment The C@R Index takes two different types of natural haz- across nine marine employment sectors. Finally, under ards into account; it focuses primarily on current and adaptive capacity, fish stock status (indicator I) was sudden onset hazards, such as storms, floods, storm surg- integrated as a proxy for the sustainability of national es and tsunamis, but also includes the slow onset hazard fisheries. Some of the primary sources of the new indica- of sea level rise. The data for sudden onset hazards were tor data included global databases from the World Bank taken from PREVIEW Global Risk Data Platform (http:// and the statistic division of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAOSTAT). The preview.grid.unep.ch/). This platform is a multiple agen- development of the indices was done according to the cy (UNEP, UNDP/BCPR (GRIP), UNISDR) effort to share OECD Handbook on Constructing Composite Indicators spatial data information on global risk from natural haz- (2008). Hence, several methodological steps such as nor- ards. Data obtained from PREVIEW represent an estima- malisation were taken into account to render all indica- tion of the average annual exposure to the four selected tors comparable. Figures 3 to 5 show the composition of hazards, including the frequency of the respective hazard 10 Coasts At Risk | susceptibility component Figure 3: Structure, indicatorsandweights forthe inhabitants percountry. exposed peopleperhazard dividedby thenumberof iscalculatedbyexposed percountry summingupall exposure theshare indexthatdescribes ofthepopulation annual average exposure tosealevel rise. The overall weighted by 50%,becauseitisimpossibletocalculatean hasbeen ber ofindividualsexposedtosealevel rise the aggregation ofexposedpeopleperhazard, thenum- Network (CIESIN)atColumbia University. With respect to the Center forInternational ScienceInformation Earth Global-Rural-Urban Mapping Project (GRUMP) by run was combinedwiththepopulationstatisticsof University ofKansas. Using GIStechniques, thisdataset Center forRemote Sensing ofIce Sheets (CreSIS) atthe byto sealevel rise onemeterisbasedondatafrom the (Peduzzi etal.,2009). The calculationofexposedpeople in themodelcalculationhastobetakenintoaccount calculations andtherefore with- thematterofuncertainty to bestressed thattheseglobal dataare basedonmodel byrived calculatingthezonal statisticwith ArcGIS. It has of peopleexposedperhazard wasde- andpercountry cific datasetiscalledphysicalexposure, andthenumber the LandScanTMGlobal Population Database. This spe- basedon onthepopulationdistribution and information 11.11% 22.22% 22.22% 22.22% 22.22% 100% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% arine economic revenue marineeconomicrevenue H gINIndex g percentageofanimalprotein d undernourished percentageofpopulation c I (PPP) extremepovertypopulationliving F d ependency ratio(shareofunder e percentageofpopulationwithout B percentageofpopulationwithout A Economic ap from fish Fish catch (OH) /GDPpercountry with USD1.25perdayorless relation totheworkingpopulation) 15-and over65-year-olds in access toimprovedwatersource access toimprovedsanitation Poverty andepencies Susceptibility Public Infrastrutue Natural capital Nutrition acity andinome

subtracted from 1. Therefore, thecalculatedvalue ofcopingcapacitywillbe pacities willbeusedinsteadofcopingcapacities. the aggregation oftheC@RIndex, thelackofcoping ca- indicators andweights forthecopingcapacityindex.For tion orbadgovernance. Figure 4provides thestructure, coping measures ofacoastalnation,forexample,- corrup structures orframework conditionsthatcouldhinder oreconomiccoverage,such asmedicalservices aswell as resources toreduce thepotentialimpactsofadisaster, hazardous event. Coping capacitiesincludeimportant ety toimmediatelyreact toormanagetheimpactofa were thecapacityofacoastalsoci- chosentodetermine adisastrous event.pacts during Seven indicators(A-G) society’s abilitytoimmediatelyrespond toadverse im- The copingcapacityindex(Figure 4)aimstomeasure Coping capacity the indicatoris1–Fish Catch. abundance ofcatch,however, tofocusonsusceptibility natural capitalisameasureder thesubcategory ofthe malized between 0and1. The indicator “fish catch” un- (Figure 3).Before allindicatorswere summarizing, nor amongfive subcategories indicators (A-I)distributed The susceptibilityindexincludesnineequallyweighted Susceptibility coping capacity component Figure 4: Structure, indicatorsandweights forthe 33. 33. 33. 1 1 1 / / / 3 3 3 % % % 33. 33. 33. 50% 50% 50% 50% 1 1 1 / / / 3 3 3 % % % livelihooddiversityindex g excluded) F n umber ofhospitalbedsper e numberofphysiciansper d index C Index) goodgovernance(FailedState B corruptionperceptionindex A Government andAuthoities Insurances (life insurance Insurances (lifeinsurance 10000 inhabitants 10000 inhabitants Fish managementeffectiveness Coping cap Economic overage Medical servies acity

- Adaptive capacity Adaptive Capacity

The indicators for the adaptive capacity of a coastal nation 25% Education and Research need to portray the long-term response capacities to natural 50% A Adult literacy rate hazards and/or environmental change. They should mea- 50% B combined gross school enrollment sure the ability of a society or community to transform or 25% Gender equity adapt to reduce the vulnerability to this change. The com- 50% c gender parity in education ponent on adaptive capacity contains four subcategories: 50% d percentage of female representatives in the 11 education and research, gender equity, environmental sta- national Parliament | Coasts A tus or ecosystem protection and investments (Welle et al., 25% Environmental status / 2013). The indicators selected for adaptive capacity (A-L) are Ecosystem protection listed in Figure 5. The individual indicator weights as well as t Risk 20% e water resources (EPI) the weights for the aggregation of the adaptive capacity 20% F Biodiversy and habitat protection index also are illustrated. (EPI) 20% G Forest management (LPI) 20% H Agricultural management (EPI) Calculation of the C@R Index 20% I Fish stock status 25% INVESTMENT The C@R Index is calculated by combining the four com- 1 33. /3% J public health expenditure 1 ponents: exposure, susceptibility, lack of coping capacity 33. /3% k life expectancy at birth 1 and lack of adaptive capacity. First, the indices of suscep- 33. /3% l private health expenditure tibility, lack of coping capacity and lack of adaptive capacity are added up to a vulnerability index. The vulner- Figure 5: Structure, indicators and weights for the ability index describes the societal component of risk that adaptive capacity component can turn a natural event into a disaster. In a second step, the vulnerability index is multiplied with the exposure index to develop the overall C@R Index. Figure 6 sche- been classified using the quantile method within the matically presents the aggregation, including all weights ArcGIS 10 software. Five classes have been selected and for the components. The results have consistently been each class contains the same number of cases (e.g. coun- scaled between 0 and 1. For better comprehension and tries), which are translated into a qualitative classifica- cartographic transformation, all individual indices have tion of “very high – high – medium – low – very low.” C@R INDEX + Vulnerability

1 1 1 33. /3% 33. /3% 33. /3%

LACK OF COPING LACK OF ADAPTIVE EXPOSURE SUSCEPTIBILITY X CAPACITY CAPACITY Exposure to coastal Likelihood of suffering harm Lack of capacity to reduce Lack of capacity for natural hazards negative consequences long-term strategies for during a disaster social change

Figure 6: Structure and weights for the aggregation of the C@R index 12 Coasts At Risk | R followed by thevulnerability indexandtheoverall C@RIndex. be considered duetodatalimitations. The individualcomponentswillbepresented first, highly exposedtocoastalhazards sealevel, couldnot ofrising includingtheemerging risk indices intoindicators. Unfortunately, several smallislandstates, whichare probably andregions.countries Adeeperanalysiscanbemadeby decomposingthenumerical results are mappedtofacilitateageneral between understandingandcomparison hazards. Based ondataavailability, were 139coastalcountries considered. The aggregated andhighlightareasunderlying risk thatare mostconsistentlyexposedtocoastalnatural not predict whenandwhere ahazardous event maytakeplace. It ismeanttocharacterize level. It toremember isimportant thatthisisneitherpredictive norprobabilistic; itdoes ordisaster.to acrisis The results oftheC@RIndex atnational thepotentialrisk describe and canhelpsignalwhetheranatural hazard orimpactsofclimatechangecouldlead that canreduce impact. These three thevulnerability componentsdescribe ofsocieties 2.4 ResultsoftheC@R Credit: CRC Women cultivate oysters inthemangrove habitatsofthe Tanbi Wetlands National Park in The Gambia. represented insusceptibility, lackofcopingcapacitiesandadaptive capacities) hazards andclimatechange, butalsoonsocialconditionsandcapacities(asis isk isamulti-causalphenomenonthatnotonlydependsontheexposure tonatural I ndex Exposure RANK COUNTRY EXPOSURE VALUE The world map of exposed people shows the 1 Saint Kitts and Nevis 0.5955 potential annual average exposure of each 2 ANTIGUA and Barbuda 0.5893 coastal nation to coastal hazards. Some 3 tongA 0.5108 hot-spot regions can clearly be seen, which 4 Brunei Darussalam 0.2818 include the Caribbean, South East Asia and 5 Fiji 0.2568 the nations of Japan, the Netherlands, 6 vAnuatu 0.2392 Suriname and Guyana (Figure 7). 13 7 philippines 0.2095 | Coasts A Table 1 provides an overview of the 10 most 8 JAPAN 0.2080 9 netherlands 0.2036 exposed coastal countries: Maximum po- t Risk tential exposure value 1; this would mean 10 BANGLADESH 0.1878 the whole country and all people would be exposed. Table 1: Top 10 most exposed coastal countries

Exposure: Exposure of the population to coastal hazards (storms, floods, surges, tsunamis, sea level rise)

Legend Max. exposure = 1 classification according to the quantile method Very Low 0.0003 - 0.0040 Low 0.0041 - 0.0103 Medium 0.0104 - 0.0228 High 0.0229 - 0.0704 Very High 0.0705 - 0.5955 No data

Figure 7: Exposure map 14 Coasts At Risk | Figure 8: Susceptibility map nine indicatorswouldreach theworstvalue. ceptibility isthevalue 1;thiswouldmeanall coastal countries. Maximum potentialsus- Table 2shows the10mostsusceptible Suriname rank intheHigh class. Central as well asPeru America and Americas, where of onlysomecountries divideislessdistinctive inthe north-south Southeast Asia. The globallysignificant of susceptibilityare located in South and tors. Coastal withintheHigh countries class publicinfrastructureconstructed are fac- New Guinea, where low incomeandpoorly values alsoare identifiedin Haiti and Papua countries, but and EastAfrican Very High High susceptibilityare clearlyseenin West nomic capacities. Hot-spotVery regions of naturalnutrition, capital,incomeandeco- by nationbasedonpublicinfrastructure, Figure 8displaysthemapforsusceptibility Susceptibility classification accordingtothequantilemethod Max. susceptibility=1 Legend No data V High Medium Low V ery High ery Low0.1264-0.1541

0.3685-0.5250 0 0.1542 -0.1919 0.2433 -0.3684 .1920 -0.2432 framework ofcoastalcountries. capital, incomeandeconomic infrastructure, nutrition,natural Susceptibility dependsonpublic Table 2: Top 10mostsusceptiblecoastalcountries

Rank 1 5 3 9 8 6 4 2 7 Papua NewGuinea Madagscr Mozambique Sierra Leone Tanzania Comoros Countr Vanua Eritrea Liberia Haiti tu y Susceptibility value 0.5250 0.4884 0.4824 0.5053 0.4581 0.4837 0.4471 0.4724 0.4593 0.4501 Lack of coping capacity RANK COUNTRY Lack of coping Countries with a high lack of coping capac- capacity value ity will have severe problems in responding 1 mozambique 0.8577 and reducing the negative impacts of a di- 2 Solomon Islands 0.8559 saster. As seen in the susceptibility map, 3 Haiti 0.8539 indicators for lack of coping capacity occur 4 myanmar 0.8483 along a clear north-south divide that reflects 5 sudan 0.8416 developed vs. less- developed country status 6 Papua New Guinea 0.8350 15 (Figure 9). A Very High lack of coping capac- | 7 congo 0.8335 Coasts A ity is seen for many coastal countries in 8 lIBeria 0.8274 Africa as well as for parts of South Asia. In t Risk Europe it is interesting to note that Bosnia- 9 nIgeria 0.8269 Herzegovina, Montenegro and Albania have 10 vAnuatu 0.8251 limited coping capacities. The lasting im- Table 3: Top 10 coastal countries with the highest lack of coping pacts of war in the 1990s might be the cause. capacity Each country shows unfavorable values for the governance indicators (corruption per- Table 3 lists the top 10 coastal countries with the highest lack of cop- ception index and failed state index), which ing capacity. The maximum value for lack of coping capacity is 1. contribute to the lack of coping capacity. In South Africa, for example, favorable values Coping capacity depends on for coping capacity are likely due to a stable political system and a well-developed governance, medical care and health system. material security.

Legend Max. lack of coping capacity = 1 classification according to the quantile method Very Low 0.3986 - 0.5459 Low 0.5460 - 0.6113 Medium 0.6114 - 0.6836 High 0.6837 - 0.7628 Very High 0.7629 - 0.8577 No data

Figure 9: Lack of coping capacity map 16 Coasts At Risk | Figure 10: Lack ofadaptive capacity map ity is1. tential value forthelackofadaptive capac- for theothertwo(Table 4).Maximum po- withHaitiAfrica, andPakistan accounting lack ofadaptive capacitiesare locatedin withthehighest top 10coastalcountries inSouthcoastal countries Asia.Eight ofthe appears asahot-spotregion, followed by Again, and equalparticipation. West Africa ofeducationandresearchsubcategories map. This isbasedongoodresults inthe compared tothelackofcoping capacity south divideinNorth andSouth as America (Figure 10)doesnotshow aclearnorth- hazards. The lackofadaptive capacitymap tive impactsofclimatechangeandnatural to transform inorder todealwiththenega- strategies thatenableasocietytochangeor Adaptive capacitiesfocusonconditionsand Lack ofadaptive capacity classification accordingtothequantilemethod Max. lackofadaptivecapacity= Legend No dataorlandlocked V High Medium Low V ery High ery Low0.2892-0.3704

0.5661-0.7212 0 0.3705 -0.4389 0.4783 -0.5660 .4390 -0.4782 1 capacity Table 4: Top withthehighestlackofadaptive 10coastalcountries gender equityandhealthinvestments. status ofeducation,environment, Adaptive capacitydependsonthe

RANK 10 3 lIBeria 0.6430 8 mAurit 7 guinea 0.6539 6 5 pAkist 4 2 nIgeria 0.6401 9 eritrea 0.7212 1 cap Sierra Leone Bangldesh 0.6381 COUNTR Benin 0.6541 Haiti 0.6781 ania 0.6479 an Y Lack ofdptive acity value 0.6593 0.6723 Vulnerability RANK COUNTRY vulnerability value Vulnerability is calculated as the combina- 1 Haiti 0.6597 tion of susceptibility, lack of coping capacity 2 eritrea 0.6569 and lack of adaptive capacity. The map (Figure 11) shows that West and East Africa 3 Sierra Leone 0.6550 and parts of Southeast Asia (Bangladesh, 4 mozambique 0.6485 Myanmar, Papua New Guinea and Timor- 5 lIBeria 0.6476 Leste) are hot-spots of vulnerability. The 6 Papua New Guinea 0.6353 17 | Coasts A results also underline that the most vulner- 7 vAnuatu 0.6306 able countries (Table 5), such as Haiti, 8 nIgeria 0.6306 t Risk Eritrea, Nigeria and Liberia are character- 9 guinea 0.6205 ized by relatively high levels of poverty, envi- 10 Benin 0.6194 ronmental stress and severe governance problems or even failed states. Table 5 gives Table 5: Top 10 most vulnerable coastal countries an overview of the 10 most vulnerable countries. Maximum potential value for vulnerability is 1. Vulnerability of a society as the sum of

susceptibility, lack of coping capacity and lack of adaptive capacity

Legend Max. vulnerability = 1 classification according to the quantile method Very Low 0.2791 - 0.3655 Low 0.3656 - 0.4156 Medium 0.4157 - 0.4719 High 0.4720 - 0.5614 Very High 0.5615 - 0.6597 No data

Figure 11: Vulnerability map 18 Coasts At Risk | Figure 12: C@R Index map separate is very social vulnerability of a country countries. The results show clearlythatthe are rather low compared toless-developed whilethevulnerabilityis sealevel rise), levels exposure (fortheNetherlands themaindriver countries, mainlycausedby thehighlevel of have arelatively level fordeveloped highrisk tion. For example, Japan andtheNetherlands weight of thatfactorintheoverall equa- risk value becausevulnerabilityrisk multipliesthe is astrong influenceofexposure onthefinal event were tohitthosecountries. Overall, there what couldhappenifanincalculableextreme into account(Figure 11),onecouldimagine However, takingtheir Very High vulnerability exposure towards coastalhazards (Figure 7). ards. toa attributed This isprimarily Very Low are identifiedasat LowVery risk tocoastalhaz- as Namibia, Cote d’Ivoire, andGhana Liberia Table 6).Surprisingly, such inAfrica countries theSIDS(FigureOceania, andinparticular 12, are inSoutheast Asia,theCaribbean andin The coastalareas highlighted asmostatrisk Coasts@Risk Index classification accordingtothequantilemethod Max. coastalrisk=1 Legend No data V High Medium Low V ery High ery Low0.0001-0.0018

0.0317- 0 0.0019 -0.0047 0.0101 -0.0316 .0048 -0.0100 0.2702 Table 6: Top withthehighestrisk 10coastalcountries rank: 28). value:Zealand: 0.0150andrank: risk 46;Haiti: value: 0.0316, risk to Haiti (value: 0.6597)ranks itlower intheoverall C@Rindex(New dent thatNew Zealand’s low vulnerability (value: 0.3099)compared New Zealand: value 0.0478;New Zealand: value 0.0484),butitisevi- posure tonatural hazards (theexposure inHaiti iseven lower thanin Haiticonsidering andNew Zealand, whichhave similarlevels ofex- to natural hazards andclimatechange. This caseisbestillustrated by isdistinctandplaysacentralon risk of role inthedetermination from itsexposure tonatural hazards. The influenceofvulnerability

RANK kIriba 10 6 5 vAnua 4 3 tonga 0.2482 2 1 seychelles 9 pHIlippnes 0.1003 8 7 Antigua ndBrbuda Saint KittsandNevis Brunei Darussalm Bangldesh 0.1056 COUNTR Fiji 0.1254 tu 0.1508 ti 0.0830 Y risk VALUE 0.2366 0.2702 0.1093 0.0851 The C@R for tropical nations salt marsh, seagrass and oyster reefs are simply not globally available. Coastal habitats, and in particular coral Vulnerability and risk were examined further in tropical reefs and mangroves, provide crucial risk reduction ben- nations for two reasons. First all of the most at-risk na- efits that include exposure reduction, nutrition and the tions are tropical (Table 6) and second an analysis of the provision of livelihoods (including fishery and tourism). effects of natural capital on overall risk could be further These benefits are explained more fully in Chapters 4 and expanded because of data availability on tropical coastal 5. This indicator is calculated as the percentage of a habitats. The core addition to this “Tropical C@R” Index country’s population that lives below 10m elevation and 19 was the “Percentage of population that may receive risk within 10 km of a reef or a mangrove forest. These are the | Coasts A reduction from reefs and mangroves” (Figure 2 Indicator low-lying exposed populations near reefs and mangroves “J” under susceptibility). In the future, this indicator that are likely to receive risk reduction benefits from t Risk could be expanded globally as an indicator for all coastal these habitats (see section 5.2 and Ferrario et al. 2014 for habitats, not only tropical ones. However, this is one of a fuller discussion of these considerations). Additionally the few cases where data—and specifically—coastal habi- the overall availability of tropical data for two of the tat data are far better for tropical nations than for tem- fisheries indicators (fish catch and stock status) is limited perate nations. Data for key temperate habitats such as (see Discussion Section and Chapter 5). The Tropical C@R

very low 0.2203 - 0.2781 high 0.3728 - 0.4797 Tropical Susceptibility Index Dependent on public infrastructure, income, economic low 0.2782 - 0.3188 very high 0.4798 - 0.5739 framework and natural capital medium 0.3189 - 0.3727 no data

very low 0.3280 - 0.4320 high 0.5187 - 0.6052 Tropical Vulnerability Index Vulnerability of a society as the sum of susceptibility, lack low 0.4321 - 0.4782 very high 0.6053 - 0.6829 of coping capacity and lack of adaptive capacity medium 0.4783 - 0.5186 no data

very low 0.0004 - 0.0028 high 0.0184 - 0.0510

Tropical Coast @ Risk Index low 0.0029 - 0.0085 very high 0.0511 - 0.2651 Risk as the combination of exposure and vulnerability medium 0.0086 - 0.0183 no data

Figure 13: Results for the tropical indices of susceptibility, vulnerability and risk 20 Coasts At Risk | with tropical countries and top 10 countries fortropical vulnerabilityand andtop10countries with tropical countries Tropical C@R Table 7: Top forsusceptibilitycompared 10tropical countries from theC@Rindexfiltered withtop10countries countries. reefs andmangroves enabled theanalysisfor90tropical the additionof1keyindicator. The dataavailability for C@R Index, butwiththenarrower geographic focusand Index wascalculatedusing thesameapproach asforthe the Comoros wasreduced whenthereefs andmangroves and Eritrea changed. The susceptibilityof Vanuatu and the rankingscal countries), for Vanuatu, theComoros oftheC@RIndexthe top10countries (filtered withtropi- Tropical C@RIndex are (Table African 7).Compared to inthe tries, eightofthemostsusceptible countries In justthetop10mostsusceptiblecoun- considering adaptive capacitieswere added. (Figurerisk 13),asnonewindicatorsforcopingand C@R Index focusonlyonsusceptibility, vulnerability and The additionalresults presented here forthe Tropical Tropical C@Rresults And

n susceptibility Rank congo 10 pApua NewGuinea 8 7 6 lIBeria 4 3 Mozambique 2 Madagscr 1 9 Comoros eritrea 5

(Tropical C@R) SierraLeone Tanzania Vanua

tu tRopical Rank Susceptibility rank Vulnerability r 10 pApua NewGuinea 8 7 6 4 Mozambique 3 Madagscr 2 Va sIerraLeone nua 1 9 Eritrea comoros 5 Tanzania Liberia (C@R) Haiti tu benefits they are likelyto receive from reefs (index value: from rank 7(C@R)torank 11(tropical C@R)duetothe pared totheC@Rrankings. Vanuatu improved fourranks the top10ranking, Vanuatu andBenin changed com- groves (indexvalue: Haiti: 19%andEritrea: 1.9%). Within who are likelytoreceive benefitsfrom reefs andman- to theC@Rranking duetothelower percentage ofpeople example, Eritrea andHaiti changedtheirranks compared also affectstheoverall vulnerability scores (Table 7).For The influenceofthis “reefs andmangroves” indicator Tropical C@R:rank 5). tion benefitsfrom reefs andmangroves (C@R rank: 9and all C@RIndex rankings becauseonly2%ofthepopula- rank 9).Eritrea ismore susceptiblecompared totheover Susceptibility rank: 5and Tropical C@R:Susceptibility Tropical C@R:Susceptibility rank 6;Comoros: C@R mangroves C@RSusceptibility (Vanuatu: rank: 2and Vanuatu andtheComoros benefitsfrom coral reefs and indicator wasadded.Almosthalfofthepopulations kIriba 10 Guinea 8 7 pApua NewGuinea 6 4 Sierra 3 Liberia Saint tonga 2 Haiti 1 9 Togo S eychelles 5 Mozambique

(Tropical C@R) Eritrea Nigeria Benin vAnua Leone 4 7 8 6 1 Brunei Darussalm Coasts@Risk Antigua nd Bangldesh Philippnes Barbud Fiji Nevis Kitts tu ti

- 45.50%). Benin changed from rank 10 (C@R Under susceptibility, a natural capital component was added to in- ranking) to rank 8 within the Tropical C@R clude a measure of the total marine fish catch in each nation and to ranking as they are likely to receive few benefits consider the value of reefs and mangroves. Within coping capacity from reefs and mangroves. The ranking of top fish management effectiveness is an indicator of the value of gover- 10 countries of the Tropical C@R index does not nance of fisheries. In general, coping capacity is assumed to be closely tied to the effectiveness of current governance. Under adaptive change compared to the C@R index ranking (see capacity, fish stock status was added to the four natural assets indica- Tables 6 and 7), which owes most importantly to tors from the Yale EPI 2012. It is assumed that when fish stocks, as the influence of exposure overall. with other resources, are in better condition, they increase the adap- 21 | tive capacity by creating more resource options for the future. Coasts A

New environmental indicators These environmental indicators described significant variation in t Risk of vulnerability social vulnerability. First, all seven global environmental indicators A core addition the C@R Index makes to the were equally weighted and calculated to an overall index. This index WorldRiskIndex is the inclusion of several new represented the scores for environmental status (very high=1, very low=0). In the global analyses, this indicator was significantly and indicators that focus on the connection be- negatively correlated with overall vulnerability (r2=0.10, with p ≤ 0.01); tween environment and vulnerability. These indicators include three new fishery indicators for the whole index and a fourth habitat indica- RANK COUNTRY Environmental VALUE tor (reefs and mangroves) for the tropical in- 1 Cape Verde 0.305 dex. These are in addition to the four environ- 2 lIBya 0.318 mental indicators (E-H in the adaptive capacity 3 mAuritania 0.319 component from the Yale Environmental 4 eritrea 0.325 Performance Index 2012) that were considered 5 Haiti 0.334 in the WorldRiskIndex. Coastally focused envi- 6 tImor-Leste 0.379 ronmental indicators were added into each 7 lIBeria 0.392 component of the assessment of vulnerability 8 Algeria 0.397 as recommended in the WorldRiskReport 2012 9 guatemala 0.409 (Welle et al., 2012). Natural assets and the con- 10 nIgeria 0.416 dition of those assets have a clear link to disaster risk reduction (Welle et al., 2012). Table 8: Top 10 countries with the lowest environmental values

Very Good Environmental status = 1

Very low 0.3047 - 0.4385 Low 0.4385 - 0.4761 Medium 0.4762 - 0.5154 High 0.5155 - 0.5478 Very High 0.5479 - 0.7725

No data or landlocked country

Figure 14: Environmental scores for tropical countries based on eight environmental indicators (fish catch, fish management effectiveness, fish stock status, benefits from reefs and mangroves, water resources, biodiversity and habitat protection, forest management, agricultural management) 22 Coasts At Risk | that every indicator contributed sufficientlytothemodel indicator contributed that every all indicatorshave amediangreater thanzero, indicating and inputvariables. The sensitivityanalysisshowed that goodcorrelation avery betweendescribes modeloutput analysis resulted inaCronbachs Alpha=0.889,which analysis toproof themodelassumptions. The reliability The C@Rteamran areliability analysisandsensitivity published inpeerreviewed literature (Welle etal.,2013). symposium andalsowas aninternational ners during the C@RIndex, wasapproved by scientistsandpractitio- this regard the WorldRiskIndex, whichoffersthebasefor purpose andtheacceptanceofpeers(Rosen, 1991).In for acompositeindicatorliesinitsfitnesstotheintended they shouldbeencoded.Asformodels, thejustification forexactlyhowno universally acceptedscientificrules putational models. Assuch,theyare there constructs; are Composite indicesare muchlikemathematicalorcom- and difficulties validating the results (OECD, 2008). malization; problems withaggregation todifferent scales weighting; lackofdataavailability nor forkeyvariables; clude subjectivityregarding selectionand variable There are limitationstoanyindex,whichin- important reduction management. andrisk role thatnaturalcrucial resources canplayindisasterrisk climate change. This analysisalsohelpshighlightthe ties tonatural coastalhazards includingthe impactsof susceptibility andincrease copingandadaptive capaci- discussionsonhowtate further toreduce exposure and to thisvulnerability. The results oftheindexshould facili- identifies where environmental degradation contributes face from coastalhazards andsocialvulnerability and The C@RIndex thatnations helpstounderstandtherisks 2.5Conclusion stronger initssignificantandnegative correlation habitat capital.In thiscasetherelationship waseven addition oftheindicatorforreef andmangrove natural (90countries,tropical seeFigure countries 14)withthe was lower. The sameanalysiswasrepeated solelyfor where environmental statuswasgreater, vulnerability - est environmental values are shown in Table 8. cal. withinthetropics withthelowThe top10countries - the connectionbetween- peopleandenvironment iscriti this linkageiseven stronger where intropical countries tal indicatorsare linkedtosocial vulnerability, andthat climate changeadaptation. management, prevention, protection, preparedness and opment approaches forcoastalnationsthatintegrate risk devel - ment hopestofacilitatediscussionsonlong-term es fordecisionmakersandpractitioners. assess- This risk on natural hazards, opensnewandinnovative approach- within vulnerability assessment,insteadofsolely andrisk Focusing onsocial,economicandecologicalaspects prevent natural events from becomingdisasters. prevented, asocietycanadoptmeasures thatwillhelp and theadverse impactsofclimatechangecannotbe While themagnitudeandfrequency ofcoastalhazards (Cutter etal.,2008). toolfordecisionmakers which makesthemanimportant progress,measuring mappingandsettingpriorities, quantitative indicatorstohelpinreducing complexity, global indicators, yet there isstillapressing needfor those countries. These issuesare all commontovirtually datacollectionin given limitationsinfisheries particular known tobelessreliable in forsometropical countries related indicators(i.e., fishcatchandstockstatus)are CoastsatRisk). Alsosomeofthedatausedtocalculatefish found intheAppendix at http://www.ehs.unu.edu/ mation regarding theindividualindicatorscouldbe nomic orexposure datawere notavailable (more infor all SIDScouldbeconsidered becauseeithersocio-eco- only becalculatedfor139coastalnations, andthusnot reliability oftheoutputs. For example, theC@RIndex can capture conditionsacross arange oflatitudesimpact the global dataandtheirabilitytoeffectively andequally data used. The accuracy oftheindicatorsprovided inthe the effectiveness oftheoutputsrelies onthequalityof CoastsatRisk for more details).Also, aswithanymodel, output (seeAppendix athttp://www.ehs.unu.edu/ (r 2 =0.15, p≤0.01). These results show theseenvironmen- - References

Adger, W. N., Hughes, T. P., Folke, C., Carpenter, S.R., and O’Brien, K. L., & Vogel, H. C. (2003). Coping with Climate Rockstroem, J. (2005). Social-ecological resilience to Variability. The Use of Seasonal Climate Forecasts in coastal disasters. Science 309, 1036–1039. Southern Africa. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing.

Bankoff G., Frerks G. & Hilhorst T. (2004), Mapping OECD (2008). Handbook on Constructing Composite Vulnerability: Disasters, Development and People, Indicators. Methodology and User Guide. OECD, Paris. London: Earthscan. 23 |

Peduzzi, P., Dao, H., Herold, C., & Mouton, F. (2009). Coasts A Birkmann, J., Welle, T., Krause, D., Wolfertz, J., Catalina Assessing global exposure and vulnerability towards

Suarez, D. & Setiadi, N. (2011). WorldRiskIndex: natural hazards: the Disaster Risk index. Natural t Risk Concept and Results. WorldRiskReport 2011. Alliance Hazards and Earth System Sciences 9, 1149-1159 Development Works, 13-42. Rosen, R.( 1991) Life Itself: A Comprehensive Inquiry into Birkmann, J. (2013). Measuring vulnerability to promote Nature, Origin, and Fabrication of Life, Columbia disaster-resilient societies: Conceptual frameworks University Press. and definitions. In: J. Birkmann (Ed). Measuring Vulnerability to Natural Hazards: Towards Disaster United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN- Resilient Societies. Second Edition. Tokyo, New York, HABITAT)(2011): Cities and Climate Change: Policy Paris: United Nations University Press, 9-54 Directions. Global Report on Human Settlements 2011. Abridged Edition. (Earthscan) London, Birkmann, J. (2011). Regulation and coupling of soci- Washington. Available at: http://www.unhabitat.org/ ety and nature in the context of natural hazards downloads/docs/GRHS2011/GRHS.2011. - Different theoretical approaches and conceptual frameworks and their applicability to analyse social- UNISDR (International Strategy for Disaster Reduction) ecological crises phenomena. In: Brauch, H.G., (2004). Living with risk: A global review of disaster re- Oswald Spring, U., Mesjasz, C., Grin, J, Kamerimbote, duction initiatives (Vol. 1). United Nations, New York. P., Chourou, B., Dunay, P. & J. Birkmann (Ed). Coping UNISDR (United Nations International Strategy For with Global Environmental Change, Disasters and Disaster Reduction) (2009). Global Assessment Security Threats, Challenges, Vulnerabilities and Risks, Report on Disaster Risk Reduction. Risk and Poverty Springer, Heidelberg, New York, Tokyo, 1103-1128 in a Changing Climate –Invest today for a safer to- Cutter, S. L., Barnes, L., Berry, M., Burton, C., Evans, E., morrow. United Nations, Geneva, Switzerland. Tate, E., et al. (2008). A place-based model for under- Welle, T., Beck, M., Mucke, P. (2012): Environmental deg- standing community resilience to natural disasters. radation as a risk factor. In: WorldRiskReport 2012, Global Environmental Change , 18, 598-606. Alliance Development Works, 28-32.

Emerson, J.W., A. Hsu, M.A. Levy, A. de Sherbinin, V. Mara, Welle, T., Birkmann, J., Krause, D., Suarez, D. C., Setiadi, D.C. Esty, and M. Jaiteh (2012). 2012 Environmental N., Wolfertz, J. (2013). The WorldRiskIndex: A concept Performance Index and Pilot Trend Environmental for the assessment of risk and vulnerability at global/ Performance Index. New Haven: Yale Center for national scales. In Measuring Vulnerability to Natural Environmental Law and Policy. Hazards: Towards Disaster Resilient Societies, J. Ferrario, F., Beck, M.W., Storlazzi, C. D., Micheli, F., Birkmann, 2nd ed. New York: United Nations Shepard , C. C., Airoldi, L. (2014). The effectiveness of University, pp. 219-251. coral reefs for coastal hazard risk reduction and ad- Wisner, B., Blaikie, P., Cannon, T. & Davies, I. (2004). At aptation. Nature Communications 5, 3794. Risk: Natural Hazards, People´s Vulnerability and doi:10.1038/ncomms4794. Disasters. (Routledge) London, New York. Meyer, W. (2004): Indikatorenentwicklung. Eine praxisori- entierte Einführung (2.Auflage). CEval-Arbeitspapiere 10, Centrum für Evaluation. Saarbrücken. 24 Coasts At Risk | Credit: Pucci\TNC Sergio Piedras Blancas National Park inCosta Rica. Sunset withaviewofthemangroves in 25 | 3. The Role of Mangroves Coasts A in Coastal Risk Reduction t Risk By Anna McIVOR and Mark Spalding

angroves can play an important role in coastal risk reduction, both directly, by reducing exposure to hazards such as tropical cyclones and associated storm M surges, and indirectly, by providing resources, income and livelihoods. They contribute to reduced susceptibility to disasters, increased ability to cope when disasters occur and the ability to adapt to future changes in coastal hazards (Figure 15). This chapter describes some of the ways that mangroves can help to reduce risk. It focuses primarily on how mangroves help to reduce exposure to hazards, as this has been studied best. How mangroves reduce social vulnerability and improve resilience in the face of coastal hazards also is considered; this topic is less well-covered in the available literature though interest in it is growing. This review also provides a basis for the inclusion of mangroves in the C@R Index for tropical analyses (see Chapter 2). 26 Coasts At Risk | Figure 16: ofmangroveThe globaldistribution forests (adaptedfrom The World Mangrove Atlas; Spalding etal., 2010) intheC@RIndexcomponents ofrisk inChapter2 reduction,to coastalrisk showing how these linkto Figure 15: Someofthewaysthatmangroves contribute sustainably future, providingoptionsforfutureresourceuseifmanaged Future naturalcapital–sourceofforthe mangroves, iflocalconditionsaresuitable Future riskreduction–potentialforrestorationof Incre and rebuild and foodimmediatelypost-disastertohelppeoplesurvive E making, beekeeping,etc. L Incre N R mitigating climatechange Climate relatedhazards–mangrovessequestercarbon, damage H R Cont shrimp andmollusks sion, stormsurgewaterlevelsandmayreducetsunami mangroves, e.g.fishing,timberharvesting,charcoal to – several livelihoods are based on ivelihood diversity–severallivelihoodsarebasedon mergency supplies–mangrovesprovidetimber, fuel azard RiskReduction–helpreducewaveenergy, ero- – mangroves provide fish, crabs, atural capital(fisheries)–mangrovesprovidefish,crabs, educ educ r isk Re a a r i i ng ng s s ibutions o i i ng Ad ng E S xposure uscept d C u op c a i pt tion ng i ibi ve Ca f l man Ca i p ty a p c a i ty c gr i ty oves oves

that mangroves toreducing cancontribute coastalrisk. needed. The following discussionreviews someoftheways understanding ofthewaysthatmangroves reduce is risk tobeeffective atreducingefforts amore risk, detailed 2011; Primavera andEsteban,2008).For theserestoration hazards andalsoreducing socialvulnerability (IFRC, withtheaimofreducingdertaken exposure tocoastal number ofmangrove restoration have beenun- efforts communities more exposed tohazards. In response, a ofdevelopment (Alongi,2002),leavingcoastal forms has beencleared foragriculture, aquaculture andother mangroves have beenlostover thelast50years asland 2010). However, approximately onethird oftheworld’s cover over 150,000square kilometers(Spalding etal., globallyandare andterritories estimatedto countries subtropical coasts(Figure 16). They are foundin123 Mangroves denseforests form alongmanytropical and by bindingtogethersoilsandhelpingbuildup. hazardsto longerterm suchaserosion andsealevel rise local windspeeds. Mangroves canalsoreduce exposure waves, slowing surge waterflows storm and reducing hazards, forexampleby reducing theheightofwind reductioncoastal risk by reducing exposure tocoastal Dense mangrove directly vegetation cancontribute to 3.1 exposure tonaturalhazards M angroves reduce angroves reduce The reduction in wave height depends on the density of vegetation that the waves pass through, which in turn depends on the density and spacing of the trees and the presence of aerial roots (Figure 18). Waves entering dense mangrove vegetation, for example the dense aerial roots of Rhizophora (Figure 19), will be reduced more rapidly than waves passing through sparse vegetation, for example an area with mangrove trees spaced several meters apart. Wave reduction also depends on tidal level, as this 27 | alters the water depth and hence the part of the vegeta- Coasts tion which waves pass through; for species with pneu- A matophores (aerial roots projecting upwards from the t Risk soil; Figure 21), waves may be reduced most effectively in shallow water depths (Brinkman et al., 1997; Mazda et al., 2006; Quartel et al., 2007; reviewed in McIvor et al., 2012a).

Storm surges Figure 17: Waves passing through mangroves Storm surges are caused by large storms and cyclones (also called hurricanes and typhoons). The very high winds and low atmospheric pressure raise water levels at Waves the coast, causing the water to flood onto land. This can Mangroves tend to grow in sheltered locations that usu- cause widespread flooding over coastal lowlands. ally receive small wind and swell waves (i.e. waves cre- ated on the water surface by the wind; Figure 17). Mangrove forests can slow the storm surge water flows, However, during storms, they may receive larger waves. resulting in reductions in flood depth and flood extent Recent studies suggest that mangroves are highly effec- (reviewed in McIvor et al., 2012b). Studies in Florida, in tive at reducing waves over relatively short distances. the Southeast United States, estimated that mangroves Wave height can be reduced by 13 to 66% over 100 m reduced peak water levels during Hurricanes Wilma and width of mangrove, and 50 to 100% over 500 m width Charley by between 4 and 48 cm per kilometer of man- (Mazda et al., 2007; Quartel et al., 2007; reviewed in groves that the surge passed through (Krauss et al., 2009 McIvor et al., 2012a). Zang et al ,2012). For Hurricane Wilma, the reduction in

Height and density of trees

canopy structure (branch and foliage morphology)

sub-canopy wave height water depth structure (openness) (tidal phase +/- surge) root structure, complexity and height slope

distance travelled through mangroves

Figure 18: Schematic diagram showing some of the factors influencing wave reduction by mangroves 28 Coasts At Risk | Bomba, Cartagena, Colombia. Credit: Carmen Lacambra Figure 19: Dense coastalmangrove vegetation in Tierra wavessurge maystillbesignificant. and storm benefits alongotherareas ofthecoast,where thestorm track,center ofthestorm andmangroves canstillprovide et al.,1996).Such extreme effectsrarely occurbeyond the grove trees maybedefoliated oreven blown over (McCoy surge and highwinds. Under extreme conditions, man- mangroves theeffectsofstorm themselves surviving The effectiveness ofmangroves alsodependsonthe little by mangroves. al., 2013),whileslow-moving surges maybereduced very to bereduced mosteffectively (Zhangetal.,2012;Liu forward speedofthesurge: Fast-moving surges are likely ter level reduction withdistancewillalsodependonthe ily flow through sparsemangrove forests. The rate of wa- vegetation islikelytobemosteffective, as waterwilleas- levels willdependonthedensityofvegetation. Dense The capacityofmangroves toreduce surge water storm structures suchas houses(Das andCrepin, 2013). can alsoreduce reducing windspeed, further damageto mangroves canreduce damagetostructures. Mangroves by reducing surge, ontopofthestorm windwaves riding extent inareas withgentlysloping topography. Additionally, water level canresult inarelatively large reduction inflood surge flooding. storm However, even asmall reduction in dred metersorwider)are neededtosignificantly reduce Clearly, relatively widebandsofmangroves (several hun- with mangroves) (Zhangetal,2012). area was4,220km mangroves reduced thearea flooded by 40%(theflooded surge suggestedthatthe model thatsimulatedthisstorm groves (more than10kmwideinplaces).Anumerical peak waterlevel occurred over large area avery ofman- 2 withoutmangroves and2,450km 2

water (Badola andHussain, 2005). nels, reducing thetimethatcrops were exposedtosea water wasabletorapidly drain awaythrough tidalchan- areas protected by mangroves, where surge thestorm reductioner risk measures. Crop losseswere alsolower in onstrating that mangroves shouldbeusedalongsideoth- per village, compared to1.72saved by mangroves), dem- ing measure systemsaved 5.84lives (theearlywarning systemwasthemosteffective life-sav- the earlywarning groves hadbeenlost(Das and 2009).Notably,Vincent, retained mangroves ascompared tovillageswhere man- fewer peoplelosttheirlives inthosevillagesthathad 10,000 people. Ananalysisof different villagesfoundthat surge,produced a9mstorm resulting inthedeathof inIndia. comesfrom Orissa duce risk In 1999acyclone An examplethatdemonstrates how mangroves canre- reduction. and mangroves totheoverall cancontribute level ofrisk reduction canbemaximized given available resources, (Box 1andFigure 21).By ofmeasures, usingavariety risk systems) willusuallybeneededalongsidemangroves reductionrisk measures (e.g. levees/dikes, earlywarning surgeBecause reduction, instorm ofthisvariability other those swept upinthewater (Tanaka, 2009). of refuge, andthecanopies mayprovide softlandingsfor 2009). However, mangrove trees canalsoprovide places (Tanaka, forceadd tothedestructive oftheflowing water off(LasoBayas,torn etal.,2011). createdThe debris can knocked over, broken andtheirbranches their trunks overwhelmed by large tsunamis, withtrees being As withallcoastaldefensemeasures, mangroves maybe side mangroves inareas where tsunamiscouldoccur. plans andrefuge centers)shouldbeputinplacealong- systems,physical barriers, earlywarning evacuation nami, andtherefore reduction otherrisk measures (e.g. likely toprovide adequateprotection from alarge tsu- (Alongi,2008).Coastalto property forests are un- very to reduce lossoflife(LasoBayas, etal.,2011)anddamage the impact(Tanaka, 2009).In thisway, theymaybeable the energy oftheflowing waterandso reduce theforce of protection from tsunamis, but theycanabsorbsomeof Coastal forests suchasmangroves cannotprovide full Tsunamis BOX 1. Mangrove restoration for disaster risk reduction in Vietnam 29 | Coasts A

etween 1994 and 2010, the Vietnamese, Danish In terms of economic benefits, when the level of dam- t Risk and Japanese Red Cross restored 9,000 hectares of age from similar typhoons was compared before and Bmangroves as part of a large-scale Disaster after the mangrove restoration program, mangroves Preparedness Program in Vietnam (IFRC, 2011; Jegillos reduced the cost of damage to dikes by between U.S. et al., 2005), contrib- $80,000 and $295,000. uting to the 100,000 Avoided losses to pub- hectares of mangroves lic infrastructure and that have been re- private property were stored in Vietnam calculated to be be- since the 1970s (Kogo tween U.S. $5 and $15 and Kogo, 1997). The million in two of the mangroves were communes studied. planted in front of 100 The mangrove replant- km of dike to protect ing also provided sub- it from wind waves stantial livelihood co- during storm surges benefits in the form of caused by typhoons, honey production which regularly affect Figure 20: The use of mangroves in hybrid structures to from bees and other the area (Figure 20). reduce risk from storm surge flooding in Vietnam; here products from the The mangroves re- mangroves reduce the energy of wind waves reaching mangrove area. duce the risk of waves the dike, reducing the likelihood of damage to the dike This project demon- overtopping the dikes or of waves overtopping it. Credit: Mai S˜y Tuâ´n (used strates how mangroves during these ty- with permission) can be used in “hybrid phoons, and they also structures,” meaning reduce the action of the use of ecosystems alongside more traditionally waves on the dikes. Excessive wave action can result in engineered structures to reduce risk from coastal haz- dikes being damaged or breached. Mangroves can ards. The project also demonstrates how several risk thus reduce the cost of dike maintenance and the reduction measures can be used in combination to damage caused to property behind the dikes. maximize risk reduction (Figure 22). In this case disas- As part of the same program, more than 300,000 stu- ter preparedness training was used alongside man- dents, teachers, volunteers and commune wards were grove planting and dike maintenance (IFRC, 2011; trained in disaster preparedness. Together, the man- Jegillos et al., 2005). The mangroves also contributed grove restoration and disaster preparedness training to local livelihoods, reducing social vulnerability and have ensured that 2 million people are now better increasing coping capacity post-disasters. protected from typhoons and associated flooding. 30 Coasts At Risk | in mangroves, andthesebothprotect thesoilsurface grove roots are with- oftenfoundonthesedimentsurface mats madeupofalgae, deadorganic matterandman- together, reducing further erosion. Additionally, benthic erosion. Mangrove roots alsobindthesoil sub-surface acting onthesedimentsurface, thushelpingtoreduce By reducing waves, mangroves mitigatetheshearforces Erosion Credit: Carmen Lacambra sedimentation andreducing erosion. slow flows ofwater over thesubstrate, increasing Figure 21: roots Dense (pencilroots aerial shown here)

Low risk Risk High Risk I nitial Risk Risk to people and property from the effects of extreme events such as cyclones Zoning Reduce exposure to hazard by building in high risk zones B codes Reduce susceptibility of buildings / uilding

Risk reductionmeasures(incombination) infrastructucture to extreme events S ea walls, levees dikes, Barriers reduce exposure to flooding and wave damage creted sedimentsatrates ofupto6mm/yr over a2,000 (e.g., intheSouth AlligatorRiver inAustralia, whichac- occurred bothinlocationswithlarge sedimentinputs sands ofyears 2009). insomelocations(Ellison, This has Mangroves have over keptpacewithsealevel rise thou- the soilupfrom below (McKee, 2011). soils by roots producing thatliterally sub-surface push Wolanski, 1996).Mangroves canalsohelptobuildup and thusincreasing sedimentation(Furukawa and water flows, allowing tosettleoutinsomeareas particles vegetation helpstotrap incomingsedimentsby altering insomeareaslevel rise (McIvor, etal.,2013).Mangrove root growth. This canallow themtokeeppacewithsea upwards by trapping sedimentandthrough sub-surface As sealevels rise, mangrove soilsmaybeabletobuild Sea level rise Vervaeke, 2009). to erosion, asseenonislandsinBelize (McKee and mangrove soilslosetheirstrength, whichpotentiallyleads etal.,2006). When mangroves(Thampanya are removed, were present, lesserosion occurred over a30-year period rates along Thailand coastsfoundthatwhere mangroves inplace(McKee,ed particles 2011).Astudyoferosion from theactionofwaves andhelpbindnewlysediment- diagram by Ty Wamsley, Corps USArmy ofEngineers). always besomelevel ofresidual (adaptedfrom a risk reductionother risk measures; notethatthere will toreducingcan contribute from hazards, risk alongside Figure 22: Schematicdiagramshows how mangroves E plans, refuge plans, refuge arly warning arly warning evacuation evacuation systems, systems, Reduce centres exposure of

people waves andstormsurgeflooding R educe exposure to wind, educe exposuretowind, Mangroves Residual risk year period up to 6,000 years ago (Woodroffe, 1990)) and stored both in the living trees (trunks, branches, leaves in areas with very low sediment inputs (e.g., the Twin and roots) and more importantly in the deep organic Cays islands of Belize, which have kept pace with sea level peats that underlie mangroves in many areas. The water- rise rates of up to 3 mm/yr over the last 7,600 years logged mangrove soils create conditions that slow the (McKee et al., 2007)). decomposition of dead roots in the soil; these dead roots make up the mangrove peat, which can build up over However, mangroves’ capacity to build up soils is depen- thousands of years, with burial rates of up to 1.8 tonnes dent on maintaining adequate supplies of incoming sedi- per hectare per year (Brunskill et al., 2002). ment and on tree health, which affects root growth. In 31 | areas where sediment supplies have been disrupted (e.g., By taking up and storing carbon dioxide, mangroves help Coasts A reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations through the damming of rivers) or where mangrove (Warren-Rhodes et al., 2011). Destruction of mangrove health has been compromised,(e.g., through overharvest- t Risk forests can release this stored carbon, increasing carbon ing of wood), mangroves are less likely to be able to keep dioxide emissions. Despite being present only along trop- pace with sea level rise. In such locations, mangroves will ical and subtropical coasts, mangrove loss may contrib- only survive if there is space available further inland for ute 10% of total carbon emissions from deforestation young trees to colonize, allowing mangrove areas to mi- (Donato et al., 2011). Carbon emissions contribute to grate landward. rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, resulting in increased climate risk, such as a predicted increase in the intensity of tropical cyclones (Christensen et al., Mitigating climate change 2013). Therefore, protecting mangroves from deforesta- Mangroves are highly productive ecosystems and are tion and restoring mangroves can contribute to reducing among the most carbon-rich forests in the tropics. Recent exposure to climate risk. Recognition of the importance calculations estimate that mangrove forests contain be- of mangroves in carbon storage and sequestration could tween 690 and 1,000 tonnes of carbon per hectare of for- lead to policies and funding schemes that seek to protect est (Donato et al, 2011; Hutchison et al., 2013). Carbon is or restore mangroves.

3.2 Mangroves reduce social vulnerability and improve coping capacity

Mangroves also reduce risk by reducing social vulnerabil- habitats where the species can live throughout their life ity for example by increasing access to natural capital, in span; for other species, mangroves provide nursery the form of fisheries and other forest products. This as- grounds and feeding grounds where the young animals pect of risk reduction by mangroves has been included in can grow in relative safety and have a more plentiful sup- the Tropical C@R Index, as described in Chapter 2. Fish, ply of food before they head out to deeper waters shellfish and other forest products contribute to local (Manson et al., 2005; Chong et al., 1990). In this way, livelihoods and provide an important source of nutrition. mangroves also support off-shore fisheries (Morton, 1990; Manson et al., 2005; Aburto-Oropeza et al., 2008). Organic matter exported from mangrove areas into the The importance of mangrove fisheries sea by high tides can also form the basis for off-shore food chains, ultimately increasing stocks of off-shore Mangroves support rich coastal fisheries, both inshore fisheries (Sukardjo, 2004). and offshore, including subsistence, commercial and recreational fisheries (Rönnbäck, 1999). Species harvest- In many areas, species that depend on mangroves for ed include a variety of fish, shrimp, crabs and molluscs. some or all of their life cycles make up a large proportion Most of these benefit from the very high productivity of of the fish catch. For example, it has been estimated that the mangroves and the abundant algae and bacteria that mangrove-related species make up 67% of the commer- grow on the mangrove vegetation and soils. For some cial catch in eastern Australia, 80% of the species with species, the mangrove vegetation provides sheltered commercial or recreational value in Florida, 60% of the 32 Coasts At Risk | A hectare ofmangroves withamarket value ofU.S. the estimatedannualcatchwas 63to79kg/year/ with avalue ofU.S.$368,000to$734,000.By area, The annualcatchwasestimatedaround 500tons value (39%). monetary the catchby biomass, butaccountedforthehighest trapping crabs only12%of ofportunid contributed value.accounted foronly15%ofthemonetary The the greatest biomass(46%ofthetotalcaught)but Overall, handcapture crabs ofsesarmid contributed from the channeltraps, gillnetsand liftnets. most abundantspecies(by numberofindividuals) typesoffishbeingthe andvarious penaeid shrimp netting. Atotalof57specieswere caught, with mid crabs), as well astraditional angling andcast andplotosidfish)handcaptureariid (forsesar- crab traps crabs), (forportunid catfishhooks(for catch multiplespecies, andothermethodsincluded Channel traps, gillnetsandliftwere usedto Several typesoffishinggearare usedinthisarea. value ofthecatch. etary catch composition,annualsize andthemon- ly 7,000hectares, focusingonfishingmethods, within anarea ofmangroves covering approximate- able tothem. The studyexplored fishingactivities are relatively poorwithfewotherlivelihoods avail- for thepeoplelivinginornearmangroves, who sourcevides animportant offoodandlivelihoods to coastalcommunities. In thisarea, fishingpro- ofmangrovean exampleoftheimportance fisheries i Ma B o n x 2

Thailand (Islam andIkejima, 2010),provides Phanang, ontheeastcoastofsouthern recent studyofmangrove in fisheries Pak P ngrove a k Pha n fi a s ng, h er Thai i es es l a and incometocoastalcommunities. species andcanprovide anessentialsource offood ofcapturemay includeawidevariety methodsand This studydemonstrates how mangrove fisheries ing (Islam andIkejima, 2010). crabbait (sesarmid andgobiidfishes)forcrab fish- (small fishusedincrab culture ponds)orusedas crabs),salted (sesarmid usedinaquaculture feeds ofthecatchwereparts (mostlymugilfishes), dried cally. Some catchwasconsumedfresh, whileother $52-$105 /year/ha. Most ofthecatchwasusedlo- is beingusedforfishing. Credit: Femke Tonneijck here inPemalang, Java, Indonesia, where acastnet for fish, subsistencefisheries, supporting asshown Figure 23: Mangroves provide habitat important nd commercially important coastal fish species in India and boats, jetties, stakes, fences), tools (hoes for use on the in Fiji and 30% of the fish catch plus 100% of the shrimp land; poles for fish traps) and household furniture catch in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Warren-Rhodes, 2011; Rönnbäck, 1999; Walters, 2008). A (ASEAN) countries (Rönnbäck, 1999). variety of non-timber forest products are also harvested to make fishing materials (e.g. nets, traps), roofing mate- Subsistence fishing is vitally important in many coastal rials, traditional medicines, fertilizers and artwork communities (Rönnbäck, 1999), providing a source of (Warren-Rhodes, et al, 2011; Kathiresan, 2012). food that is rich in protein (Albert and Schwarz, 2013). An Mangroves also provide livestock fodder in some areas example of the importance of subsistence fisheries to a (Walters et al., 2008). 33 |

community in Thailand is described in Box 2. Coasts A By providing this wide array of renewable products, man- Based on a meta-analysis, the average harvest of fish, groves help people to persevere after disasters, improving t Risk shellfish and molluscs from mangrove areas is 539 kg per coping capacity and thus contributing to reduced risk. hectare per year (ranging up to 2,500 kg/ha/yr), while Fisheries can provide a critical food supply post-disaster, average shrimp harvests are 146 kg/ha/yr (up to 349 kg/ and this may be particularly important if food supply ha/yr) (Salem and Mercer, 2012).The mean value of man- chains are disrupted or food storage has been compro- grove fisheries from this study was U.S. $23,600/ha/yr, mised. Likewise, mangrove wood can provide both fuel ranging up to U.S. $555,000/ha/yr (Salem, 2012). and building materials.

As well as providing for the subsistence needs of local Mangrove products and livelihoods communities (Warren-Rhodes et al., 2011), mangroves form the basis for local livelihoods, such as fishing, tim- In addition to fisheries, mangroves provide a wide variety ber extraction, charcoal-making and bee-keeping of products that can be harvested and used, and these (Walters et al., 2008). Mangrove eco-tourism can also support a diversity of livelihoods. Foods derived from generate significant income for local communities mangroves include birds and their eggs, honey, seaweed, (Salem and Mercer, 2012). By supporting local liveli- vegetables and fermented drinks, in addition to the fish, hoods, mangroves reduce social vulnerability. For ex- shrimps, molluscs and crabs described above (Warren- ample, income generated from these livelihoods can help Rhodes et al., 2011; and watlters et al, 2008). Wood har- people to afford adaptation and risk reduction measures, vested from mangroves is put to a variety of uses, includ- such as houses that can withstand high winds or the ing firewood, charcoal, construction materials (houses, force of waves.

3.3 Mangrove loss and the success of restoration programs

While mangroves can help to reduce coastal risk, they are considered to be a contributing factor to these high loss often at risk themselves. Approximately a third of the rates (Mazda et al., 2002) in what may be a negative feed- world’s mangroves may have been lost over the last 50 back loop. years, primarily due to clearance for aquaculture or agri- Mangroves are also likely to be threatened by sea level rise, culture (Alongi, 2002). Between 2000 and 2005, annual loss particularly in areas where subsidence is also occurring, rates were estimated to be 0.66% (Spalding et al., 2010), such as parts of Java and Florida. This can result in the loss which is three times higher than mean global rates of for- of seaward mangroves, as is currently occurring in est loss (FAO, 2006). The loss of mangroves leads to the loss Bermuda (Ellison, 1993). In some areas, mangroves may be of mangrove livelihoods and increases the vulnerability of able to keep pace with rising sea levels, but this is depen- coastal communities to hazards such as coastal erosion dent on appropriate management of mangrove areas (as (Hamilton and Collins, 2013). discussed earlier). For this reason, it is important to carry The loss of mangroves can lead to rapid rates of erosion out vulnerability assessments (Ellison, 2012) of mangrove as mangroves hold together soils that may have formed areas to sea level rise when carrying out management, over thousands of years. In some areas, erosion rates are conservation or adaptation activities, especially when as high as 50 m per year. The loss of mangroves is planning restoration to assess potential areas. 34 Coasts At Risk | tion remains apriority. than therestoration ofmangroves; therefore- conserva existing mangroves willgenerally bemore economical strated in (BoxVietnam 1).Ofcourse, theprotection of reduction provided services by mangroves, asdemon- Mangrove restoration orafforestation canincrease risk tidal flooding(Spalding etal.,2010). sea level toensure thattheycancopewiththelevel of heightabovespecies andplantingsaplingsattheright rates are high.Key factorsincludechoosingappropriate has builtuponhow torestore mangroves, andsuccess the 1970sand’80s. Consequently, ahighlevel ofexpertise operating fordecades, with several in projects starting 2010). Many ofthese restoration programs have been almost 150,000hectares inBangladesh (Spalding etal., around theworld,ranging insize from afewhectares to of mangrove restoration projects have takenplace In response tothehighrates ofmangrove loss, anumber Mangrove restoration levels rise. become more frequent astheclimatechangesandsea aimed atreducing from future risk disasters, whichmay mangroves oflocaladaptation strategies part canform andthereafter.period orrestorationThe conservation of math andby therecovery livelihoods during supporting ters by providing foodandfuelintheimmediateafter Mangroves can also helpcommunitiescopeafterdisas andothermangrove-derivedfisheries products. ity by providing asource ofnatural of capitalintheform exposure tocoastalhazards andreduce socialvulnerabil- communities from coastaldisasters. Mangroves reduce Mangroves role inreducing can play animportant to risk 3.4 Conclusion - - (Narayan etal.,2010). grove forest toreduce thishazard toanacceptablelevel ards area withinaparticular andtheabilityofman- standing ofthefrequency andmagnitudeofcoastalhaz- width ofthemangrove beltshouldbebasedonanunder surge. astorm during els rise Calculations oftherequired that waves donotovertop thedikeeven whenwaterlev- is adequatelyprotected from thewaves andtoensure be wideenoughtoreduce waves suchthatthedike storm For example, amangrove beltinfront ofadikeneedsto system services. quired widthwilldependon thedesired mangrove eco- etal.,2005). ed topreventThe re- erosion (Winterwerp system functions, suchassedimentationprocesses need- grove beltsneedtobesufficientlywidemaintaineco- surges andmaintaintraditional livelihoods. Such man- reduce erosion, provide protection from waves andstorm tween theseaandotherlanduses(Lacambra, 2008)to In manycountries, mangrove beltsare maintainedbe- risk reduction Managing mangroves for planning. ofdisastermitigationandresponsethe portfolio grove forests, whichshouldremain within ahighpriority the protection andwisemanagementofexistingman- reductionute tocoastalrisk alsostrengthen thecasefor at thecoast. The manywaysthatmangroves- cancontrib risk ces takefullaccountofallfactorsthatcaninfluence as theC@RIndextoensure isnecessary thattheseindi- As such,theinclusionofmangroves withinindicessuch

- References

Aburto-Oropeza, O. et al. (2008). Mangroves in the Gulf Das, S. & Vincent, J. R. (2009). Mangroves protected vil- of California increase fishery yields. PNAS, 105, lages and reduced death toll during Indian super 10456-10459. cyclone. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106, 7357-7360. Albert, J. A. & Schwarz, A.-M. (2013). Mangrove management in Solomon Islands: Case studies from Malaita Das, S. & Crépin, A.-S. (2013). Mangroves can provide Province. Policy Breif: AAS-2013-14. CGIAR. protection against wind damage during storms. 35 |

Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 134, 98-107. Coasts Alongi, D. M. (2002). Present state and future of the

world’s mangrove forests. Environmental Donato, D. C. et al. (2011). Mangroves among the most A t Risk Conservation, 29, 331-349. carbon-rich forests in the tropics. Nature Geoscience, 4, 293-297. Alongi, D. M. (2008). Mangrove forests: Resilience, protection from tsunamis, and responses to global cli- Ellison, J. C. (1993). Mangrove retreat with rising sea lev- mate change. Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science, el, Bermuda. Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science, 37, 76, 1-13. 75-87.

Badola, R. & Hussain, S. A. (2005). Valuing ecosystem Ellison, J. C. in Coastal Wetlands: An Integrated functions: an empirical study on the storm protec- Ecosystem Approach (eds Gerardo M. E. Perillo, Eric tion function of Bhitarkanika mangrove ecosystem, Wolanski, Donald R. Cahoon, & Mark M. Brinson) India. Environmental Conservation, 32, 85-92. 565-591 (Elsevier, 2009).

Brinkman, R. M., Massel, S. R., Ridd, P. V. & Furukawa, K. Ellison, J. C. (2012). Climate change vulnerability assess- (1997). Surface wave attenuation in mangrove for- ment and adaptation planning for mangrove sys- ests. Proceedings of the Combined Australasian tems. World Wildlife Fund, Washington DC. URL: Coastal Engineering and Ports Conference, http://worldwildlife.org/publications/ Christchurch, 1997., 941-946. climate-change-vulnerability-assessment-and-adaptation-planning-for-mangrove-systems. Brunskill, G. J., Zagorskis, I. & Pfitzner, J. (2002). Carbon burial rates in sediments and a carbon mass balance FAO (2006). Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005: for the Herbert River region of the Great Barrier Reef Progress towards sustainable forest management. continental shelf, North Queensland, Australia. (Forestry Department, Food and Agriculture Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science, 54, 677-700. Organization of the United Nations (FAO).

Chong, V. C., Sasekumar, A., Leh, M. U. C. & Cruz, R. D. Furukawa, K. & Wolanski, E. (1996). Sedimentation in (1990). The fish and prawn communities of a mangrove forests. Mangroves and Salt Marshes, 1, Malaysian coastal mangrove system, with compari- 3-10. sons to adjacent mud flats and inshore waters. Hamilton, S. E. & Collins, S. (2013). Livelihood responses Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 31, 703-722. to mangrove deforestation in the northern province Christensen, J. H. et al. (2013). Climate phenomena and of Ecuador. Bosque, 34(2), 143-153. their relevance for future regional climate change. In: Hutchison, J., Manica, A., Swetnam, R., Balmford, A. & Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Spalding, M. (2013). Predicting global patterns in Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth mangrove forest biomass. Conservation Letters. DOI: Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel 10.1111/conl.12060. on Climate Change (Stocker, T.R., Qin, D., Plattner, G.-K., Tignor, M., Allen, S.K., Boschung, J., Nauels, A., IFRC. Breaking the waves. Impact analysis of coastal af- Xia, Y., Bex, V. and Midgley, P.M. (eds)). Cambridge forestation for disaster risk reduction in Viet Nam., University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdon and (International Federation of Red Cross and Red New York, NY, USA. Crescent Societies, 2011). 36 Coasts At Risk | Manson, F. J.,Loneragan, N.R.,Harch, B. D., Skilleter, G. Manson, F. J.,Loneragan, N.R.,Skilleter, G.A.&Phinn, S. Liu, H.,Zhang,K.,Li, Y. &Xie, L.(2013).Numerical study Laso Bayas, J.C.etal.(2011).Influence ofcoastal vegeta- Lacambra, C., Spencer, T. &Möller, I.inTheRole of Krauss, K. W. etal.(2009). Water in level observations Kogo, K.&Kogo, M.(1997).Mangrove reforestation in Kathiresan, K.(2012).Importance ofmangrove ecosys- Jegillos, S.R.,Lunder, G.,Kawate, H.&Dzung, T. V. (2005). Islam, M.&Ikejima, type, K.(2010).Gear speciescompo- Fisheries Research, 74,69. grove Australia. extent:Acase-studyfor northeastern productionlinks between andman- coastalfisheries A. & Williams, L.(2005). A broad-scale analysisof Review, 43,485-515. Oceanography andMarine Biology: anAnnual literature andidentificationof research directions. between mangroves asynthesisofthe andfisheries: R. (2005).Anevaluation oftheevidenceforlinkages 51-65. Florida. Continentalsouthern Shelf Research, 64, characteristicssurge in and floodingtohurricane of thesensitivitymangroves inreducing storm 18612-18617. Proceedings oftheNational Academy ofSciences,108, tion onthe2004tsunamiwave impactinwest Aceh. Case studies(2008). Reduction. Annex1 andClimateChangeAdaptation Environmental Management Risk inDisaster Wetlands, 29,142-149. mangrove inFlorida. twohurricanes swampsduring 6, 247-282. make arestoration modelonagloballevel. Tropics, byVietnam villagers’ supporting to activities:Atrial 70-89. tem. International Journal ofMarine Science,2(10), Danish Red Cross. Available from theDanish Red Cross. (1994-2005).FinalVietnam Evaluation Report forthe ness intheRed coastal River Delta andnorthern RedVietnam Cross mangrove anddisaster prepared- and Management, 18,27-36. groves ofPak Phanang, Thailand. Wetlands Ecology intheman- sition andeconomicvalue offisheries McKee, K.L.& Vervaeke, W. C.(2009). Impacts ofHuman McKee, K.L.,Cahoon, D. &Feller, I.C.(2007). Caribbean McIvor, A.L.,Spencer, T., Möller, I.&Spalding, M.(2013). McIvor, A.L.,Spencer, T., Möller, I.&Spalding, M.(2012). McIvor, A.L.,Möller, I.,Spencer, T. &Spalding, M.(2012). McCoy, E.D., Mushinsky, H.R.,Johnson, D. &Meshaka, Mazda, Y., Magi, M.,Ikeda, Y., Kurokawa, T. &Asano, T. Mazda, Y. etal.(2002).Coastal erosion duetolong-term 415-427. Smithsonian Contributions totheMarine Sciences, Pelican Cays and Twin Cays Ranges, Belize. Stability ofMangrove-Dominated Islands inthe Disturbance onSoil Erosion Potential andHabitat and Biogeography, 16,545-556. controls onsoilelevation change. Global Ecology mangroves sea-level through adjusttorising biotic groves/surface-elevation-and-sea-level-rise. URL: http://coastalresilience.org/science/man- Wetlands International. 59pages. ISSN2050-7941. Paper 42.Published by The Nature Conservancyand Report 3.Cambridge Coastal Research Unit Working sea level rise. Natural Coastal Protection Series: The response ofmangrove elevation to soil surface storm-surge-reduction-mangroves. org/science/mangroves/ pages. ISSN2050-7941.URL:http://coastalresilience. Nature Conservancyand Wetlands International. 35 Research Unit Working Paper 41.Published by The Protection Series: Report 2.Cambridge Coastal Storm surge reduction by mangroves. Natural Coastal reduction-wind-and-swell-waves-mangroves. www.coastalresilience.org/science/mangroves/ International. 27pages. ISSN2050-7941.URL: http:// Published by The Nature Conservancyand Wetlands Cambridge Coastal Research Unit Working Paper 40. Natural Coastal Protection Series: Report 1. Reduction ofwindandswell waves by mangroves. Florida. Bulletin ofMarine Science, 59,1-8. Hurricane Andrew coastof onthesouthwestern W. E.J.(1996).Mangrove damagecausedby Management, 14, 365-378. nated by Sonneratia sp. Wetlands Ecology and (2006). Wave reduction ina mangrove forest domi- Ecology andManagement, 10,1-9. human impactonmangrove forests. Wetlands McKee, K. L. (2011). Biophysical controls on accretion Walters, B. B. et al. (2008). Ethnobiology, socio-econom- and elevation change in Caribbean mangrove eco- ics and management of mangrove forests: A review. systems. Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science, 91, Aquatic Botany, 89, 220-236. 475-483. Warren-Rhodes, K. et al. (2011). Mangrove ecosystem Morton, R. M. (1990). Community structure, density and services and the potential for carbon revenue pro- standing crop of fishes in a subtropical Australian grammes in Solomon Islands. Environmental mangrove area. Marine Biology, 105, 385-394. Conservation, 38, 485-496.

Narayan, S. et al. (2010). On the effectiveness of man- Winterwerp, J. C., Borst, W. G. & de Vries, M. B. (2005). | Coasts groves in attenuating cyclone-induced waves. Pilot study on the erosion and rehabilitation of a Proceedings of the International Conference on mangrove mud coast. Journal of Coastal Research, A Coastal Engineering, 32. 21, 223-230. t Risk

Primavera, J. H. & Esteban, J. M. A. (2008). A review of Woodroffe, C. D. (1990). The impact of sea-level rise on mangrove rehabilitation in the Philippines – suc- mangrove shorelines. Progress in Physical cesses, failures and future prospects. Wetlands Geography, 14, 483-520. Ecology and Management, 16, 345-358. Zhang, K. et al. (2012). The role of mangroves in attenu- Quartel, S., Kroon, A., Augustinus, P., Van Santen, P. & Tri, ating storm surges. Estuarine Coastal and Shelf N. H. (2007). Wave attenuation in coastal man- Science, 102, 11-23. groves in the Red River Delta, Vietnam. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences, 29, 576-584.

Rönnbäck, P. (1999). The ecological basis for economic value of seafood production supported by mangrove ecosystems. Ecological Economics, 29, 235-252.

Salem, M. E. & Mercer, D. E. (2012). The economic value of mangroves: a meta-analysis. Sustainability, 4, 359-383.

Spalding, M. D., Kainuma, M. & Collins (2010). L. World Mangrove Atlas. (Earthscan, with International Society for Mangrove Ecosystems, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, The Nature Conservancy, UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre, United Nations Scientific and Cultural Organisation, United Nations University.

Sukardjo, S. (2004). Fisheries associated with mangrove ecosystem in Indonesia: A view from a mangrove ecologist. Biotropia, 23, 13-39.

Tanaka, N. (2009). Vegetation bioshields for tsunami mitigation: review of effectiveness, limitations, construction, and sustainable management. Landscape and Ecological Engineering, 5, 71-79.

Thampanya, U., Vermaat, J. E., Sinsakul, S. & Panapitukkul, N. (2006). Coastal erosion and mangrove progradation of Southern Thailand. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 68, 75-85. 38 Coasts At Risk | Ocean. Credit: Nancy Sefton A reef ofhard andsoftcorals intheIndo-Pacific 39 | 4. Coral Reefs and Coasts A Risk Reduction t Risk By Christine Shepard, Filippo Ferrario, Rachel Fabian and Michael W. Beck

oral reefs are one of the most biologically diverse habitats in the world. Though they cover only a small portion of the world’s ocean floor, coral reefs are extremely C productive habitats that billions of people worldwide depend on for the ecosystem services they provide—over 1 billion people are dependent on reefs for protein, and millions are employed in reef-dependent industries in Asia alone (Whittingham et al., 2003). Coral reefs are typically managed or restored to maximize ecosystem services related to habitat biodiversity, fish production or ecotourism. Despite the important defense benefits coral reefs provide by protecting coasts from waves, flooding and erosion, few coral reef restoration projects have been initiated to maximize these benefits. Coral reefs reduce risk by decreasing both exposure and vulnerability through attenuation of wave energy reaching the shore and provisioning of essential resources before, during and after catastrophic events. The conservation and disaster risk reduction communities could better align their efforts to ensure that coastal nations that depend on the risk reduction provided by coral reefs will continue to receive these benefits in the future. 40 Coasts At Risk | benefit provided by agiven reef. Benefits are categorized approach, whichseekstoidentifyandvalue each (TEV) Benefits are often valued usingatotaleconomic value etal.,2003). billions ofpeopleworldwide (Whittingham coastal ecosystems, providing to vital ecosystemservices Coral reefs are oneofthemost economicallyvaluable Economic Valuation 4.2 each country. tion and2)habitatpopulationmapsare available for tal (e.g., reefs, mangroves) available to the coastal popula- a hazard isdirectly related totheamountofnatural capi- because 1)thepopulation’s susceptibility totheeffectsof susceptibility component. This indicatorwaschosen role ofcoral reefs andmangroves reduction inrisk inthe cal C@RIndex (Chapter2) includedanindicatorofthe faceted role inreducing atthegloballevel. risk The tropi- tural andeconomic hardships. Coral reefs playamulti- may dependonreefs anatural during disasteroragricul- tive incomegeneration) tothecoastalcommunitiesthat ability by providing natural capital(e.g., foodandalterna- ting theshoreline. Healthy coral reefs alsoreduce vulner- exposure by attenuatingtheamountofwave energy hit- assessment (seeChapter2).Coral reefs directly reduce vulnerability, componentsinrisk thetwomostimportant Coral reefs helpreduce by risk limitingbothexposure and 4.1 rated from thecoastby alagoonorchannel.Barrier reefs several kilometers, are foundnearlandandcanbesepa- narrow, range inlengthfrom hundreds ofmetersupto arrangement andmorphology. Fringing reefs are fairly Coral reefs are classifiedintoseveral typesbasedontheir scopic algalsymbiontsthatrequire sunlight. depths ofupto150feet(46m)becausecorals have micro- Reef-building corals are generally foundinshallow water subtropical Western Atlantic andIndo-Pacific oceans. reef-building corals occurthroughout thetropical and Corals are foundthroughout theworld’s oceans. Most Coral reefs T H he valuationofcoralreefs ow coralreefsreducerisk sion is one of most critical benefits providedsion isoneofmost critical by coral are easilyquantified. Protection from floodingand ero- focus ondirect which andtourism, usevalues offisheries al., 2003). ofcoralThe majority reef valuation studies themosttoreeffense typicallycontribute TEVs (Cesar et and non-usevalues. Tourism, andcoastalde- fisheries into direct use, indirect use (includingcoastaldefense) 2014) (Adapted from Ferrario(C) andwholereef et. (WR) al., different zones ofthewholereef: reef flat(F), reef crest Figure 24: Diagram photo(b)showing (a)andaerial ocean waves. ofthereef, part ermost whichisexposedtoopen where wave breaking firstoccurs. Thefore reef istheout- The crest isoftentheshallowest ofthereef part flatandis tered. The reef crest istheseaward edgeofthereef flat. 24). The reef shel- flatistheclosesttolandand very a coral reef: thereef flat, reef crest andfore reef (Figure Different levels ofwave actioncreate three mainzones on shaped reefs surrounding alagoon. tively smallreef complexes, andatollsare large, ring- deep stretch ofwater. Patch reefs are isolated,compara- the coast. They are separated from thecoastby awide, are broader andare generally awayfrom foundfarther Reef Location Value Effectiveness of coral reefs Caribbean – low development (Burke, 2004) US $ 2,000 - 20,000/km for coastal protection Caribbean – high development (Burke, 2004) US $ 100,000 - 1,000,000/ km Coral reefs reduce exposure to coastal haz- Florida (Spurgeon, 1999) US $ 170,000 / km ards through wave attenuation and erosion st. Lucia (Burke, 2008) US $ 28 - 50 million / yr reduction. Though there is a growing body Tobago (Burke, 2008) US $ 18 - 33 million / yr of evidence that suggests that nature-based Belize (Cooper, 2009) US $ 120-180 million / yr solutions can be effective for risk reduction, most assessments of nature-based risk re- 41 turks and Caicos (Carleton, 2005) US $ 16.90 million / yr | duction approaches have focused on man- Coasts A Guam (van Beukering, 2007 ) US $ 107 million groves and marshes (Barbier et al., 2008; american Samoa (Spurgeon, 2005) US $ 8.4 million / yr Gedan et al., 2010; Shepard et al., 2011; t Risk Indonesia/Philippines (Burke, 2002) US $ 447,000 / yr McKee et al., 2010; Zhang et al., 2012; Wells lami Town, Fiji (Rao, 2013) US $ 343,624 / yr et al., 2006). navakavu, Fiji (O’Gara, 2012) US $ 826,140 / yr saipan, N. Mariana Islands (van Beukering, 2006) US $ 8.04 million / yr Ferrario et al., (2014) provide the first global synthesis and meta-analysis of the contri- sRi Lanka (Berg, 1998) US $ 12160-172,000 / km2 / yr butions of coral reefs to risk reduction and Table 9: Economic values of coastal defense provisions of adaptation. They assess the effects of reefs coral reefs on wave attenuation and examine which parts of the reef have the greatest effects on reefs, but sometimes these values can be difficult to quantify relative wave attenuation. They extracted data from to direct use benefits. Coastal defense benefits are usually estimated 27 independent studies that covered reefs by flooding and erosion damages that are avoided due to the pres- from the Caribbean, Maldives, Australia, ence of intact reefs. Property values are most commonly used to cal- China, Japan, Guam and Hawaii to quanti- tatively estimate the effectiveness of coral culate avoided damages; therefore, coastal defense values are greater reefs and examine wave attenuation across in areas with more infrastructure, particularly in tourism-dependent three reef environments: the reef crest, reef areas. More sophisticated valuation techniques, such as those used in flat and the whole reef. the Coastal Capital project of the World Resources Institute (Burke, 2008), adjust avoided damages by also accounting for the dependen- They found that reefs significantly reduced cy of coastal communities on reefs and incorporating site-specific wave energy across all three environments. data on land use, shoreline sensitivity, frequency and magnitude of The whole reef accounted for a total wave storms, proximity of reefs to shorelines and wave absorbing capaci- energy reduction of 97%. Reef crests dissi- ties. Including these factors can improve estimates of coastal defense pated on average 86% of the incident wave value because they account for more than just the property values of energy. Reef flats dissipated 65% of the re- adjacent land. maining wave energy. The effect of the whole reef in dissipating wave energy was Local or project-scale valuations can be difficult to scale up to na- consistent across a variety of wave types tional coastal defense values, so mechanisms such as benefit trans- from small through hurricane-level waves fers are often used to approximate coastal defense values. with the reefs reducing a constant percent Calculations of coastal defense benefits from coral reefs range from of the incident wave energy. hundreds to millions of U.S. dollars per linear km depending on land use (Table 9) and average U.S. $32,000/km2 worldwide. This figure These wave attenuation values are similar to does not incorporate values of infrastructure, such as roads, water those of constructed low-crested breakwa- supply networks or hospitals, nor avoided flood relief costs and is ters. The wave attenuation efficiency of low- surely underestimated. crested detached breakwaters is measured by the transmission coefficient Kt, which is the ratio of the transmitted to the incident significant wave height (Ht/Hi). Kt depends 42 Coasts At Risk | from Ferrario etal. 2014). the numberofpeopleliving below 10melevation andwithin10or50kmfrom reefs (#ofpeople*1mil)(adapted Table 10: Number ofpeopleinmillionswhomay receive reduction risk benefitsfrom reefs values areby country; breakwaters. defensessuchas attenuation benefitstoartificial suggesting thatcoral reefs canprovide comparable wave upper range ofvalues structures, evaluated forartificial average wave heightreduction forreefs (64%)isinthe from Ferrario etal.forcoral reefs (51-74%).In fact,the 2011). This range iscomparable totherange estimated 2003; Calabrese, 2008;Zanuttigh etal.,2010;Irtem etal., 30-70% (Burcharth andHughes, etal., 2011;Armono from 0.3-0.7,whichrepresents awave heightreduction of K and structure permeability. The transmission coefficient, on designparameters suchascrest freeboard, crest width resource provisioning provided services by reefs. To coastal nationsbenefitfrom thecoastalprotection and Coral reefs canbeaneffective firstlineofdefense, and on them populations thatdepend Social valuation: reefsandthecoastal t

, oflow-crested detachedbreakwaters typicallyranges Globally Top 15Countries Kenya 1 Saudi Arabia Japan 1 Singapore 1 Sri Lanka Cuba 2 Haiti 2 China T V USA 3 Brazil 6 Philippines 12 India 17 Indonesia 19 Country People <10kmfromReef anzania 2 ietnam 2 Number inMillons

100 74 1 2 2

efits from reefs are Indonesia, India andthe Philippines, in low-lying areas wholikelyreceive reduction risk ben- withthegreatestThe countries numberofpeopleliving and mangrove indicatorintheC@RIndex. reef from Ferrario etal.(2014)wasthebasisforreefs people livingbelow 10melevation andwithin10km ofa from reefs (Table 10). This latterapproach ofidentifying people stillare likelytoreceive reduction risk benefits (i.e., an80%reduction indistance),some100million 10km ofareef andbelow 10melevation are considered reductionrisk benefits from reefs. If onlyareas within 10m elevation andwithin50kmofareef andmayreceive reefs. Globally upto197millionpeoplelive bothbelow people by livingintheselow-lying country areas near wereboundaries factored intotallythetotalnumberof reefs. border Country andexclusive economiczone pleted toidentifylow-lying populationsadjacenttocoral data were compiled,andageospatialanalysiswascom- reefs, globalpopulation,elevation, coral reef andcountry identify coastalpopulationsthatlikelybenefitfrom coral Globally 197 Top 15Countries Saudi Arabia T Hong Kong Cuba 3 Singapore 3 T Sri Lanka Malaysia United States Brazil 8 V China 16 Philippines India 36 Indonesia 41 Country People <50kmfromReef anzania 2 aiwan 3 ietnam 9 Number inMillons 163 2 2 4 5 7 23 regardless of whether distances of 10 or 50 km from reefs which are often categorized as temperate nations, rank were considered. These three countries alone include within the top 10 countries in number of people that approximately 50% of the global population living in low, likely benefit from tropical coral reefs. exposed areas near reefs. The United States and China,

4.3 Reef restoration as a risk reduction strategy 43 | Coasts A Active restoration of degraded reefs is a common ap- Structural reef restoration approaches include “reef proach to re-establish reef diversity, function and ecosys- balls,” concrete structures such as blocks, BioRock, t Risk tem services. Active restoration methods include biologi- EcoReefs and rock and rubble piling (Goreau and cal restoration, physical (or structural) restoration or Hilbertz, 2005; Clark and Edwards, 1999; Spurgeon and both. Biological restoration most often involves trans- Lindhal, 2000; Fox et al., 2005). There are thousands of planting of coral fragments or colonies to enhance popu- structural reef restoration projects globally, but very few lations of threatened species (such as staghorn coral in of these projects provide clear information on size, costs the Caribbean) or to help re-establish live coral cover on or measured benefits, particularly coastal defense benefits. Where measures of benefits do exist, they are typi- coral “skeletons.” cally restricted to surveys of live coral cover and fish Physical or structural restoration projects typically in- abundance or diversity. clude reef repair and/or additions of artificial reef com- Ferrario et al. (2014) provide insight into the cost effec- ponents. Coral reef restoration projects typically seek to tiveness of coral reef restoration when compared to the restore ecosystem services related to biodiversity, coral building of traditional breakwaters. The costs of building cover and fisheries production, though these projects tropical breakwaters ranged between U.S. $456 and may also provide wave attenuation benefits if the physi- $188,817 m-1 with a median project cost of U.S. cal structure of the reef is restored. Coral restoration proj- $19,791m-1 (n=16). The costs of structural coral reef res- ects with principally coastal defense objectives are far toration projects ranged between U.S. $20 and $155,000 less common. There are a very few of these projects and m-1 with a median project cost of U.S. $1,290 m-1 (n=13). most are just offshore of resort beaches in sandy habitats; On average, the costs of the restoration projects were they have thus been focused more on erosion reduction significantly cheaper than costs of building than reef restoration per se. tropical breakwaters.

Figure 25: Restoration Project Benefits: Benefits of coral Designed and Measured reef restoration 100 projects incor- porated into project design 75 Designed and measured

50 Measured 25

0 Percent Repondents Reporting Coral Fish Coastal Recreation Recovery Production Defense 44 Coasts At Risk | 1997; Moran etal.,2007).In many Brown andDunne, 1988; Frihy etal.,1996; Knightetal., beaches andcoastalinfrastructure (Sheppard etal.,2005; quantify theimpactsofdegraded coral reefs onadjacent reports yet fewscientific publications ofthisoccurring, increases coastalerosion. There are multipleanecdotal is degraded tothepointthatresulting wave energy reefs untilareef oftengoesunnoticedandunprioritized (in waves breaking offshore), wave attenuationby coral Though reefs’ dissipation ofwave energy isclearlyvisible sion (Sheppard etal.,2005). ciated coastalhazards ofinundationandshoreline ero- willbeexposedtoincreasingtries wave energy andasso- If reef degradation continuestoincrease, coastal coun- toincreasestributing inwave energy reaching theshore. ture drag diminishesfrictional onincomingwaves, con- of floodinganderosion. Lossofthree-dimensional- struc more wave energy toreach coastlinesandheightensrisks the reef increases. This increase inwaterdepth allows structurally degrademortality areef, thewaterdepthover worldwide (Sheppard etal,2005). or When destruction exposure ofhundreds ofmillionscoastalresidents degradation of coral reefs threaten toincrease thecoastal Increases incoastaldevelopment, climatechangeandthe 4.4 Thefutureofcoralreefsascoastaldefense assess benefitsdelivered by aproject, even ifbenefits are five years orless, whichisoftennotsufficienttimeto maintenance. Most projects (67%)were monitored for overall, and islackoffundingforpost-project monitoring deliveredfor measuring benefits, andforproject success identifiedthatoneofthegreatestThis survey challenges (Figure 25). these benefits were actuallydelivered (Fabian, 2013). for coastaldefensebenefits, they rarely assessedwhether defense. Even whenthepractitioners plannedprojects spondents (20%)reported planningprojects forcoastal onmultiplerestorationported projects. Few re survey - es from 53coral reef restoration practitioners. Many re - livered by reef restoration projects andreceived respons - toassessthebenefitsbeingmonitoredal survey andde- not withoutitschallenges. We recently conductedaglob- building atraditional tropical breakwater, theprocess is Though structural reef restoration canbecheaperthan al., 2010). 2005; Mumby etal.,2007;Maina etal.,2013;Haisfield et duced through effective management(Gardner etal., damage,ing andstorm whentheselocalthreats are re- more resilient tolarge-scale disturbances, suchas bleach- coral reef systems. Coral reefs have beenshown tobe fishing andsedimentation,to reduce thepressure on abating themore manageablelocalthreats, suchasover more now tomitigaterisk costeffective inthelongrun by 2007; Maina etal.,2013;Haisfield etal.,2010). It maybe better management(Gardner etal.,2005;Mumby etal., rect ofreef drivers degradation canbemitigatedthrough 2005; Mumby etal.,2007).Additionally, many ofthedi- Pandolfi etal.,2011;Anthony Gardner etal., and site-specific(Barshis etal.,2013; Hughes etal., 2012; effects oftemperature willbespecies- andsealevel rise will survive, butthere isreason forsomeoptimism. The change projections, there aboutwhetherreefs isconcern Given increased development pressure andclimate on causality. cial defenses, but onlyafewdirect studies development, reef degradation- andinvestments inartifi are inferred relationships between increases incoastal tropical nations, includingMexico andIndonesia, there of reefs forcoastaldefense. analysis wouldlikelyaddtotherelative costeffectiveness considerations ofmaintenancecostsinafullbenefit:cost tively newfield. Theadditionofecosystembenefitsand structures,artificial but reef restoration isstillacompara- and thuslower maintenancecostsascompared with living structures, reefs have thepotentialforself-repair practices toproject success. hasoftenbeencritical As issues. Enforcement ofregulations againstdestructive that includesedimentation,bleachingandwaterquality ment, politicalproblems anddirect threats tothereefs successful reef restoration includeineffective manage- costs aftertheseevents. Other significantchallengesfor high-energy events andtherecovery and timeperiods roughness onwave attenuation,reef failure pointsduring should includetheeffectsofrestored reef depthand fense benefitsdelivered by reef restoration projects systematically measured. A full analysisofcoastalde- 4 - millions of people along the world’s coastlines and aligns Conclusion well with the goals of disaster risk reduction. Coral reef A management focus on coral reefs for risk reduction will restoration and protection provide measurable reduc- require changes within both the conservation and disas- tions in both components of risk—exposure and vulner- ter risk reduction communities and will require collabo- ability—through provisioning of coastal defense and nat- ration between coastal engineers, ecologists and policy ural capital, respectively. In addition, restoring reefs is makers. Conservation efforts historically focused on cor- significantly cheaper than building artificial breakwaters als reefs in remote areas because these reefs experience in tropical environments. The conservation and disaster 45 minimal human-driven stressors. Though restoring and risk reduction communities can and should adjust and | Coasts A maintaining coral reefs closer to the people who depend align their efforts to ensure that the coastal nations that upon and benefit from them is not without its challenges, benefit and depend on coral reefs can continue to do so t Risk investing in these reefs has the potential to reduce risk to in a changing world.

References

Anthony, K.R.N., Kleypas, J.A. & Gattuso, J.P. (2011). Coral Burke, L., Selig, E., Spalding, M. (2002). Reefs at Risk in reefs modify their seawater carbon chemistry - impli- Southeast Asia. World Resources Institute (WRI), cations for impacts of ocean acidification. Glob. Washington, DC. http://www.wri.org/ publication/ Change Biol. 17, 3655-3666. reefs-risk-southeast-asia.

Armono, H.D. & Hall, K.R. (2003). Wave transmission on Burke L.M., Maidens J. (2004). Reefs at Risk in the submerged breakwaters made of hollow hemispheri- Caribbean. World Resources Institute, Washington cal shape artificial reefs. Canadian Coastal D.C. Conference, Kingston, Ontario, 1-13. Burke L., Greenhalgh S., Prager D., Cooper E. (2008). Barbier, E.B., Koch, E.W., Silliman, B.R., Hacker, S.D., Coastal capital: economic valuation of coral reefs in Wolanski, E., Primavera, J., et al. (2008). Coastal eco- Tobago and St. Lucia. World Resources Institute: system-based management with nonlinear ecologi- Washington, D.C. cal functions and values. Science. 319, 321-323. Calabrese, M., Vicinanza, D. & Buccino, M. (2008). 2D Barshis, D.J., Ladner, J.T., Oliver, T.A., Seneca, F.o.O., wave setup behind submerged breakwaters. Ocean Traylor-Knowles, N. & Palumbi, S.R. (2013). Genomic Engineering. 35, 1015-1028. basis for coral resilience to climate change. Proc. Carleton C., Lawrence K.S. (2005). Economic Valuation of Natl. Acad. Sci. 110, 1387-1392. Environmental Resource Services in the Turks and Berg, H., Ohman, M.C., Troeng, S., Linden, O. (1998). Caicos Islands. Prepared for the Government of the Environmental Economics of Coral Reef Destruction Turks and Caicos Islands by Nautilus Consultants in Sri Lanka. Ambio 27(8), 627-634. Ltd., Peebles, UK.

Brown, B.E. & Dunne, R.P. (1988). The environmental Cesar H., Burke L. and Pet-Soede L. (2003). The econom- impact of coral mining on coral reefs in the Maldives. ics of worldwide coral reef degradation. WWF, Environ. Conserv. 15, 159-165. ICRAN. http://pdf.wri.org/cesardegradationre- port100203.pdf. Burcharth, H.F. & Hughes, S.A. Fundamentals of design. In: Hughes SA, Szuwalski A (eds) (2011). Coastal Clark, S. & Edwards, A.J. (1999). An evaluation of artificial Engineering Manual 1110-2-1100. (U.S. Army Corps reef structures as tools for marine habitat rehabilita- of Engineers, Washington, DC, 6, 1-363). tion in the Maldives. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 9, 5-21. 46 Coasts At Risk | Haisfield, K.M., Fox, H.E., Yen, S., Mangubhai, S.& Mous, Gustavson, K.(1998). Values associatedwiththeLocal Goreau, T.J. &Hilbertz, W. (2005).Marine ecosystemres- M., K.,Kirwan, Gedan, Wolanski, E.,Barbier, E.& Gardner, T.A., Cote, I.M.,Gill, J.A.,Grant, A.& Watkinson, Frihy, O.E., Fanos, A.M.,Khafagy, A.A.&AbuAesha, K.A. Fox, H.E.,Mous, P.J., Pet, J.S.,Muljadi, A.H.&Caldwell, Ferrario, F., Beck, M.W., Storlazzi, C.D., Micheli, F., Fabian, R.,Beck, M.,Potts, D.C. (2013).Reef Restoration Cooper E.,Burke L.,Bood N.(2009).Coastal capital: Conservation Letters. 3,243-250. of coral reef rehabilitation relative toenforcement. P.J. (2010).Anounce ofprevention: cost-effectiveness Bank, WashingtonD.C. andtheCaribbean Region,America (LCSES). World Sustainable Development Sector Latin Department, Prepared forthe Environmentally andSocially Use oftheMontego Bay Marine Park. Report Resource Review. 17, 375-409. toration: costsandbenefitsforcoral reefs. World Change. 106,7-29. recentanswering challenges totheparadigm. Clim. coastal wetland vegetation inprotecting shorelines: Silliman, B. (2010). The present andfuture role of decline. Ecology. 86,174-184. Impacts, recovery patterns, androle inlong-term A.R. (2005).Hurricanes and Caribbean coral reefs: Letters. 16,324-329. Hurghada, Red northern Sea, Egypt. Geo-Marine (1996). Human impactsonthecoastal zone of 19, 98-107. rehabilitation following blastfishing. Conserv. Biol. assessmentofcoralR.L. (2005).Experimental reef 3794 doi:10.1038/ncomms4794. aptation. Nature Communications number: 5,Article coral reefs forcoastalhazard reduction risk andad- Shepard ,C.C.,Airoldi, L.(2014). The effectiveness of The Nature Conservancy. for Coastal Defense: AReview. Internal Report for Washington, D.C. reefs andmangroves. World Resources Institute: Belize. ofBelize’sThe economiccontribution coral Rao N.S.,Carruthers T.J.B., AndersonP., Sivo L.,Saxby T., Pandolfi, J.M., Connolly, S.R., Marshall, D.J. & Cohen, A.L. O’Garra, T. (2012).Economic valuation ofatraditional Mumby, P.J., Hastings, A.&Edwards, H.J.(2007). Moran, D.K., Salles, P., Sanchez, J.C.&Espinal,(2007). McKee Smith, J.,Jensen, R.E., Kennedy, A.B., J.C. Dietrich, Maina, J.,deMoel, H.,Zinke, J.,Madin, J.,McClanahan, T. Knight, D., Mitchell, B. & Wall, G.(1997).Bali: sustainable Irtem, E.,Seyfioglu, E.& Kabdasli, S.(2011). Hughes, T.P., Baird, A.H.,Dinsdale, E.A.,Moltschaniwskyj, Programme. Apia, Samoa: SPREP. Secretariat ofthePacific Regional Environment Republic oftheFiji Islands. Atechnicalreport by the for climatechangeadaptation inLami Town, options system-based adaptationand engineering Durbin, T. etal.(2013). Aneconomicanalysisofeco- 418-422. andoceanacidification.Science.warming 333, (2011). Projecting coral reef futures under global Coastal Management. 56,44-55. fishing ground onthe Coral Coast in Fiji. Ocean and reefs. Nature. 450,98-101. Thresholds andtheresilience ofCaribbean coral 2279-2291. States, Society American ofCivilEngineers, sediment process, New Orleans, Louisiana,United andscienceofcoastal sium oncoastalengineering Quintana Roo, Mexico. Sixth sympo- international evolutionBeach intheCancun nourishment beach, Shanghai,Engineering, China. Gustav. International Conference onCoastal & Westerink, J.J.(2010). Waves inwetlands: hurricane tion oncoral reefs. Nat. Commun. 4,1986. weighs future climatechangeimpactsofsedimenta- & Vermaat, J.E.(2013).Human deforestation out- Ambio 26,90-96. andcoastalmanagement. development, tourism Coast. Res. SI64,516-520. merged breakwaters height.J. ontsunamirun-up investigationExperimental ontheeffectsofsub- steep climaticgradient. Curr. Biol. 22,736-741. ofreefAssembly rules corals are flexiblealonga N.A., Pratchett, M.S., Tanner, J.E.,etal.(2012). Sheppard, C., Dixon, D.J., Gourlay, M., Sheppard, A. & Zhang, K., Liu, H., Li, Y., Xu, H., Shen, J., Rhome, J., et al. Payet, R. (2005). Coral mortality increases wave en- (2012). The role of mangroves in attenuating storm ergy reaching shores protected by reef flats: examples surges. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science. 102-103, from the Seychelles. Estuar. Coast. Shelf. Sci. 64, 11-23. 223-234.

Shepard, C.C., Crain, C.M. & Beck, M.W. (2011). The protective role of coastal marshes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE. 6, e27374. 47 | Coasts A Spurgeon, J . (1999). The socio-economic costs and benefits of coastal habitat rehabilitation and creation. Bulletin of Marine Science 37(8), 373-382. t Risk

Spurgeon, J.P.G. & Lindhal, U. (2000). Economics of coral reef restoration. In: Cesar HSJ (ed). Collected Essays on the Economics of Coral Reefs. (CORDIO, Department for Biology and Environmental Sciences, Kalmar University, Kalmar, Sweden, 125-136).

Spurgeon, J., Roxburgh, T. (2005). A blueprint for maxi- mising sustainable coastal benefits: the American Samoa case study. Proceedings of the 10th International Coral Reef Symposium, Okinawa, Japan. 1218-1226. van Beukering, P., Haider, W., Wolfs, E., Liu, Y., van der Leeuw, K., Longland, M., et al. (2006). The economic value of the coral reefs of Saipan, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. NOAA National Oceanographic Data Center, Coral Reef Conservation Program Report. van Beukering, P. (Ed.) (2007). The economic value of Guam’s reefs. University of Guam Marine Laboratory Technical Report No. 116. 10.

Wells, S., Ravilious, C. & Corcoran, E. (2006). In the front line: shoreline protection and other ecosystem services from mangroves and coral reefs. (UNEP- WCMC, Cambridge, UK, 36).

Whittingham E., Campbell J., Townsley P. (2003). Poverty and Reefs, Volume 1: A global overview. DFID-IMM- UNESCO, Paris, France. 260 pp.

Zanuttigh, B., Losada, I. & Thompson, R. (2010). Ecologically based approach to coastal defence design and planning. In: McKee Smith J, Lynett P (eds). International Conference on Coastal Engineering, Shanghai, China. 48 Coasts At Risk | Credit: James Tobey, CRC alongA fisherman The Gambian coastline. 49 | | Coasts A 5. Marine Fisheries, Social Coasts A t Risk t Risk Vulnerability and Risk

BY Vera N. Agostini and Shawn W. Margles

ost of the world’s coastal communities depend on fish and fish-related industries for food and jobs. An estimated 660-820 million people depend on fish (both from wild Mcapture and aquaculture) for their livelihoods, and nearly 3 billion people rely on fish as an important source of animal protein (FAO, 2012). Fish and fishery products are among the most traded food commodities worldwide and account for about 10% of total agricultural exports and 37 percent by volume of world production traded internationally (FAO, 2012).

This chapter examines

1. the links between fisheries2 and the social vulnerability and risk to coastal communities from coastal hazards,

2. the role that integrated vulnerability assessments play in evaluating and managing risk and

3. the need to develop targeted solutions to help reduce risks to fisheries.

This examination focuses on connections between fisheries and social vulnerability, specifically in the context of disaster risk reduction and adaptation. The objective is to understand linkages in this context and to examine where fisheries focused activities 50 Coasts At Risk | “Fish-Seafood”and freshwater fishwereremovedfromcalculations (FAO, 2013). category 3 Dataforproteinconsumption inalltablesandfiguresisanaverage fortheyears2006-2009(g/person/day); datawasdownloadedfromtheFishStat FoodSupplydatabaseforthe 2 Throughoutthischapterwefocusexclusively onmarine-capturefisheriesunlessotherwisespecified. 4.5 g/person/dayoffishprotein consumed by humans, directly fisheries 2009 marine accountedforanaverage of capturemarine andjobs. fishfornutrition From 2006- andheavilydependon people live incoastalcountries global populationofmore than7billion,over 6billion ing andmanagingoverall from coastalhazards. risk Ofa andsocialvulnerabilitytween fisheries central toevaluat- and coastaleconomiesmakesaddressing thelinksbe- tolivelihoods, The significanceoffisheries foodsecurity 5.1 adaptation managementcontexts. are thatfisheries and itiscritical betterappreciatedrisk in reduction andclimate Allison etal.,2009). These approaches are allrelevant indifferent managementcontexts, improving resilience (e.g., Barsley etal.,2013;Monnerau etal.,2013;Cinneral,2011; management targets and orinbroadly examiningsocial-ecologicallinksinfisheries and future coastalhazards. Many otherapproaches focusfirstonmeetingfishery could reduce socialvulnerability reduction asacomponentofdisasterrisk from current In additiontoaconsideration ofhowrisk affect fisheries includingnaturalany perturbation hazards. impact theunderlyingvulnerability ofcommunitiesto and protein diets, available tosupport whichcanseverely munities. generate Lossestofisheries lossesinlivelihoods vulnerability ofcoastalcom- toclimateanddisasterrisk consider whendeveloping strategies toreduce social figures vulnerability to isimportant suggestthatfishery atgreatestsome ofthecountries (Table risk 11). These (FAO, 2014), andthesejobsare in important particularly anaveragetribute ofmore than11millionjobsglobally protein consumption (Figure con- 27).Marine fisheries moderate scores and highdisasterrisk rely onfishfor (Figurecoastal countries 27).Many with ofthecountries andnearly25%forthetop25mostat-risk countries fish (Figure 27). Thefigure jumpsto over 16%forcoastal the dailyanimalprotein from intakewasderived marine 26). Globally, over approximately thesameperiod, 13%of (Figuredaily animalprotein intakeforsomecountries with maximumconsumptionreaching almost70%ofthe Fisheries, socialvulnerabilityandexposure 3

risk ofcoastalcommunities.risk toreducinggeted coastalhabitatscancontribute overall includes measures toimprove fishingpractices ontar al communities. Appropriate resource management that inevaluating andmanaging fisheries overallrisk tocoast- ofexaminingthelinksbetween exposureportance and tocoastalcommunities.services This highlightstheim- plexity ofthereef anditsabilitytoprovide protective coral reefs canalsohave impactsonthestructural com - blasting). The removal ofgrazers suchasparrotfish from practices fishinggear(e.g., thatusedestructive dynamite sure tocoastalhazards canbecompromised by fishery the abilityofhabitatssuchascoral reefs to reduce expo- Fishing practices canindirectly For affectrisk. example, ties (Sumaila etal.,2011). livelihoods andtheoverall economyofcoastalcommuni- ing capacityandaccesstomarkets, affectingbothlocal loss ofinfrastructure oftenleads toadecrease- inharvest facilitiesandroads.landing sites, post-harvesting This can destroy orseverely damage assetssuchasboats, coastal communities. Storm andsevere weather events fishing operations andthephysicalinfrastructure of 2010). These sameevents canalsohave direct impactson (Cheungetal., productivity andspeciesdistributions tensity ofextreme climaticevents canaffectfishhabitat, ways. For example, theincreasing frequency and/or in- extreme weather of ina eventsvariety impactfisheries alsomustbeconsidered.on fisheries Climatechangeand from coastalhazards, thegreat effectofcoastalhazards - 51 | Coasts A t Risk

Percent Animal Protein From Fish g/person/day classification according to the quantile method 0.0 - 2.7 2.8 - 6.5 6.6 - 11.2 11.3 - 20.3 20.4 - 68.7 No data

Figure 26: Dependence on marine fish for animal protein. Figure shows percent of daily marine fish protein in diets as a proportion of the total daily animal protein in grams per person per day. Data source: FAO.

Country Total 2012 Number of C@R Index Population Fishing Jobs Rank

China 1,350,695,000 2,570,274 medium Indonesia 246,864,191 1,640,705 high India 1,236,686,732 1,011,471 high Viet Nam 88,775,500 944,788 very high Burma 52,797,319 513,879 high Brazil 198,656,019 497,819 medium Taiwan 23,315,000 406,475 not included in C@R Philippines 96,706,764 365,141 very high Nigeria 168,833,776 294,558 low Thailand 66,785,001 220,813 medium

Table 11: Top 10 countries with the highest number of fishing jobs and the C@R Index ranking. Fishing jobs include marine and subsistence fishing (see http://www.ehs.unu.edu/CoastsatRisk for methods for calculating fishing jobs). Data sources: World Bank and FAO. 52 Coasts At Risk | classification accordingtothequantilemethod Max. coastalrisk=1 Legend dependence onmarinefish foranimalprotein. Global andregionalC@Rcountry Figure 27 theWorld Bank). is509,255,857(oneC@Rcountry, Tonga, didnothavenutrition reportfishproteinconsumptiondatatoFAO(176countries). 3 2 1 C@R Index Average Score:Very High 11.78 13.25 C@R IndexAverage Score:N/A GLOBAL BankpopulationfiguresforC@Rcountrieswhichcorresponding Total populationforthetop25mostatriskcoastalcountries Thisnumberreflectstotal2012populationforcountriesthat Regionalpopulationfiguresinthisillustrationreflect2012World and theCaribbean North America,CentralAmerica Countries withnoproteinconsumptiondatawereremoved FAO 2006-2009averageproteinconsumptiondataexists. from totalpopulationandaverageriskscorecalculations. data fromFAO eventhoughithaspopulationdatafrom 1 1 No data Very High High Medium Low Very Low % % 3.25% 1.78% averagedailyproteinintakefromfish averagedailyprotein intakefromfish 6,838,522,561

550,845,900

2 C@R IndexAverage Score:High 11.0 South America C@R IndexAverage scoreof C@Rtop25isVery High 24.07% TOP 25MOSTAT RISKCOASTAL COUNTRIES 1 2 24.07% % 1.02% averagedailyprotein intakefromfish averagedailyproteinintakefromfish 509,150,9163 385,072,196 3 C@R IndexAverage Score:Very 34 Oceania % averagedailyprotein intakefromfish 34% 29,077,977

High C@R IndexAverage Score:Medium 9.92 Europe % 9.92% averagedailyprotein intakefromfish 675,127,467 percentage oftheirdailytotalanimalproteinintake grams/person/day) andthenumberofpeoplethatdependonmarinefishfora a proportionoftotalanimalproteininat-riskcoastalcountries(percent This figureshowsgloballyandregionallythemarinefishproteinindietsas C@R values.Datasources:World BankandFAO, 2013. C@R IndexAverage Score:High 16.9 Asia 16.91% 1% averagedailyprotein intakefromfish 3,978,833,779 20.96 C@R IndexAverage Score:High Africa 20.96% 1 . Themapcolorsindicate % averagedailyprotein intakefromfish

729,161,947 Legend Max. coastal risk = 1 classification according to the quantile method Very Low Low Medium High Very High No data

53 | Coasts A t Risk

13.25%

GLOBAL 6,838,522,5612 13.25% average daily protein intake from fish C@R Index Average Score: N/A 24.07% 1 Regional population figures in this illustration reflect 2012 World Bank population figures for C@R countries for which corresponding FAO 2006-2009 average protein consumption data exists. Countries with no protein consumption data were removed from total population and average risk score calculations. TOP 25 MOST AT RISK COASTAL COUNTRIES 2 This number reflects total 2012 population for countries that report fish protein consumption data to FAO (176 countries). 3 3 Total population for the top 25 most at risk coastal countries 509,150,9163 is 509,255,857 (one C@R country, Tonga, did not have nutrition data from FAO even though it has population data from 24.07% average daily protein intake from fish the World Bank). C@R Index Average score of C@R top 25 is Very High

Figure 27 This figure shows globally and regionally the marine fish protein in diets as a proportion of total animal protein in at-risk coastal countries (percent Global and regional C@R country grams/person/day) and the number of people that depend on marine fish for a percentage of their daily total animal protein intake1. The map colors indicate dependence on marine fish for animal protein. C@R values. Data sources: World Bank and FAO, 2013.

11.78% 11.02% 34% 9.92% 16.91% 20.96%

North America, Central America South America Oceania Europe Asia Africa and the Caribbean 385,072,196 29,077,977 675,127,467 3,978,833,779 729,161,947 550,845,900 11.02% average daily protein intake from fish 34% average daily protein intake from fish 9.92% average daily protein intake from fish 16.91% average daily protein intake from fish 20.96% average daily protein intake from fish 11.78% average daily protein intake from fish C@R Index Average Score: High C@R Index Average Score: Very High C@R Index Average Score: Medium C@R Index Average Score: High C@R Index Average Score: High C@R Index Average Score: Very High 54 Coasts At Risk | t 5.3 management. around adaptation anddisasterrisk sectoraccessfundingandpolicylevers the fisheries reductionmate anddisasterrisk solutions;and4)help nities; 3)leadtobetter- targeted and more effective cli- between thesectorandoverall ofcoastalcommu- risk vulnerability;2)highlightthelinks standing offisheries This typeofapproach can:1)provide abetterunder across sectors.outlined inChapter2,thatexaminerisk ofconductingassessments,importance suchastheone tomanyfactorsandhighlightsthe communities atrisk socially andpoliticallymarginalized. This putsthese makingthesecommunitieseconomically,social services, areas withpooraccesstoinfrastructure, markets and Many fishingcommunities are spreadrural across coastal related resources where theyare mostneeded. andallowdisaster risk decisionmakerstofocusrisk- communities thatare most vulnerable toclimateand Vulnerability assessmentsare excellent toolstoidentify ies andaquaculture (e.g., seeBarsley etal.,2013). making thecaseforassessingvulnerability withinfisher onand phies anddisciplinesdocumentingexperiences There isagrowing bodyofwork across arange ofgeogra- v 5.2 funding streams thatincludethoseforclimate adaptation some casesisimpedingtheability tocapitalize onnew from effectively adaptingtoachangingfuture andin able fisheries, however, sector itisdelayingthefisheries sures aspectsof sustain- acontinuedfocusonimportant stressors andimproving governance. This approach en- statements aboutbuildingresilience through reducing risk andadaptationtends to focusongeneral fisheries To date, capture mostofthediscussionaround marine of climatechangeandmeteorological hazards. change andincrease theiradaptive capacitiesintheface flow ofgoodsandservices, reduce theirsensitivityto can adapttheirresource-use tomaintainthe patterns document how resources peopledependentonmarine Additional arerisk. efforts neededtounderstandand inthefaceofclimateanddisaster managing fisheries Vulnerability assessmentsare firststepin animportant owards identifyingdisasterriskreductionsolutionsforfisheries ulnerability assessments and fisheries ulnerability assessmentsandfisheries - - portunities andchallengesofclimatechange.portunities resilience, andtherefore, itsabilitytorespond tothe op- sectorbuilditssocio-ecological will helpthefisheries specifically targeted solutions. Thesetypesofsolutions thedevelopment of andsupport this kindofinformation capacity. vulnerability Afisheries assessmentcansupply aspectofadaptive facilitate socialcohesion—acritical cooperative)nisms (suchasafunctioningfisheries to grounds; andthefishingcommunitiesthatlackmecha- impact distancesbetween landingsitesandfishing thatmay mate-induced changesinfishstockdistribution severe orclimateevents suchasbleaching;cli- storms habitatsthatcouldbeimpacted fisheries the critical by infrastructurevalue fisheries event;risk from astorm at vulnerabilityA fisheries assessmentcanidentifythehigh- vulnerability assessment. can beevaluated withtheassistanceofacross-sectoral stresses communitiesfacethat fishingandfish-farming andchangeareClimate variability amongthevarious solutions todecrease tocoastal climateanddisaster risk potential stepin identifying anddescribing important vulnerabilitytially explicitfisheries assessmentsisan of typessolutionsare provided. The inclusion ofspa- developing more tailored solutions, andsomeexamples role thatspatialvulnerability assessmentcanplayin al., (2009)andShelton (2014).Here thefocusison exists.eries Some examplesare provided inCochran et vulnerability ofcoastalcommunitiesby addressing fish- A numberofpossiblesolutionstohelpdecrease the vulnerabilityfisheries challengemustbedeveloped. geted solutionsaimedataddressing specificpiecesofthe adaptationintothe future, fisheries support more tar ient toclimatechange. However, inorder toeffectively tobemoreing oceanusesclearlywillhelpafishery resil- pollution,habitatdegradationing, marine andcompet- or hazard mitigation.Reducing stresses suchasoverfish- - communities. A spatial assessment can highlight particu- of a fisheries vulnerability assessment (e.g., where the lar weak points in a fishery within a climate and disaster most climate resilient fishing grounds and habitats can risk context. Management solutions specifically designed be found), are examples of measures that could enable to address highlighted weak points can then guide sus- a fishery to effectively adapt. Furthermore, a full under- tainable practices that have a chance of withstanding the standing of what contributes to the social vulnerability of impacts of current and future coastal hazards including a fisheries, for example the degree or lack of social cohe- climate change. For example, fishers can adapt to cli- sion within a community, can enable the design of adap- mate-induced shifts in species distributions by switching tation strategies (e.g., development of fisher networks in target species, gear type or accessing a variety of fishing specific communities) that are tailored to overcome weak 55 | grounds (Sumaila et al., 2011). Tools such as marine spa- points highlighted by spatial vulnerability assessments. Coasts A tial planning, zoning and marine protected area networks specifically designed to take into account the outputs t Risk

5.4 Conclusion

Examining fisheries within a risk and adaptation context Mainstreaming fisheries in the leads to the following set of recommendations to help climate policy discussions strengthen the sector’s ability to prepare, adapt and re- Given the dependency of coastal communities on fish spond to climate and disaster risks: and fish-related industries to provide nutrition and jobs, addressing fisheries within the wider climate and disaster Expanding the fisheries risk context will increase not only the adaptive capacity of management lens the fisheries sector but of coastal communities overall. However, in contrast with agriculture and freshwater, Fisheries management has historically focused on re- fisheries have been largely ignored in climate policy dis- source enhancement by examining socio-economic and cussions (Dulvy et al., 2009). There is a need to main- ecological drivers of sustainable access to resources. An stream fisheries considerations in these discussions. expanded lens, such as the one provided by the ecosys- Vulnerability assessments such as the one discussed tem approach to fisheries that also includes overall risk above can be a good vehicle for this. They will help the management and adaptation considerations, could lead fisheries sector come to the table with a specific set of to new partnerships (e.g., with aid groups), new and re- needs and recommendations related to risk and facilitate fined funding investment strategies and better buy-in conversations between fisheries and other development towards fisheries management from sectors not tradi- sectors, ultimately enabling participation of the fisheries tionally focused on fisheries (e.g. conservation). sector in the broader adaptation planning processes. Developing strategies for fisheries management in countries most at risk could bring to the table new financial resources (e.g., ability to access adaptation funding for Integrating fisheries into an overall fisheries and aquaculture) and help diversify the portfolio cross-sectoral response of current investments in conservation. In addition, cur- Risk reduction and adaptation planning and manage- rent fisheries management strategies could obtain wider ment, which operate across the ecological and socio- buy-in if outcomes were described as wide reaching with economic spectrum of risk, will play a critical role in impacts beyond the fisheries sector (i.e., connected to guiding recommendations supporting long-term resil- wider coastal risk management goals such as disaster iency of fisheries and coastal communities. They also management). hold great promise to deliver effective adaptation strategies for fisheries. Spatial vulnerability assessments such as the C@R Index offer great vehicles for cross-sectoral planning and management. This type of planning and 56 Coasts At Risk | F OPPORTUNITES ANDCHALLENGES GLOBAL INDCA P P P P ing informed andresponsibleing informed useoftheseindicators. The following toreaching couldcontribute thesegoals: a result, shouldcontinuetobegiven tostrengthening priority existingindicators, fillingexistinggapsandpromot - policy, role inshapingimportant indicatorsplayacritical Global fisheries development andfundingdecisions. As and great care wastakentousetheindicatorsasintended. poses different thantheones forwhichtheywere patterns intendedcanleadtomisleadingorspurious originally (FAO, indicators were 2012)andtheC@Rfishery basedonthese. Anymanipulationofexistingindicatorsfor pur indicatorschallenging.Anumberofstrong globalindicatorsforfisheries assembling globalfisheries are available sues suchasdataavailability, misreporting orlackofreporting country andaccesstoexistingindicators, make Regardless atthegloballevel iscomplex.Anumberof- fisheries oftheapplication,usingindicatorstodescribe Index torepresentrisks ofnatural playinthe rolehazards thatfisheries theimportant tocoastalcommunities.

bles a select set of global fisheries indicatorsandusestheminconjunctionwithothertheC@R bles aselectsetofglobalfisheries date theyhave beenmainlyusedtoassessthestatusofoceanresources andmanagement. This report assem- role inraising indicatorsplayacritical andtrends.isheries awareness patterns globalfisheries ofimportant To problems. not alwaysclear. In order tofacilitateproper shouldbegiven toremedy useofindicators, priority these indicators areExisting fisheries notalwayseasytoaccess, andthe methodologies usedtoassemblethemare Facilitate accesstoexisting globalindicators indicator efforts. versa. There are thatare opportunities important lostduetothelimitedexchange between localandglobal how indicatorsdeveloped withinalocalcontext could translate toaglobalorregional scale contextandvice challenges thatscalingupordown indicatorspresent, more shouldbefocusedonexamining effort by suggest what ismostrelevant theseefforts atthisscaleand provide adifferent perspective. Despite the tors (Cinneretal.,2011,2013;McClanahan andCinner, 2011;Monnerau etal.,2013). The indicatorsdeveloped and impactatthenationallocallevel. There isastrong bodyofwork related tolocalandnationalindica- the globalandregional level. However, the indicatorsfrom theseassessmentsalsohave practical application Global assessmentsare policyagendasat mainlyutilized thediscussionandformulate astoolstohelpdrive Develop thataregrounded indicators atthelocallevel tion decisions. risk are adaptationand managementingeneral tosupport reduc- andparticularly toeffectively assessfishery and economicindicators. withsocialindicatorsif we alsoneedstobedescribed The statusofthesefisheries isalinkedsocialandecologicalsystem.A fishery isdescribedTo datethestatusofmostfisheries byecological Develop ofsocio-economicstatusandtrends indicators stocks are assessed. (i.e.,jor limitationsintheirabilitytomonitorfisheries data-poorstocks)andforwhichalimitednumberof There thathave are ma- countries forsomeofthemostat-risk significantgapsintheseindicatorsparticularly Ecological indicatorsare intheassessmentofstatusfisheries critical resources andtheirmanagement. Continue tostrengthenecologicalindicators : TORS FORFISHERIES: - management has been recommended previously (e.g., in the strategies for tropical countries should prioritize planning ecosystem approach to fisheries), and lessons learned from and adapting to fisheries declines. those efforts will be critical in helping to guide successful implementation within a risk and adaptation context. Understanding the relationship between marine habitats and food Supporting the development of security forecasting tools and applications Research efforts examining links between marine habi- 57

The ability to incorporate future projections into risk |

tats and food security need to be prioritized. A better Coasts A management strategies is growing. For fisheries, this will understanding of the links between marine and coastal mean being able to project the abundance and distribu-

habitats and food security would help drive restoration t Risk tion of fish resources into the future given climate projec- and habitat management investments to benefit fisher- tions. The science in this arena is relatively young, and ies. There are parallels to the work on habitat restoration few examples exist of how to integrate these climate fore- and coastal defense, where ecological, economic and casts into management. Research on projected impacts engineering research are all identifying where and how to fish stocks and tools to integrate this information into fisheries and resource management should be prioritized. coastal habitats can contribute substantively to reducing For example, current projections (Cheung et al., 2013) note exposure to wave, surge and sea level rise. The research that tropical countries are predicted to see greater declines on these exposure reduction linkages is now helping to in fisheries productivity compared to temperate countries. drive risk reduction and adaptation investments. These The C@R Index shows that these tropical countries are the benefits could also be achieved by similar work on ma- most at risk. This suggests that overall risk management rine habitats, fish and food security.

References

Allison, E.H., Perry, A.L., Badjeck, M.C., Adger, W.N., Cinner, J.E., McClanahan, T.R., Graham, N.A.J., Daw, T.M., Brown, K., Conway, D., Halls, A.S., Pilling, G.M., Maina, J., Stead, S.M., Wamukota, A., Brown, K., and Reynolds, J.D., Andrew, N.L., and N. Dulvy (2009). Bodin,O. (2011). Vulnerability of coastal communi- “Vulnerability of national economies to the impacts ties to key impacts of climate change on coral reef of climate change on fisheries.” Fish and Fisheries. fisheries. Global Environmental Change. 22:12-20. 10: 173–196. Cinner, J., McClanahan, T., Wamukota, A., Darling, E., Barsley, W., De Young, C., and Brugère, C. (2013). Humphries, A., Hicks, C., Huchery, C., Marshall, N., Vulnerability assessment methodologies: an anno- Hempson, T., Graham, N., Bodin, Ö., Daw, T. and tated bibliography for climate change and the fisher- Allison, E. (2013). Social-ecological vulnerability of ies and aquaculture sector. FAO Fisheries and coral reef fisheries to climatic shocks. FAO Fisheries Aquaculture Circular No. 1083. Rome, FAO. 43. and Aquaculture Circular No. 1082. Rome, FAO. 63 pp.

Cheung, W.W.L, Lam, V.W.Y, Sarmiento, J.L., Watson, Cochrane, K.; De Young, C.; Soto, D.; Bahri, T. (eds). K.K.R., Zeller, D.R.K. and Pauly, D. (2013). Large scale (2009). Climate change implications for fisheries and redistribution of maximum fisheries catch potential aquaculture: overview of current scientific knowl- in the global ocean under climate change. Global edge. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Change Biology 16:24-35. Paper. No. 530. Rome, FAO. 212. 58 Coasts At Risk | Garcia, Serge M.,ed.(2003).Theecosystemapproach to FAO (2014).Global numbersoffishersdatabase. FAO FAO andAquaculture (2014).Fishery Statistics. Global FAO (2012).Review oftheState of World Fisheries and Dulvy, N.,andAllison,E.(2009).Aplaceatthetable? De Young, C.,Soto, D., Bahri, T. andBrown, D. (2012). Food &Agriculture Org. foundations, implementationandoutlook.No. 443. fisheries: issues, terminology, principles, institutional org/fishery/statistics/global-fishers/en Statistics andInformation Service. http://www.fao. capture production 1950-2011(FishstatJ) Rome. Rome (Italy): FAO Fisheries209. Department. Aquaculture. Food andAgriculture Organization, Nature ClimateChange3:68-70. April 2012.Rome, FAO. 346. Proceedings ofaJoint FAO/OECD Workshop. 23–24 Climate ChangeintheAgriculture Sector. V. (eds.). Building Resilience forAdaptation to Meybeck, A.,Lankoski,J.,Redfern, N.,Gitz, S.,Azzu andaquaculturechangein thefisheries sector. In: Building resilience foradaptationtoclimate World Bank (2014). World Bank Database. http://data. Sumaila,U.R., Cheung, W.W. L.,Lam, V.W. Y., Pauly, D., and Shelton, C.(2014). ClimateChangeAdaptation in Monnereau, I.,R.Mahon, P. McConney andL.Nurse. McClanahan, T., Cinner, J.(2011). Vulnerabilities ofcoast- worldbank.org/. Climate Change.1-8 biophysics andeconomicsofworldfisheries. Nature Herrick, S.(2011).Climatechangeimpactsonthe Aquaculture Circular C1088.Roma, FAO. 34pp. Fisheries andAquaculture. FAO Fisheries and Technical Report No. 56.45pp. and the Wider Caribbean: earlyfindings. CERMES change impactsinSmall Island Developing States (2013). Vulnerability sectortoclimate ofthefisheries Climate Change. Oxford University Press. 67-83. Environment: Confronting theConsequences of al communities. In: Adapting toaChanging 59 | Coasts A t Risk

A fisherwoman with her harvest in Thailand. Credit: CRC 60 Coasts At Risk | A beachintheMarshall Islands. Credit: CRC 61 | 6. Recommendations for Coasts A Meeting Risk Reduction & t Risk Conservation Goals

BY Michael W. Beck

any prior papers and reports focus on recommendations for either risk reduction or conservation management goals (e.g., early warning systems for risk reduction M or protected areas for conservation). This report focuses on recommendations that are integrated across risk reduction and environmental conservation objectives and that can benefit both people and nature. Though the authors do not focus recommendations for single management goals, it supports many of them. This report generally assumes that actions in current risk reduction and conservation also foster future adaptation and identifies where this overlap is likely to be particularly important. There are several key findings and considerations raised in the report that help guide the recommendations. First, the nations most at risk overall are tropical and small island developing states. Second, environmental degradation increases vulnerability and exposure. Third, environmental conservation and restoration can reduce exposure and improve social vulnerability. It is increasingly clear that the role of environment and natural resources in risk and risk reduction should be accounted for. Lastly, it is highly likely that future coastal risks will increase with climate change, population growth and coastal development. Based on the findings, this report offers a series of recommendations relevant to policy-makers, scientists, conservationists and risk and hazard managers. 62 Coasts At Risk | P P focus theserestorationefforts existHabitat restorationcancontributetoriskreduction,andopportunities to P P better post-disasterdevelopment choices There isaneedtoincreaseriskprevention for measuresandopportunites rebuilding reef structure). restoration with structural restoration (i,e., efforts ation mustbegiven tocombiningspecies-focused benefit manypeople. Further, significantconsider may bemore degraded butitsrestoration would population density. The environment intheseareas more projects shouldbeaddedinareas withgreater (i.e., withlow populationdensity). To theseefforts, occurinremote efforts conservation areasmarine reduction. risk tively to support For example, many towork effec- need tochangesomeoftheirpriorities groupsEnvironment will agenciesandconservation ects inthefuture. will makeitharder toimplementwell-designed proj- will failtomeetgoals, maycreate newhazards and groves inplaceswhere they didnotpreviously occur) ment. Poorly conceived projects (e.g., plantingman- reductionand risk goalsinproject designandplace- attention mustbepaidtomeetingbothconservation Doing theserestoration projects well meanscareful thatarecountries from natural mostatrisk hazards. ration relevant isparticularly inthetropical, coastal reduction.cost-effective optionsforrisk This resto- Coral reef andmangrove restoration offersviableand tious aboutrebuilding inthehighestrisk, efforts ments andmulti-nationalfunderswere more cau- reduction goalsifnationalgovern andconservation - Many bothrisk post-disaster choicescouldsupport habitats andfisheries. therestoration couldalsosupport efforts ofcoastal reductionthese risk becausemanyofthese efforts groups shouldbecomemore active insupporting Many environmental agenciesandconservation push more thatisneeded. effectively forthesupport coalitions ofstakeholderagenciesandgroups could Larger andmoredifficult tosupport. coordinated actions are costeffective butthemost particularly It iswell known thatpre-disaster (i.e., prevention) - P P P disaster development choiceslater. tation (prevention) measures now andbetterpost- these nationsbuildadaptive capacitythrough adap- fisheries. Agreater commitmentisneededtohelp will create impactstopeople, further habitatsand arerisks settoincrease withclimatechange, which SIDS remain indices, atthetopofmost risk andtheir vulnerability. and efficientlyto reducing exposure andsocial measuresconservation effectively cancontribute accelerated asthere isgrowing evidence thatthese their work. The paceofthiswork canandshouldbe to incorporate jointenvironmental objectives in Many aidanddevelopment agenciesare beginning risk. marsh restoration couldalsocost-effectively reduce temperate countries, increased oyster reef andsalt coastal hazards (e.g., southeastFlorida, USA).In thathave someofthegreatestcountries exposure to ticularly relevant insomeoftheregions inthose mangrove restoration toreduce risks. These are par United States) forcoral have opportunities reef and Even large temperate (e.g., countries Chinaandthe coastal defense. could insteadberestored toofferabetterfirstlineof around heavilyimpactedwetlands. These habitats benefits astheselow-lying developments are often reduce andgenerate humanrisks environmental low-lying areas. In would manycasessuchprudence - Targeted research is needed on environmental risk reduction benefits to create better opportunities for investment

P Governments and multinational funders should de- needed. While current assessments clearly show that velop more integrated risk assessments that better conservation and restoration can make economic account for drivers of risk such as environmental sense, future science and demonstration projects can degradation. even more directly target the steps in the decision- making frameworks used by hazard managers, for 63 P Scientists (social, natural and economic) should ad- example in cost:benefit analyses of alternatives. | Coasts A vance research on the effects of environmental degradation on risk. Work in this area is increasing; it can be P Many nations have substantial critical infrastructure t Risk more quickly advanced. For example, there are mea- (e.g., ports, airports, power plants, sewage treatment sures of the effects of mangrove loss on communities plants) in low-lying and highly exposed areas; govern- during storms, but there are not many direct measures ments need to better account for how this affects of the effects of coral reef degradation on coastal ero- their national risk. This is an area where businesses sion and defense or on the connection between fisher- (e.g., insurance), aid and conservation groups could ies production and social vulnerability. work together to assess risk and identify priorities for risk reduction. Reasonable indicators of coastal infra- P More rigorous accounting for ecosystem services structure exposure could also be developed for future such as coastal protection and fisheries production is risk indices.

Leaders need to demand more cost-effective solutions and recognize opportunities to create sustainable investments in natural infrastructure

P Adaptation and development funders should en- P Nature-based risk reduction can be increasingly courage better mainstreaming of cost-effective solu- viewed as an opportunity for investment and busi- tions for risk reduction. Where natural solutions are ness. Sometimes conservation is depicted as bad for cost effective, they should become the more pre- business and development. Engineering firms can ferred alternatives. For example, when assessing the find business (and market niche) in designing na- cost effectiveness of solutions for coastal defense ture-based defenses. Construction firms and marine and adaptation, governments and multinational contractors can find business in developing restora- funders should ensure that nature-based defenses tion projects and creating local jobs. Risk modelers are considered by engineering and risk assessment can find business in assessing the cost effectiveness agencies and firms. This is already starting to hap- of nature-based alternatives as compared to other pen. Re-insurance firms such as Swiss Re already alternatives. assess the cost effectiveness of reef and mangrove restoration alongside built approaches for risk reduction. The Army Corp of Engineers and Deltares already have Engineering with Nature and Building with Nature initiatives, respectively, that are aimed at developing more nature-based coastal defense projects. Further, many engineering firms already work on building living shorelines projects. Nonetheless, many disincentives still need to be addressed over time, such as the fact that these greener approaches usually do not yet have engineering standards back- ing them. 64 Coasts At Risk | P P social vulnerabilityshouldberecognized Fisheries managementandresearch needtoimprove, toreduce andopportunities of current investments. applicationsandhelptodiversify theportfolio fisheries sources, e.g., abilitytoaccessadaptationfundingfor tothetablenewfinancial couldbring most atrisk re- oping strategies managementincountries forfisheries enhancement.Afocusforexampleondevel- fisheries ing investment strategies; andbetterbuy-in towards nerships (e.g., withaidgroups); new andrefined fund- and adaptationconsiderations- couldleadtonewpart expanded lensthatincludesoverall management risk ofsustainableaccesstoresources.logical drivers An enhancement by examiningsocio-economicandeco- Fisheries managementhasmostlyfocusedonresource reductionfrom arisk and adaptationviewpoint. beapproachedFisheries managementcanfruitfully andfoodsecurity.on fisheries ration forexposure reduction; are similarefforts needed andrestofor decision-makerstoinvest inconservation - science andfielddemonstrations makesitmucheasier ing exposure tocoastalhazards. The strength ofthis substantively toreduccoastal habitatscancontribute - researchand engineering hashelpedidentifyhow toration forcoastaldefensewhere ecological,economic security. There are parallels tothework onhabitatres - how tofocusonrestoration actionsthatenhancefood search actionsby willhelpdrive identifyingwhere and needtobeimproved.tats andfoodsecurity This re - Our understandingofthelinksbetween fisheries, habi- P P role in informing thesetrade-offs.role ininforming co-managementapproaches willplayacritical patory capacities). Better stockassessmentsandmore- partici stocks forthefuture (increasing copingandadaptive susceptibility) andmanagementtoimprove fisheries immediate accesstofishery resources (reducing current funding, tradeoffs willneedtobeconsidered between sectorgainsbetteraccesstoadaptation As thefisheries climate-related declinesinfisheries. is where mayfacethegreatest countries pressures from ate countries. Thus, where overall are risks thegreatest productivity thantemper often seedeclinesinfisheries Most ominously, tropical areas are predicted tomore crease inothers(reducing overall adaptive capacity). (addingtotheiradaptive capacity)andde- countries Fisheries productivity ispredicted toincrease insome towards countries. actionsinsomeofthemostat-risk Presentmate changeiscritical. research already points Further research andcli- onthelinkbetween fisheries -

Lack of Coping Lack of Adaptice NAME COAST at RISK Exposure Vulnerabililty Susceptibility Capacity Capacity Antigua and Barbuda 0,2702 0,5893 0,4584 0,3304 0,6052 0,4398 Tonga 0,2482 0,5108 0,4859 0,2823 0,7256 0,4497 Saint Kitts and Nevis 0,2366 0,5955 0,3973 0,2211 0,5854 0,3853 Vanuatu 0,1508 0,2392 0,6306 0,5053 0,8251 0,5613 Fiji 0,1254 0,2568 0,4884 0,2568 0,7470 0,4615 Brunei Darussalam 0,1093 0,2818 0,3878 0,1919 0,6011 0,3704 Bangladesh 0,1056 0,1878 0,5626 0,2706 0,7792 0,6381 Philippines 0,1003 0,2095 0,4786 0,2630 0,7298 0,4431 Seychelles 0,0851 0,1776 0,4791 0,3738 0,6113 0,4522 Kiribati 0,0830 0,1558 0,5329 0,4264 0,6713 0,5010 Belize 0,0779 0,1685 0,4622 0,2375 0,6624 0,4866 Cambodia 0,0737 0,1333 0,5533 0,3037 0,8178 0,5385 Bahamas 0,0701 0,1717 0,4080 0,2298 0,5720 0,4221 Japan 0,0694 0,2080 0,3337 0,1674 0,4767 0,3569 Viet Nam 0,0677 0,1445 0,4686 0,2035 0,7309 0,4714 Samoa 0,0665 0,1409 0,4719 0,2414 0,6999 0,4743 Mauritius 0,0658 0,1548 0,4251 0,2180 0,6204 0,4368 Guyana 0,0642 0,1352 0,4752 0,2408 0,7243 0,4607 Netherlands 0,0634 0,2036 0,3112 0,1339 0,4892 0,3106 Jamaica 0,0522 0,1135 0,4599 0,2562 0,6846 0,4389 Suriname 0,0508 0,1146 0,4429 0,2503 0,6442 0,4342 Solomon Islands 0,0480 0,0799 0,6016 0,4104 0,8559 0,5385 Djibouti 0,0479 0,0869 0,5515 0,2760 0,7754 0,6032 Grenada 0,0368 0,0832 0,4422 0,2720 0,6033 0,4513 Saint Lucia 0,0352 0,0768 0,4591 0,3054 0,6095 0,4625 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 0,0348 0,0820 0,4248 0,2270 0,5764 0,4709 Madagascar 0,0336 0,0558 0,6021 0,4884 0,7358 0,5821 Haiti 0,0316 0,0478 0,6597 0,4471 0,8539 0,6781 Cape Verde 0,0314 0,0629 0,4986 0,3157 0,6351 0,5449 Cuba 0,0299 0,0739 0,4039 0,2260 0,6112 0,3746 Cameroon 0,0295 0,0541 0,5441 0,3232 0,7091 0,5999 Dominican Republic 0,0277 0,0585 0,4744 0,2540 0,7097 0,4595 Barbados 0,0264 0,0704 0,3745 0,2427 0,5179 0,3630 Indonesia 0,0259 0,0520 0,4982 0,2511 0,7527 0,4908 Bahrain 0,0251 0,0604 0,4164 0,1442 0,6266 0,4782 Myanmar (Burma) 0,0220 0,0393 0,5604 0,2384 0,8483 0,5944 Australia 0,0207 0,0676 0,3070 0,1400 0,4359 0,3451 Sri Lanka 0,0201 0,0413 0,4858 0,2408 0,7207 0,4958 Gabon 0,0190 0,0393 0,4826 0,3030 0,7051 0,4397 Ireland 0,0177 0,0523 0,3390 0,1432 0,5236 0,3501 Peru 0,0176 0,0399 0,4418 0,2460 0,6313 0,4482 Malaysia 0,0174 0,0422 0,4134 0,1852 0,6121 0,4428 Chile 0,0172 0,0452 0,3800 0,1875 0,5492 0,4034 Korea, Republic of 0,0170 0,0522 0,3265 0,1478 0,4473 0,3845 Maldives 0,0157 0,0323 0,4876 0,3971 0,6199 0,4456 New Zealand 0,0150 0,0484 0,3099 0,1490 0,4716 0,3091 Mozambique 0,0148 0,0228 0,6485 0,4837 0,8577 0,6041 Congo 0,0143 0,0233 0,6116 0,4393 0,8335 0,5621 Ecuador 0,0142 0,0342 0,4152 0,2012 0,6128 0,4315 Papua New Guinea 0,0136 0,0214 0,6353 0,4581 0,8350 0,6129 Benin 0,0131 0,0211 0,6194 0,3945 0,8094 0,6541 India 0,0123 0,0227 0,5415 0,2519 0,7684 0,6043 Egypt 0,0115 0,0258 0,4461 0,1657 0,6580 0,5145 United Republic of Tanzania 0,0110 0,0189 0,5837 0,4593 0,7627 0,5290 Timor-Leste 0,0101 0,0171 0,5889 0,4150 0,7628 0,5890 Brazil 0,0100 0,0232 0,4318 0,1790 0,6870 0,4294 Lebanon 0,0097 0,0216 0,4492 0,2086 0,6606 0,4784 Denmark 0,0093 0,0298 0,3117 0,1359 0,4768 0,3224 Gambia 0,0092 0,0156 0,5880 0,3764 0,7535 0,6342 Comoros 0,0090 0,0150 0,5995 0,4824 0,6814 0,6348 Singapore 0,0089 0,0239 0,3734 0,2189 0,5678 0,3337 Tunisia 0,0085 0,0200 0,4241 0,1759 0,6161 0,4804 Canada 0,0084 0,0271 0,3107 0,1267 0,4671 0,3384 Libyan Arab Jamahiriya 0,0082 0,0179 0,4565 0,2059 0,6496 0,5140 Thailand 0,0082 0,0197 0,4147 0,1562 0,6522 0,4356 United Kingdom 0,0078 0,0233 0,3337 0,1414 0,5218 0,3377 Trinidad and Tobago 0,0076 0,0185 0,4137 0,1895 0,6166 0,4350 United States 0,0075 0,0240 0,3134 0,1320 0,4825 0,3257 Cyprus 0,0075 0,0193 0,3884 0,1720 0,5683 0,4250 Honduras 0,0074 0,0150 0,4896 0,2677 0,7321 0,4692 China 0,0072 0,0180 0,3996 0,1745 0,5644 0,4597 Senegal 0,0066 0,0115 0,5723 0,3684 0,7379 0,6105 Morocco 0,0066 0,0137 0,4813 0,2139 0,6543 0,5756 Venezuela 0,0066 0,0158 0,4156 0,1852 0,6333 0,4282 Guinea-Bissau 0,0059 0,0099 0,5997 0,3765 0,8125 0,6102 Qatar 0,0058 0,0159 0,3638 0,1365 0,5263 0,4285 Mexico 0,0058 0,0136 0,4252 0,1737 0,6765 0,4254 Kenya 0,0057 0,0098 0,5799 0,4053 0,7698 0,5647 Uruguay 0,0056 0,0153 0,3655 0,1706 0,5255 0,4003 Panama 0,0055 0,0129 0,4233 0,2426 0,6113 0,4161 Latvia 0,0054 0,0140 0,3829 0,1796 0,6034 0,3658 Belgium 0,0052 0,0163 0,3199 0,1567 0,4744 0,3285 Malta 0,0052 0,0132 0,3914 0,1706 0,5627 0,4410 Angola 0,0047 0,0083 0,5704 0,4288 0,7431 0,5392 Sudan 0,0046 0,0077 0,5988 0,3887 0,8416 0,5660 El Salvador 0,0045 0,0095 0,4708 0,2432 0,6781 0,4911 Guatemala 0,0043 0,0079 0,5348 0,2908 0,7776 0,5361 Colombia 0,0041 0,0087 0,4752 0,2198 0,7714 0,4343 Norway 0,0039 0,0139 0,2791 0,1414 0,3986 0,2972 Kuwait 0,0039 0,0098 0,3941 0,1521 0,5877 0,4426 Turkey 0,0038 0,0090 0,4212 0,1524 0,6274 0,4837 Greece 0,0037 0,0103 0,3570 0,1663 0,5364 0,3683 Finland 0,0033 0,0110 0,2981 0,1437 0,4446 0,3059 Estonia 0,0032 0,0091 0,3516 0,1594 0,5367 0,3587 Sweden 0,0031 0,0099 0,3142 0,1402 0,4979 0,3047 Algeria 0,0031 0,0067 0,4633 0,1744 0,6741 0,5414 Pakistan 0,0029 0,0053 0,5395 0,2463 0,7129 0,6593 Saudi Arabia 0,0028 0,0069 0,4024 0,1484 0,5892 0,4697 Oman 0,0027 0,0066 0,4061 0,1530 0,5910 0,4743 Spain 0,0025 0,0072 0,3402 0,1402 0,5354 0,3450 Romania 0,0023 0,0058 0,4039 0,2121 0,5613 0,4381 Sierra Leone 0,0023 0,0035 0,6550 0,5250 0,7677 0,6723 Argentina 0,0022 0,0062 0,3523 0,1519 0,5400 0,3651 France 0,0021 0,0069 0,3101 0,1388 0,4585 0,3330 Iceland 0,0020 0,0066 0,3035 0,2051 0,4163 0,2892 Croatia 0,0020 0,0053 0,3694 0,1644 0,5679 0,3759 Germany 0,0020 0,0062 0,3143 0,1339 0,4626 0,3465 Nigeria 0,0019 0,0030 0,6306 0,4247 0,8269 0,6401 Italy 0,0019 0,0052 0,3626 0,1504 0,5892 0,3483 Albania 0,0019 0,0040 0,4627 0,1901 0,7285 0,4695 Poland 0,0019 0,0053 0,3530 0,1461 0,5540 0,3591 Georgia 0,0018 0,0040 0,4434 0,2309 0,6073 0,4921 Nicaragua 0,0017 0,0036 0,4829 0,2789 0,7095 0,4604 Russia 0,0016 0,0043 0,3690 0,1561 0,5351 0,4157 Montenegro 0,0016 0,0040 0,4037 0,1878 0,6455 0,3777 Bulgaria 0,0016 0,0042 0,3766 0,1541 0,5582 0,4174 Costa Rica 0,0016 0,0039 0,4039 0,1898 0,6836 0,3382 Lithuania 0,0015 0,0044 0,3501 0,1814 0,4924 0,3764 Ukraine 0,0015 0,0037 0,4135 0,1392 0,6457 0,4556 Bosnia and Herzegovina 0,0015 0,0032 0,4566 0,2224 0,6667 0,4808 Yemen 0,0014 0,0025 0,5614 0,3379 0,7166 0,6299 Togo 0,0012 0,0019 0,6171 0,3994 0,8177 0,6341 United Arab Emirates 0,0011 0,0031 0,3540 0,1264 0,5269 0,4088 Namibia 0,0011 0,0021 0,5118 0,3642 0,6890 0,4823 Slovenia 0,0011 0,0030 0,3478 0,1661 0,5554 0,3219 Iran (Islamic Republic of) 0,0010 0,0024 0,4321 0,1337 0,6845 0,4782 Portugal 0,0010 0,0028 0,3679 0,1675 0,5499 0,3863 Syrian Arab Republic 0,0010 0,0019 0,4923 0,2049 0,7150 0,5569 Israel 0,0008 0,0022 0,3759 0,1942 0,5459 0,3877 Equatorial Guinea 0,0008 0,0015 0,5280 0,2921 0,7801 0,5119 Iraq 0,0007 0,0014 0,5233 0,2441 0,7646 0,5613 South Africa 0,0006 0,0015 0,4314 0,2233 0,6038 0,4672 Cote d'Ivoire 0,0006 0,0011 0,5661 0,3702 0,6953 0,6328 Liberia 0,0006 0,0009 0,6476 0,4724 0,8274 0,6430 Ghana 0,0006 0,0009 0,5851 0,3698 0,7920 0,5936 Guinea 0,0004 0,0007 0,6205 0,4055 0,8021 0,6539 Eritrea 0,0004 0,0006 0,6569 0,4501 0,7993 0,7212 Mauritania 0,0004 0,0007 0,6037 0,3646 0,7986 0,6479 Jordan 0,0001 0,0003 0,4510 0,2130 0,6658 0,4743