1

UNEP

UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME

2

Director:

Welcome to UNEP on this year’s edition of MUNUR! My name is Camila Leon and I have the honor of being your director in the dais along with Juan Jose and Valeria, as well as ensure this MUNUR experience to be as great for you as it will be for us. I’m currently at the beginning of my fourth year as a Business and Marketing student at the Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas and I’ve been a part of the MUN community for three years now. I’ve had the honor of participating at Harvard World Model United Nations in Panama, as well as being an assistant director in Harvard National Model United Nations Latin America 2018.

It’s worth mentioning that, so far, my experiences have been full of ups and downs, but always with wonderful surprises at the end. And even though it’s not my first time as part of the dais, I’m super excited to be your director in the Environmental Program committee. Incidentally, I acknowledge that this committee will represent a challenge for most of you, and that’s why I encourage you all to take it to the next level, to always be in your top game. I’m hoping to be surprised!

Director:

Honorable delegates, welcome to MUNUR 2018, my name is Juan José Rojas and I’m pleased to share the responsibility to be a director in this committee alongside with Camila and Valeria. We’re very excited to receive you and be part of the wonderful experience that is MUNUR. Currently I am at my first year of Mechatronic Engineering at the Universidad EIA in Medellin. I’ve been part of the MUN community since I was 11 years old, when I started at 6th grade. I participated in important models of the country such as MUNUR, COLMUN and MONUA as a delegate, likewise I was part of the Euromodelo Joven; where I got the award for the best model delegate. I also have experience in the oratory field, since I had the honor of representing my country in an International Public Speaking Contest held in Costa Rica.

WELCOME LETTERS

3

I’m very excited to be part of the MUNUR family and to welcome you to the committee, to see all the solutions and creative ideas you have to combat the problems raised by the

committee.

Although it is rare to see an engineering student in this type of event, I want you to know that I am qualified and I hope to be of total help to you throughout the preparation process and in the same way during the days of the event.

Moderator:

Dear delegates, welcome to MUNUR 2018, my name is Valeria Herrada and I am thrilled to have you in the United Nations Environment Programme! I will be serving as your moderator in the dais along with Camila and Juan Jose. I am currently coursing the 4th year of the economics undergraduate degree at Universidad del Pacifico, where I’m also pursuing a minor on finance. As for my MUN experience, this one began in 2016 when I joined Peruvian Universities, since then I have taken part in several Peruvian and international conferences, such as two Harvard World Model United Nations, in Montreal and Panama (where I obtained a Diplomacy Award). Furthermore, I’ve been assistant director at Lima’s Model United Nations (LIMUN) 2017 and director at PeruMUN 2018, the largest

MUN conferences in Latin America.

I will like to reinforce I am a strong believer in the educational mission of MUN, and along with Camila and Juan Jose, will work towards creating a substantively challenging experience for all delegates. I encourage you to research for unique and applicable policy solutions, and to use MUNUR as a platform for making new friends and learning new cultures. To sum up, I am confident you will have a blast of a time inside and outside committee. Please if you have any concern or doubt regarding the topics feel free to contact us. I surely can’t wait

to meet each one of you!

4

Gro Harlem Brundtland, famous Norwegian politician and former director of the World Health Organization (WHO), once said, “the environment is where we all live, and development is what we all do in attempting to improve our lot within that abode; the two are inseparable.” Hence, environment and development are intrinsically linked in ways that we simply cannot ignore. Today, more than ever, a shift in our consciousness of this connection is necessary in order to internalize the emerging future of sustainable development.

The United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP), established in 1972, is the body responsible for coordinating the United Nations’ environmental policies, activities, and recommendations. In a nutshell, UNEP has been mostly influential in directing attention to pressing environmental issues, and devising solutions to remediate such problems through the coordination and collaboration of multiple interested parties, such as member states, civil society, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), enterprises among others.

UNEP also plays a leading role in the promotion of international and regional conventions on a wide variety of issues, such as the transport and disposal of hazardous waste, the fight against desertification, the conservation of wildlife, the protection of the ozone layer, the safety of biotechnological experiments, the protection of the seas against pollution and the protection of biological diversity. Specifically, UNEP’s work is divided into seven broad sub-categories or thematic areas, in which the topics highlighted above are addressed, these areas include: climate change, disasters and conflicts, ecosystem management, environmental governance, chemicals and waste, resource efficiency and environment under review. (UNEP, 2018a)

To monitor these and other issues that concern its mandate, UNEP has developed the “United Nations System Wide-Earthwatch”, a global environmental monitoring system for the prevention of environmental crises. Additionally, one of the main objectives of Earthwatch is to harmonize and coordinate efforts on environmental observation activities among distinct UN agencies such as the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) etc. (United Nations Earthwatch, 2018). In that sense, Earthwatch acts as a catalyst on all environmental monitoring and assessment activities throughout the UN system, allowing the exchange and sharing of environmental information and data.

As for its evaluation strategy, UNEP “evaluations are conducted in an independent manner through the Evaluation Office, which reports on evaluation findings without interference” (UNEP, 2018b). Its principal forms of evaluation include thematic evaluations (on mid-term strategies), projects and impact evaluations. Finally, in order to practice what it preaches, “UNEP has been Climate Neutral since 2008 and is strengthening its efforts towards environmental sustainability by implementing an Environmental Management System (EMS) for its operations globally”. (UNEP, 2018c)

INTRODUCTION TO THE COMMITTEE

5

Introduction of the topic

May 2000 marks the first meeting of the Global Ministerial Environmental Forum in Malmo, Sweden. Conclusions were startling; the Forum noted with “[...] deep concern that the environment and natural resource base that supported life on Earth deteriorated at an alarming rate, as well as the existence of an alarming discrepancy between commitments and actions”. Therefore, concrete actions must be taken in place by individuals and governments in order to response to the continuous environmental deterioration.

However, environmental sustainability will remain unattainable without the recognition of the private sector’s role in this issue. In that sense, “Corporate Social Responsibility” (CSR), recognized by UNEP at the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development, is a pivotal issue that will define the future of the private sector involvement in working with governments and civil society in protecting the environment. Besides CSR can appear in many different shapes and forms, a definition that captures the philosophy of this approach is given to us by the International Institute for Sustainable Development: “CSR promotes a vision of business accountability to a wide range of stakeholders, besides shareholders and investors.” This undoubtedly includes the environment, employees, and societies at-large.

In an age when it is impossible to ignore the growing influence of singular companies, corporations and industries in the globalized market, proper political and social responses must be devised. Thereby, the remaining sections of this guide will be dedicated to informing you about the history of CSR, as well on the main barriers companies have on its proper implementation. This committee must therefore create innovative and inclusive recommendations that internalize the perspectives of the private sector and implement appropriate policies that will navigate affected parties to a desired future.

TOPIC A: Corporate Social Responsability and Sustainable Development

Terminology: What is CSR?

In first place, we will provide delegates with a provisional definition of CSR to get a general idea on the concept; however, we expect them to arrive to a consensus on the meaning of CSR during debate. Therefore, according to the Financial Times (2016), CSR refers to: “A movement aimed at encouraging companies to be more aware of the impact of their business on the rest of society, including their own stakeholders and the environment; contributing to sustainable development by delivering economic, social and environmental benefits for all stakeholders. Nevertheless [...], the way it is understood and implemented differs greatly for each company and country. Moreover, CSR is a very broad concept that addresses many and various topics such as human rights, corporate governance, health and safety, environmental effects, working conditions and contribution to economic development. Whatever the definition is, the purpose of CSR is to drive change towards sustainability.”

Corporate Social Responsibility has gained a huge space in recent years as a powerful mean of enhancing partnerships between the private sector, civil society and governments, especially for protecting the environment. Moreover, in several cases, CSR has become a standard practice, taking into consideration that 92% of the world’s largest companies publish reports in their CSR actions (Currents of Change: the KPMG Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting, 2015) In fact, some examples, such as Patagonia, have demonstrated that CSR can go as far as the creation of preserved wilderness and having workers paid day offs, while other companies, such as Volkswagen, with its 2015 emissions reporting cheating scandal, have take the CSR concept to a whole different meaning. A great amount of questions must be asked in order to completely understand a corporation’s interest in enhancing CSR practices. Assuming that the company’s best interest increases its profit as a result, there is where the cost-benefit relation comes in hand for the company, as much as for the CSR practice. So to sum up, the question is, why would the companies engage with CSR? Generally, consumers care about

6

purchasing from companies that show themselves as morally good and that advertise their social responsibility actions; therefore, CSR is directly linked with profitability, creating an economic incentive for companies to engage in it.

Types of Corporate Social Responsibility

Nowadays, corporate social responsibility can take various approaches depending on a company’s philosophy, objectives, size and especially, budget constraints. According to Salib et al. (2015), there two kinds of CSR, a traditional CSR and a contemporary one. As for the first one, traditional CSR focuses on corporate philanthropy (giving donations directly to the public). On the contrary, contemporary CSR focuses on value creation. Therefore, it does not view corporate responsible behavior as an antonym of profits maximization, but instead as an opportunity to generate financial benefits while contributing to society.

Specifically, according to Carroll’s model (1991), corporations should respect three main parts: people, the planet and profits. This is known as the triple bottom line approach (Alpana, 2014). As for environmental conservation (“the planet” bottom line), this is better known as Corporate Environmental Responsibility (CER). Following Duker and Olugunna’s definition, CER are practices that benefit the environment (or mitigate the negative impact of businesses on the environment) that go beyond those that companies are legally obliged to carry out. Therefore, CER works on a voluntary scheme.

As noted earlier, the importance of CER and of CSR (which encompasses the former) relies on the key role of the private sector for achieving sustainable development. However, while the process of adopting CSR is feasible for some companies, it undertakes a huge challenge for other ones, especially on financial, disclosure and follow-up terms. Now that we have introduced the topic to be discussed, we will continue with a deeper analysis of the historical and present status of Corporate Social Responsibility and its relationship with the environment.

History of the problem

In 1972, the “United Nations Conference on the Human Environment” (also known as the Stockholm Conference) was held; this was the first stage during which issues related to the care of the environment were discussed. Specifically, this conference was a kick-off into a domino effect, with States recognizing their responsibility on their interaction with the ecosystem. Consequently, in 1973, European countries were the first to introduce in their legislations environmental provisions to make their “relationship with the planet” friendlier. Moreover, the Stockholm Conference also influenced the consolidation of the Kyoto Protocol (1997), which aimed to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases. In that sense, despite the vast majority of environmental laws in the world are constituted within similar characteristics, each country, evidently, has different strategies and a distinct approach to deal with its relationship with the environment. Normally, the environmental legislation of a country is responsible for regulating the interactions of organisms, companies and/or individuals with the environment, and to encourage or punish them depending on such interaction. Furthermore, this legislation is also responsible for maintaining cities’ growth in a sustainable manner for the planet.

With the pass of time, these legislations have been evolving. In fact, the industries’ growth has generated certain needs to delegate responsibilities at the hands of companies in the form of CSR (National Academy of Sciences, 2007). As stated before, CSR is based on providing communities with certain guarantees while promoting sustainable development. Among these guarantees is included the access to a healthy environment, for which both governments and companies must carry out strategies to reduce their environmental impact; these strategies can be categorized into administrative actions, actions of direct influence or of social impact, for example, by leading a project of reforestation with the involvement of local communities. Each of these actions can contribute to the fight against climate change and environmental deterioration and depending on how well these CSR strategies are developed, the greater its positive impact might be. Social impact strategies are usually the most important, since they involve the community and

7

allow the message to transcend through the people; therefore, besides they can act on populations which possibly had unhealthy habits regarding the environment, they can also work with populations with excellent relationships with the environment, which are willing to learn new ways to preserve the ecosystems.

Since a good argument can be made that CSR began to take form in the 1950s, it is useful to consider some developments before that time in the way of providing context to its formation (Carroll, 2008). For instance, a useful starting point are the activities and practices originating in the Industrial Revolution. In examining the mid-to-late 1800s, it is apparent that emerging businesses were especially concerned with employees and how to make them more productive workers. Then, and now, it is sometimes difficult to differentiate what organizations are doing for business reasons, i.e. making the workers more productive, and what the organizations are doing for social reasons, i.e. helping to fulfill their needs and make them better and more contributing members of society.

The Industrial Revolution

Before the 1760s, national economies around the world were mainly based on agriculture, in which the majority of the population engaged in some form of agricultural work for self-consumption. Starting with Great Britain in the mid-18th century, many economies transformed themselves from agrarian to industrial economies, typified by mass production of goods using machines, and the “division of labor”, between the owners of the means of production and the workers in the factories. The development of technologies like steam power and the railroad transformed the ability of the British to produce goods, allowing those who owned very little land to become very rich by operating businesses. In the mid-to-late 19th Century, industrialization was replicated outside of the United Kingdom, mostly by Western Europe and the United States. This is where Industrialization started to spread, becoming a world phenomenon.

Industrialization led to the rise of the modern conception of business. In a pre-industrial economy based on agriculture, the most important mean of production is land. Landowners use their land to

grow crops, which they generally use for present or future self-consumption, while a small surplus is sold. However, industrial economies require machinery and capital to fabricate goods. Such machinery and capital is expensive and, unlike land, it cannot simply be purchased: a modern factory must be carefully designed and built, while workers must be trained on the use of certain technologies of production. Projects like the construction of a factory, or more ambitious projects like the construction of a railway, require a system by which individuals may obtain the capital to finance these new ventures. It is very difficult for anyone to have enough money to take on such an expensive project, so by the mid-19th Century. Therefore, western businesspeople would raise capital by pooling their resources in “partnerships,” taking out loans from banks, and forming joint-stock companies; essentially unequal partnerships, often with a large number of partners, called stockholders or shareholders.Although partnerships and joint-stock companies allowed groups of industrialists to enter business together, they soon proved insufficient for mobilizing the large quantities of capital necessary for the most ambitious industrial projects. These arrangements generally required at least one partner to be fully liable for the success or failure of the enterprise; in other words, if a partnership or company owed money, at least one of the owners of that partnership or company would personally owe the money. As the sums of money in question became larger and larger, it became the case that no person would be willing to be personally liable for the success or failure of the enterprise. This problem was eventually addressed by a series of laws in the United Kingdom. The Joint-Stock Companies Act in 1844 granted joint-stock companies the option of “incorporating,” transforming these partnerships between individuals into one legal entity that could take actions as a unit.The rise of the corporation was accompanied by the rise of the city. As industrialization made corporations more common, factory centers grew from villages into cities of hundreds of thousands of people over the course of a few decades. These rapidly developed cities suffered from poor housing quality and even worse sanitation. The poor conditions in which most factory workers lived significantly diminished their productivity; their capacity to perform their jobs well and make more money for the owners of the corporations. The factory towns echoed the conditions of the early factories themselves, in which

8

laborers, including women and children, toiled long hours, using dangerous machinery and chemicals that put them at risk of injury or death. Faced with this reality, business owners began to ask how they might improve the conditions faced by their laborers, and in doing so, improve the productivity of their labor force. The growing scope of the capitalist global order and the conception of the city therefore had wide-ranging implications for not only the relationship between owners of capital and the laborers, but also the environment that they occupied. As we will see, an initial focus on CSR did not necessarily capture the breadth of environmental thought that occupies the minds of present-day thinkers.

Stages of environmentalism

It is undoubtedly important to relate this movement of economics and socially-oriented business practices to the shift in environmental thought. Authors such as William Cronon have detailed a colorful account of environmental history, detailing the different behaviors among settlers and Native Americans in the New World about their relationship with the land. The indigenous people exhibited a much more give-and-take, coexistent relationship with the land than the European colonists, who took a more dominating path that served as a precursor to the incubation of the American Frontier Myth.

The focus on environmentalism, most specifically in the United States, was agriculture and weather, which gradually transformed into a major focus on preservation and conservation. This era, near the end of the 19th century and the nascent years of the 20th century, marked the advent of the national park frenzy. President Theodore Roosevelt and John Muir were some of the big names from this era, when the President passed the Antiquities Act of 1906, and the National Park Service came to be in 2016. The mid-20th century marked yet another transition from an environmentalism of preservation and national park creation to one of pollution control and risk mitigation. Then, the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency in the Nixon time, took this into a risk society approach, being characterized by a fixation on risk characterization and risk assessment, were the emerging themes of an era that internalized the dangers of chemical and air pollutants.

Scale of CSR: the growth of sustainability, industry and critiquesThe indelible effect of the growing environmental movements on global consciousness was unmistakable. A promotion of the “think globally, act locally” mantra has instilled a ripple effect of positive change across localities and larger communities. The growth of NGOs as watchdogs and changemakers in the global political socioeconomic arena has closely followed the rise of globalization and larger economic and governance structures such as UNEP and the WTO, as well as the publishing of reports like the World Commission on the Environment and Development’s “Our Common Future” publication. Keeping this in mind, it is only proper that we examine how Corporate Social Responsibility with regard to the environment has seen its stock rise in the era of globalization.In 1953, Howard R. Bowen published Social Responsibilities of the Businessman. This book argued that the leaders of the largest businesses had obligations to serve as stewards of the public good. This book brought the term “social responsibility” into the lexicon of American businesspeople, beginning the trend toward the widespread adoption of the concept by corporations. However, during the mid-20th century, the chief form of CSR remained philanthropy, and corporations were far from publishing reports on CSR. Yet by the 1970s, the modern conception of CSR arose. Responsibilities of Business Corporations, which argued that the social contract between business and society was changing in substantial and important ways. CED argued that businesses are expected not only to provide goods and services for sale, but to improve quality of life in the society in which they operate. As the concept of CSR began to rise to prominence, it began to attract criticism, most notably from Milton Friedman, the Nobel Prize winning economist who in 1970 dismissed CSR as “pure and unadulterated socialism.” Friedman’s argument that corporations ought to maximize profits and pay their legally obligated share of taxes but should not engage in other social programs; this remains a major critique of CSR. Despite Friedman’s grievances, the changing geopolitics of the past three decades have almost necessitated a gravitation towards CSR policies. Over the course of the last 25 years, corporations have stretched their operations across borders, ushering in the new era of “globalization,” which Investopedia defines as: “the tendency of investment

9

funds and businesses to move beyond domestic and national markets to other markets around the globe, thereby increasing the interconnection of the world. Globalization has had the effect of markedly increasing international trade and cultural exchange.” Globalization has been facilitated by the spread of “neoliberal” policies—policies aimed at making it easier for businesses to operate unfettered both within states and across borders. Neoliberalism has allowed for the rise of multinational corporations (MNCs), corporations with “global value chains,” meaning that these corporations manufacture products in one country, using resources extracted in another, to sell to consumers in yet another. MNCs have attracted critical scrutiny because they often take advantage of differences in social conditions in different countries to maximize profits. For example, certain MNCs have manufactories in countries that permit them to pay very low wages to laborers. Although this strategy decreases the cost of producing goods, it essentially amounts to a company avoiding social obligations in the company’s home country, where the company would have to pay higher wages to laborers. Policies like these threaten the credibility of MNCs, creating a need for MNCs to proactively seek the trust of the societies in which they operate. Since the 1990s, MNCs have turned to CSR to gain that trust. CSR’s underlying logic is that corporations are good for society—they both have responsibilities to society and meet those responsibilities. Though neoliberalism has led to states’ granting MNCs the legal freedom to globalize their value chains, it has also created space for other non-state actors to oppose the actions of these MNCs where states have elected not to do so. Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs) have been on the frontlines in the campaign to require corporations to meet obligations to society. CSR programs may therefore be viewed as corporations’ response to pressure from other private actors, given that they no longer are bound by states.The rise of MNCs has obvious specific implications for the global environmental and climate change regimes. The response has largely been justified, as the present nature of our globalized and neo-liberalized era has enormous consequences on the natural world. To illustrate the brevity of the situation of environmental degradation, a London-based consultancy firm estimated that 3,000 of the largest companies worldwide are creating $2.2 trillion dollars of environmental damage by 2008. To

conclude, this analysis has led us to two conclusions: firstly, corporations are willing to engage in CSR and environmental protection for the sake of their public image and revenue flow, and, secondly, MNCs and other transnational businesses will be consequential in mitigating the impacts of degradation, climate change, and environmental injustice and inequity.

Barriers to CSR and CER implementation:

This section describes some of the main barriers companies face when trying to incorporate CSR and CER as part of their business strategy:

Costs:

The costs for companies of introducing production processes, designs and product lines which minimize negative environmental impacts can be substantive. For example, in Dummet’s study (2008), two interviewed CEOs mentioned that recycling certain types of plastics and materials was very difficult and costly; this disincentivized the adoption of green corporate policies.

In general terms, one of the main costs of CER involves investing on research and development (R&D) for innovating on eco-friendly technologies, products and processes. However, the probability this cost turns into a sunk cost (as there is the chance that R&D does not work) makes R&D investment risky. According to the Schumpeterian model, an economic growth model focused on innovation, to diminish this risk companies need to make a higher productive investment on R&D. Therefore, the probability of a successful R&D policy is positively correlated with the spending on it (the more the company spends on R&D, the higher chance it will have to innovate).

Taking into consideration R&D requirements of high investment, companies who engage in this activity need to obtain funds for financing it. There are various alternatives, from commercial banks or financial institutions loans, to raising more equity or issuing a bond. However, the first alternative usually involves paying high interest rates as the investment is quite risky (remember there is the chance R&D does not work). As for the second and third alternatives, they are commonly left for sophisticated enterprises. Why? Because issuing equity or a bond entails massive information disclosure to the public

10

and competition, along with financial discipline. Furthermore, issuing a bond requires at least two corporate credit ratings (from Standard & Poor’s, Moody’s or Fitch) - which is very costly -, along with a recommended bond size of $250 million dollars at least. Consequently, medium-size or even some big companies cannot afford to engage in R&D or even to acquire eco-friendly technology and processes from other enterprises (because of patent protection, meaning prices will be very high due to monopoly benefits). Therefore, delegates are encouraged to think outside the box and bring up new methods for environmental R&D financing1 and eco-friendly technology transfer. These points need to be tackled urgently for shortening costs as a barrier to CER adoption, especially for medium-size enterprises.

Regarding R&D financing, as James Love (2016) states, one of the main tasks is “to shift the global norms designed to finance R&D, through trade agreements on intellectual property rights (IPRs)”. This means, treaties regarding IPRs protection need to be examined, as many enterprises which innovate on eco-friendly technologies obtain monopoly power due to patents and block smaller companies from acquiring them due to high prices. This creates a market distortion as patented green-technologies’ prices are not interiorizing the positive externality they create (the use of these technologies is beneficial for the environment, therefore, for the entire globe). For instance, more social welfare could be created if green-technologies prices decrease.

Nowadays, the TRIPS2 agreement is the main multilateral treaty regarding IPRs protection; however, it counts with various flexibilities to take the turn on patent holders. For example, article 6 of TRIPS presents a flexibility regarding parallel imports, what does this means? Countries can attach to the principle of “international exhaustion of patent rights” in their national patent law; as a result, they can import the patented eco-friendly technology placed in other country by the patent holder. Once imported, these products may be sold at lower prices due to different local market conditions. “The courts in two industrialized countries, Britain and Japan, have recently confirmed the lawfulness of parallel importation of patented products in the

1 A good starting point is to research for impact invest-ment.2 Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights

absence of any indication to the contrary” (Heath, n.d). To summarize, TRIPS allow some flexibilities; nevertheless, it depends on each country’s policy whether to use them or not. Delegates should be aware of these flexibilities (which are commonly used to obtain cheaper patented pharmaceutical products), how to adapt them into the context of environmental technologies, and most importantly, if their country is in favor of TRIPS flexibilities or not.

Source: UNDP (Kirk, 2014)1

1 For reading the whole presentation feel free to visit the following link: http://slideplayer.com/slide/7695196/

11

As for eco-friendly technology transfer, keeping in mind different countries realities, one approach is “south-south” cooperation. South-South cooperation is a phenomenon of collaboration between developing countries by which countries share with each other technology, knowledge, skills and expertise that may be more relevant to their peers than information from already industrialized economies that function differently. India, for example, counts with the “Indian Technical and Economic Cooperation” (ITEC) programme, which encompasses areas related to engineering and technology and environment and climate change. Starting with south-south cooperation, aided governments will need to find the way to share eco-friendly technology and knowledge with the private sector. However, two key questions stand here. First, should the government share this expertise only with private national companies, or also with international companies operating in the territory? Second, how will the government select which companies to share the technology and knowledge with? Moreover, south-south cooperation will need to be accompanied in some cases by programmes related to technical capacitation for workers, as they need to learn how to use or incorporate the new eco-friendly technology or expertise into production. Finally, it is important to emphasize that south-south cooperation is not the only way to achieve technology transfer, there also exists north-south cooperation and international technology diffusion (imports of capital equipment, licensing, foreign direct investment etc.).

Government failures:

Another key barrier to the adoption of CSR and CER strategies relies on the inaction of governments to promote its incorporation on business models. For instance, Dummett (2008) finds among the main government failures the “lack of policies and directions, inconsistencies, lack of leadership, or weaknesses or inadequacies of existing policies and measures to encourage CER”. As stated before, each country has a unique environmental legislation, which also encompasses environmental regulation. Besides commonly CER works on a voluntary scheme, in which companies choose to engage in eco-friendly production processes, if governments do not set minimum environmental regulation standards, then, the probability of enterprises engaging in CER diminishes

(as voluntary business contributions to the environment start where the legal framework ends). In that sense, according to Shadbolt, regulation sets a level playing field for corporations to compete on; “above this, companies can do extra through the introduction of voluntary standards (part of CSR) and other measures” (Shadbolt, 2011). In resume, the first step into promoting CSR and CER is for governments to set adequate regulations, but most importantly, to ensure efficient monitoring and enforcement mechanisms. This last point proves especially important in developing countries, where besides regulations may be set, many times they are not enforced into the private sector, principally due to institutions weakness and corruption. However, as mentioned by Lindhqvist during an interview in 2002, “sometimes, when legislation is enforced locally, it is not enforced for importers”; this proves a very important aspect, as a clear framework needs to be developed to regulate not only local enterprises, but also importers and multinational companies.

Now, going beyond regulation, the second step is for governments to understand the importance of incentivizing CSR and CER. According to Steurer, “governments are interested in CSR because the respective business efforts can help to meet policy objectives on a voluntary basis, [...] while the soft-law character of CSR policies implies comparatively low political costs in terms of resistance by special interest groups” (Steurer, 2010). However, how can governments promote the incorporation of CSR and CER on the private sector?

Governments can utilize policy instruments subdivided into three categories: informational, economic and legal instruments. The first category encompasses “moral” persuasion policies, they focus on highlighting options and consequences, for example by means of social campaigns, trainings, websites etc. As for economic instruments, their objective is to generate financial incentives for enterprises to engage on CSR and CER, for example by means of tax abatements, subsidies and awards. Finally, legal instruments rely on the state’s legislative, executive and judicial powers; this is the area were regulation sets. However, Steurer mentions two innovative kinds of policies, partnering instruments (they “build on a co-regulatory networking rationale, assuming that different actors are interested in working together towards shared objectives, for example because they

12

can exchange complementary resources and avoid conventional regulations”) and hybrid instruments (they “combine or orchestrate two or several other instruments, for example with CSR platforms, centres and strategies”) (Steurer, 2010).

At this point, it is important for delegates to closely keep in mind their country’s laws and fiscal situation. As previously mentioned, each country has its own environmental legislation, while some states may have more relaxed laws and environmental regulations for private companies, other may have tighter ones or even nonexistent ones. Specifically, it is relevant to consider the country’s political arena and the pressure multinational companies (MNCs) exert on the government, as usually MCNs pressure national governments to relax regulations with the threat of capital flight. Furthermore, it is key to consider the country’s fiscal situation (fiscal earnings and debt sustainability), as it may directly influence its approach for opting for economic instruments for promoting CER and CSR.

Societal failure:

Another key barrier for companies in engaging in CER strategies is society’s perception and concern on environmental issues, specifically, consumers demand and willingness to pay for “green” products. As described on the costs barrier section, developing eco-friendly production procedures, standards, goods or services undermines a high financial investment, hence, companies expect to recover their investment with higher profits. These profits can be obtained by expanding clients pool or raising the product price; however, if consumers have a high price elasticity of demand (meaning a variation in price causes a high variation in the quantity consumed), then they will probably opt for a substitute product which is not eco-friendly and likewise cheaper. As a result, the company’s investment on CER will prove unprofitable, creating a disincentive for other enterprises to engage on CER strategies.

In fact, this failure is more common than expected, “while substantial numbers of consumers claim to be green they appear unwilling to purchase products based solely on environmental grounds” (Dummett, 2008). Therefore, besides marketing campaigns (which depend on the private sector), the role of the government to promote energy, ecology and

environmental consciousness among citizens is crucial for increasing consumers’ willingness to pay for green products. Furthermore, it is also important for companies to develop products based not only on eco-friendly bases, but also considering tangible benefits for the consumer itself, as the saving of time.

Past Actions

Nairobi, 6 December 2017 – The world today committed to a pollution-free planet at the close of the UN Environment Assembly in Nairobi, with resolutions and pledges promising to improve the lives of billions across the globe by cleaning up our air, land and water. If every promise made in and around the summit is met, 1.49 billion more people will breathe clean air, 480,000 km (or around 30 percent) of the world’s coastlines will be clean, and USD 18.6 billion for research and development and innovative programmes to combat pollution will come online. For the first time at a UN Environment Assembly, environment ministers issued a declaration. This declaration said nations would honor efforts to prevent, mitigate and manage the pollution of air, land and soil, freshwater, and oceans – which harms our health, societies, ecosystems, economies, and security. 06 MAR 2018 PRESS RELEASE ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNMENT Initiative to protect defenders of the environment In 2017, four people were murdered every week for defending their right to a clean and healthy environment. Between 2002 and 2013, 908 people died defending the environment and land in 35 countries. Environmental rights are enshrined in more than 100 constitutions. March 6, 2018.- UN Environment launched today in Geneva an initiative to face threats, intimidation, harassment and the continued murder of defenders of the environment around the world. The so-called United Nations Environmental Rights Initiative helps people to better understand their rights and defenders and assists States in safeguarding environmental rights. UN Environment installs all rights prior to the protection of defenders of the environment and to carry out justice quickly and definitively to those who attack or threaten defenders. Tolerance of intimidation by environmental defenders undermines basic human

13

rights and the state of environmental law.

Should the private sector have social and environmental obligations and responsibility? How?

Should companies enhance CER and/or CSR policies and, if so, how much should they be expected to contribute towards environmental and social causes/actions?

What strategies are recommended to be implemented in order to make certain that CER and CSR are utilized by firms and corporations in an equitable and productive manner?

Which approach to growth will be necessary to ensure a sufficient standard of living for all, environmental sustainability and prosperity?

Why and how will companies be encouraged to pass regular CER and CSR barriers?

QARMAS

14

Kirk, Katie. (13 Aug. 2014, Maseru). “What are the TRIPS flexibilities? How will their incorporation in patent legislation promote access to essential medicines? IP and Access to Medicines: challenges and opportunities in Latin America and the Caribbean”. Retrieved June, 2018:http://slideplayer.com/slide/7695196/

Duker, John, and Michael Olugunna. “Corporate Environmental Responsabilities (CER): A Case of Logistic Companies in Sweden.” 30credit, University of Uppsala, May 2014. Retrieved June, 2018:www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:727457/FULLTEXT01.pdf.

Dummett, K. (2008, July). Corporate Environmental Responsibility (CER). Retrieved June, 2018:https://researchbank.rmit.edu.au/eserv/rmit:6657/Dummett.pdf

Financial Times. (2016, September). Definition of corporate social responsibility (CSR). Retrieved June, 2018:http://lexicon.ft.com/Term?term=corporate-social-responsibility--(CSR)

Heath, C. (2010, May). Parallel Imports and International Trade. Retrieved June, 2018:http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/sme/en/atrip_gva_99/atrip_gva_99_6.pdf

Huamin Research Center, School of Social Work, Rutgers University. (2015, November). Corporate Social Responsibility. Retrieved 2018:https://socialwork.rutgers.edu/sites/default/files/brochure_13.pdf

Intellectual property watch. (2016, September 15). Delinkage Of R&D Costs From Product Prices. Retrieved June, 2018:http://www.ip-watch.org/2016/09/15/delinkage-of-rd-costs-from-product-prices.Institute of Medicine. (2007). Global Environmental Health in the 21st Century: From Governmental Regulation to Corporate Social Responsibility: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK53989/

K. Leonard. (2018, May 23). Four Types of Corporate Social Responsibility. Retrieved 2018:http://smallbusiness.chron.com/four-types-corporate-social-responsibility-54662.html

Ministry of external affairs, Government of India. (2018, June 15). India’s Development Partnership. Retrieved June, 2018:https://www.itecgoi.in/index.php

BIBLIOGRAPHY

15

Shadbolt, F. (2011). Closing the gap between CSR and Regulation. Retrieved July 27:https://csr.unige.ch/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/FionaShadbolt-ClosingthegapbetweenCSRandRegula tion.pdf.

Steurer, R. (2010). The Role of Governments in Corporate Social Responsibility: Characterising public policies on CSR in Europe. Retrieved July 27:https://www.wiso.boku.ac.at/fileadmin/data/H03000/H73000/H73200/InFER_Discussion_Papers/InF ER_DP_10_2_The_Role_of_Governments_in_Coporate_Social_Responsibility_Characterising_Publi c_Policies_on_CSR_in__Europe.pdf

UN & INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION. (2017, January). United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Retrieved June, 2018:https://www.preventionweb.net/organizations/121

United Nations Earthwatch. (2018). Retrieved July 27:http://www.un.org/earthwatch/

UNEP. (2018a). What we do. Retrieved July 27:https://www.unenvironment.org/about-un-environment/what-we-do

UNEP. (2018b). Overview: The Evaluation Office contributes to enhancing the practice of evaluation in the United Nations system. Retrieves July 27:https://www.unenvironment.org/about-un-environment/evaluation/overview.

UNEP. (2018c). Why Sustainability Matters: Sustainability and the United Nations Environment. Retrieved July 27: https://www.unenvironment.org/about-un-environment/sustainability/why-sustainability-matters.UN environment. (2018). Why does environment under review matter? Retrieved June, 2018:https://www.unenvironment.org/explore-topics/environment-under-review/why-does-environment-un der-review-matter

Power, Gavin. (n.d.) “Corporate Social Responsibility Profile of United Nations Global Compact”. CSRwire. Retrieved June, 2018: http://www.csrwire.com/members/12044-united-nations-global-compact

16

Introduction to the topic

This topic will address a problem whose relevance often becomes imminent after its devastating consequences: the prevention of natural hazards and the role of ecosystem-based solutions and STIs (Science, Technology and Innovation) in it. Although the United Nations has set a series of pivotal efforts regarding natural hazards prevention through different agencies (United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, United Nations Development Programme, United Nations Commission on Science and Technology), in order to tackle this urgent issue, it is crucial to develop an integrated scheme which considers science and technology and the role of the own ecosystem.

To begin with, it is important to understand that the term “natural disaster” is a misnomer, there is no such a thing as a natural disaster; a disaster is a direct consequence of a natural hazard. Following the Asian Disaster Preparedness Center (ADPC) definition, a natural hazard is a “natural event that has the potential to cause harm or loss” (n.d). In that sense, in distinction to a natural phenomenon, for an environmental event to become a natural hazard it needs to have the potential to adversely affect society or the environment. For example, a flood or a landslide which does not have the potential to affect human beings will not be categorized as a natural hazard. Furthermore, for an environmental event to be labeled as a natural hazard it is also considered its extent, magnitude, frequency and intensity. As for natural disasters, according to the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, they can be defined as “a serious disruption of the functioning of a community or a society involving widespread human, material, economic or environmental losses and impacts, which exceeds the ability of the affected community or society to cope using its own resources” (UNISDR, 2018). Therefore, when a hazardous natural event results in large human, material, economic or environmental losses, then, it can be classified as a natural disaster.

TOPIC B: Ecosystem based solutions for Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)

In addition, the main precursor of natural hazards transforming natural disasters is vulnerability. Vulnerability refers to “the conditions determined by physical, social, economic and environmental factors or processes which increase the susceptibility of an individual, a community, assets or systems to the impacts of hazards” (UNISDR, 2018). However, according to Alcántara-Ayala (2001), vulnerability can be divided into (i) natural vulnerability and (ii) human vulnerability. Natural vulnerability is related to the environmental event in itself (linked to geographical location, biosphere, atmosphere at lithosphere), while human vulnerability depends on the social, economic, political and cultural system. In that sense, “when both types of vulnerability have the same coordinates in space and time, natural disasters can occur” (Alcántara-Ayala, 2001).

17

Classification of Hazards

Even though hazards can be classified in several different ways, such as natural, quasi-natural and man-made, for the effects of this committee we will focus on natural hazards; specifically, based on Hewitt and Burton (1971) methodology, we will consider (i) atmospheric, (ii) hydrologic and (iii) geological hazards:

Source: ADPC (based on Hewitt and Burton - 1971)

Disaster Risk Reduction As one might expect, increasing communities’ prevention and containment capacities may drastically reduce human vulnerabilities, and therefore the probability of natural hazards escalating into disasters. In that sense, although a natural hazard cannot be prevented from happening, it can be prevented from becoming a disaster, which is the purpose of “Disaster Risk Reduction” (DDR) policies. Keeping that in mind, between 2000-2011, 2.7 billion people were affected and US$ 1.3 trillion were lost due to natural disasters (UNISDR, 2012), therefore, the implementation of these strategies is pivotal in preventing natural hazards adverse effects. However, what is exactly DDR?

According to the UNISDR (2018b), “disaster risk reduction is the concept and practice of reducing disaster risks through systematic efforts to analyze

and reduce the causal factors of disasters. Reducing exposure to hazards, lessening vulnerability of people and property, wise management of land and the environment, and improving preparedness and early warning for adverse events are all examples of disaster risk reduction”. Therefore, in the disaster management cycle, DDR will be encompassed in the mitigation and preparedness phases:

As stated by Wajong (2017), the mitigation stage focuses on “minimizing the damaging effects of unavoidable threat”, by implementing public policies, national and regional plans that decrease the causes of disasters or their effects on communities. As for the preparation stage, it centers on implementing plans that help communities get ready to respond to a damaging environmental event, for example, with early warning systems or via public education and awareness campaigns

At this point, it is important to consider the role of states in the prevention of natural hazards scaling into natural disasters, as the state is responsible for policy-making. Therefore, it is the state the main stakeholder in charge of developing the national disaster risk reduction strategy and policy, and of creating programmes for natural hazards mitigation and preparedness Furthermore, as the UN Sendai Framework for Disasters Risk Reduction3 mentions: “[...] clear vision, plans, competence, guidance and coordination within and across sectors, as well as participation of relevant stakeholders, are needed” for implementing these programmes and strategies.

4. We encourage delegates to check the Sendai Framework for Disasters Risk Reduction. It is a good starting point for under-standing Disaster Risk Reduction and discover UN already ex-isting programmes and policies regarding the topic.

Source: Alrein Wajong (2017)

18

Risk Assessment (mitigation phase)

Having considered the key role of the state for disaster risk reduction, it is relevant to understand two things: first, what is risk when concerning natural hazards, and second, understand risk assessment, an innovative strategy that can be applied by national and regional governments during the mitigation stage of the disaster management cycle.

The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) defines risk as “the probability of harmful consequences — casualties, damaged property, lost livelihoods, disrupted economic activity, and damage to the environment — resulting from interactions between natural hazards and vulnerable conditions [...]”. (UNDP, 2015) Therefore, risk assessment consists in the process of understanding the nature of that risk in each particular country, by evaluating the vulnerability conditions that could expose populations and the environment to the negative impacts of natural disasters. As well, risk assessment focuses on the evaluation of the causes and consequences of natural disasters loses, going beyond planification and becoming a central tool for policy-making.

It is important to understand that risk assessment remains in two levels: at national and regional. On one hand, national level utilizes risk assessment as a planification tool for its DRR policies. For example, promoting the use of national disasters observatories and disasters loss databases. On the other, at a regional level, risk assessment can also be applied for planification but taking into consideration particular regional conditions.

For instance, UNDP and UN-HABITAT allied to promote a pre-disaster shelter planning programme with pilot operations in Mexico, Nepal and Mozambique in 2009, with the help of regional governments. The objective of this programme was to improve the prediction of the number of shelters that would be needed in vulnerable areas post-disasters, as well as improving population displacement and re-allocation. In this way, governments would ensure a more efficient and rapid shelter provision.

We encourage delegates to enhance a clear understanding of what is risks assessment (RA) and if their countries apply RA in their national policies. Furthermore, how can RA be incorporated into an international framework taking into consideration the natural hazards particular groups of countries face.

Ecosystem based solutions for DDR

As stated earlier, DDR also includes the “wise management of land and the environment”, becoming environmental solutions central in reducing systemic risk exposure. Therefore, ecosystem-based disaster

19

risk reduction (ECO-DDR), following the Partnership for Environment and Disaster Risk Reduction4 definition, refers to the “sustainable management, conservation and restoration of ecosystems to provide services that reduce disaster risk [...]” (IUCN, 2018). The logic is that, healthy and sustainable-managed ecosystems, reduce disaster risk as they act as natural safeguards, “for instance through flood and landslide mitigation and water filtration and absorption” (UNESCO, 2018). For the United Nations Environment Programme, these solutions focus on ecosystems such as “forests, mangroves, wetlands, coral reefs, sand dunes etc. which can help prevent or mitigate hazards. For example, mountain forests reduce the risk of avalanches and landslides” (UNEP, 2018). Additionally, ECO-DDR also includes river-basin5, coastal zone and protected areas management. For instance, bearing in mind the importance of wetlands (for the ecosystem services they provide, as a direct source of fish and water supply, climate and flood regulation and ecotourism opportunities), its degradation due to harvesting beyond saturation points, infrastructure development etc., result in altered hydrological cycles. “In many cases this has [evolved] in greater frequency and severity of flooding, drought and pollution” (Ramsar, n.d). Therefore, there relies the importance on having an efficient integrated scheme on river-basin management.

Science, technology, innovation and DDR

Between 2000 and 2012 1.7 million people died as a result of natural disasters, and approximately US$ 1.7 billion were declared lost due to damages (UNISDR, 2013). Activities to reduce disasters risk aim to diminish human, economic and environmental costs of such disasters. In this scenario, science can play an essential role, by discovering new ways and technologies to prevent, prepare and respond to disasters. Currently, as a result of scientific research, there are programs to forecast floods, detect waves of tsunamis, prevent outbreaks of infectious diseases with vaccines and effectively communicate the risk of disasters to improve the resilience of communities.

4 Global Partnership comprised by UN agencies, NGOs and research institutes which focus on environmental solutions for DDR. 5 River basins or river catchments (the land area be-tween the source and the mouth of a river, including all of the lands that drain into the river) (Ramsar, n.d)

Therefore, science is already helping to save lives and livelihoods in some cases. But what do we mean by “science”? Science is knowledge obtained through study or practice (Wiley, 1999). For disaster risk reduction it is considered that science, in its broadest sense, includes the natural sciences, environmental, social, economic, health and engineering, and it is understood that, in general terms, scientific capabilities include all resources and the relevant scientific and technical competences (Reid, 2013).

The more generalized integration of science in the development of policies for Disaster risk reduction will depend on whether science is “useful, usable and used” (Hayden, 2002). The report on the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (ISDR) of the Committee of Science and Technology of 2009 “The risk reduction of disasters through science: issues and measures”(UNISDR, 2009) analyzed how it can be overcome the challenge of integrating scientific learning into politics through the improvement of dialogue between scientists and decision-makers, defending that science can be useful for disaster risk reduction. The studies of case in this report describe specific examples of scientific learning employees to improve disaster risk reduction by providing a vast evidence that science can be used to reduce the risk of disasters in 2015, the ISDR Science and Technology Advisory Group intends to show that science is constantly used in disaster risk reduction.

As a clear example of the use of technologies for risk reduction we have UN-SPIDER, which in resolution 61/110, of December 14, 2006, the United Nations General Assembly was constituted the “Platform of the Nations United for spatial information for disaster management and emergency response UN-SPIDER “as a new United Nations program, with the following mission statement:” Ensure that all countries and international and regional organizations have access to and develop the ability to use all kinds of spatial information to support the full cycle of disaster management. “

Space applications related to Earth observation, telecommunications and global navigation can play a vital role in supporting disaster risk reduction, response, and recovery efforts, by providing accurate and timely information for decision-makers. For example, Earth observation can be used to elaborate hazard, exposure and risk maps, as well as to map

20

areas which have been affected by floods, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, forest fires, landslides and other natural hazards. In a complementary fashion, satellite telecommunication offers the possibility of transmitting tsunami warnings very quickly from one continent to another, in addition to other relevant information. Global navigation satellite systems are contributing to an improved understanding of the relative motion of tectonic plates and to the delivery of humanitarian assistance to areas affected by disasters - through the provision of coordinates of shelters in areas affected by disasters.

● Natural disasters through history

Historical natural disaster Use of Disaster Risk Reduc-tion

Recoveryefficiency

The tragedy of Armero was a natural disaster caused by the eruption of the Nevado del Ruiz volcano on Wed-nesday, November 13, 1985, affectingthedepartmentsofCaldas and Tolima, Colom-bia.

There was no type of stra-tegy for planning or imple-menting technologies for Disaster Risk Reduction of natural hazards.

It never recovered from the natural danger due to the magnitude of its damage.

The 2011 Japan earthquake andtsunami,officiallyna-med by the Japan Meteoro-logical Agency as the Pacific Coast earthquake in the Tōhoku region of 2011

Even though Japan inves-ted billions of dollars in anti-tsunami sea walls bor-dering at least 40% of its 34,751 km of coastline and rising 12 meters in height, the tsunami simply stepped over the walls, collapsing some in its March. On the one hand, on the other, thanks to the signaling, seve-ralpeoplemanagedtofindasuitable refuge.

Although the investments of disaster risk reduction werenotfullyreflected,theefficiencywithwhichtheJapanese people managed to compose themselves again is to be admired, it is worth noting that these are world leaders in DDR.

Tornadoes in the United States (all are counted in general, and no reference is made to one in particular).

Due to the nature of these phenomena it is almost im-possible to face them, howe-ver there has been some progress if that has been achieved.

A year and a few million dollars are spent on repairs thanks to tornadoes, and thesearereflectedyearafteryear in new technologies to try to reduce damage.

History of the problem

A natural hazard, mistakenly known as a natural disaster, is the occurrence of a natural phenomenon in which a certain space and in a certain period, this so called “space” being threatened, making an impact on the living things of the area and their environment. A disaster is however defined by the UN International Strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR) as “a serious disruption of the functioning of a community or a society involving widespread human, material, economic or environmental losses and impacts, which exceeds the ability of the affected community or society to cope using its own resources”. These natural hazards may produce damage to the social and physical space where they take place, in either short or long-term basis. All of these in direct relation with their main consequences, which have a major impact on society and/or infrastructure, they become disasters.

21

The role of information and communication technologies (ICTs)

Another technological solution to improve the prevention of natural risks is based on the role of information and communication technologies (ICT), especially to exchange timely information between different areas and provide citizens with early warnings of possible natural disasters.

What governments can do is reduce the risks that disasters pose to the lives and livelihoods of citizens. In general, the focus is on having current policies so that when a disaster occurs, the chain of command described by the policy will be followed and the first responders will be deployed quickly. The emphasis is on saving lives and providing relief to those affected. With advances in technology, the sophistication of systems currently in operation and the rapid pace at which new technologies and solutions emerge, Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) are proving to be an increasingly important tool in Management of Disaster Risk (DRM). Traditionally, access to food, clothing and shelter has been prioritized. Nowadays, it is argued that access to communication systems is so important, as it allows connecting key personnel to provide basic needs to victims.

In its simplest form, ICTs are useful in all stages of the disaster life cycle. Humans have an inherent need to be connected. In emergency situations, ICTs provide the necessary platform to keep communication channels open, given that the underlying infrastructure is available. ICT have also proven to be a useful tool in unconventional forms of communication (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) to identify areas of pressing need.The role of certain means of communication is key in emergency situations. It is radio, more than television, because of the sustainability of equipment, frequency and territorial scope, which, in a country with geographical complexities such as Chile, has the capacity to fulfill in the delivery of information services with greater fidelity. An example of that is the earthquake that affected the country on February 27, 2010. In this emergency situation, the radio played a fundamental role, specifying in the urgency, in the fidelity of the informative quality, as a need of the audience, considering that television was paralyzed for long hours, unable to transmit normally. (APCICT, 2010)

Resilient infrastructure

Besides planification with disasters risk reduction and risk assessment policies is at the core of natural disasters prevention (and as part of the innovation branch), it is also relevant to consider practical technological solutions for improving the infrastructural defense against natural hazards.

First, building resilient infrastructure depends on what kinds of natural hazards each country faces . In general, some possibilities to prevent disasters, as stated in the “Disaster Resilient Infrastructure” study for the IDNDR programme UN forum, are: special roofs, exterior walls and facades, air domes and tents, tanks, vessels and cooling towers, bridges and erection stages.

22

Natural Hazards Causes-Effects SimplifiedHURRICANES As sea levels continue to rise due to glo-

bal warming, they’re increasing the risk of storm surge — the dangerously high floods caused by a storm pushing water onshore. Those floodwaters are responsible for much of the damage left by hurricanes — parti-cularly in highly populated coastal cities. Climate change can influence hurricanes in a number of ways — for example, in the amount of rainfall they drop. As the planet warms, the atmosphere can hold more moisture. So when it rains, it really pours.

WILDFIRES Global warming means less soil moistu-re on average, which means that stuff burns more easily. (Particularly if you’re in a drou-ght-stricken area with a lot of dead, dry trees, for example.)

DRIER GROUND Thanks to global warming, which is raising the Earth’s temperature, water evaporates out of the soil and into the air, sucking away mois-ture from plants that rely on it.

Past actions

The International Community has already taken actions to lessen the probability of natural hazards scaling into natural disasters. For instance, in 2005, the Hyogo Framework for Action (2005-2015) was installed. It was the “first plan to explain, describe and detail the work that [was] required from all different sectors and actors to reduce disaster losses. It was developed and agreed on with the many partners needed to reduce disaster risk - governments, international agencies, disaster experts and many others - bringing them into a common system of coordination” (UNISDR, 2018c). Additionality, the Hyogo Framework focused on five main pillars or priority actions, the ones which involved ensuring that DDR was not only a national (but also a local priority), enhancing systems of early warning, using

knowledge, innovation and education to build a resilience culture while strengthening disasters preparedness.

In this sense, besides the Hyogo Framework was the first which stated the importance of relevant stakeholders working together for reducing disaster risk, it was the Sendai Framework, a 15 years non-binding agreement with maturity in 2030, the one which recognized that the State had the primary role on this task. However, being the Hyogo Framework’s successor, it also highlighted the importance of having a shared responsibility among stakeholders, including the private sector, civil society, NGOs etc. Moreover, the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction is the responsible body for the Sendai Framework implementation, review and follow-up.

23

Natural Hazards Causes-Effects SimplifiedHURRICANES As sea levels continue to rise due to glo-

bal warming, they’re increasing the risk of storm surge — the dangerously high floods caused by a storm pushing water onshore. Those floodwaters are responsible for much of the damage left by hurricanes — parti-cularly in highly populated coastal cities. Climate change can influence hurricanes in a number of ways — for example, in the amount of rainfall they drop. As the planet warms, the atmosphere can hold more moisture. So when it rains, it really pours.

WILDFIRES Global warming means less soil moistu-re on average, which means that stuff burns more easily. (Particularly if you’re in a drou-ght-stricken area with a lot of dead, dry trees, for example.)

DRIER GROUND Thanks to global warming, which is raising the Earth’s temperature, water evaporates out of the soil and into the air, sucking away mois-ture from plants that rely on it.

Finally, af for ECO-DDR, UNEP works with other UN agencies and international organizations to develop environmental solutions for disasters risks, the ones which later can be translated into frameworks and agreements. For instance, along with the European Commission, UNEP works in Haiti to promote the sustainable management of coastal zones to diminish disaster risk. “UNEP supports local government and communities to use coastal conservation approaches to protect communities from storm surges as well as landslides and erosion on neighbouring hills that put communities and the marine environment at risk” (UNEP, 2018b).

1. Which past international actions and UN programmes should be expanded or reinforced for reducing disaster risk? How should these programmes be restructured for taking into account science and technology and the role of the own ecosystem?

2. Which should be the main strategies and programmes in each step of the “Disasters Management Cycle”? How can these ones be adapted according to each country reality? How could science, technology and innovation be included?

3. How can countries overcome patents, research and financing constraints for developing efficient science and technology and ECO-DDR measures for reducing disasters risk?

4.How can countries reduce the negative effects of climate change on natural environments for diminishing disaster risk?  

QARMAS

24

Asian Disaster Preparedness Center (ADPC). (14 Sept. 2004). “Concepts of Hazards, Disasters, and Hazard Assessment.” Capacity Building in Asia Using Information Technology Applications (CASITA). Retrieved June, 2018:www.adpc.net/casita/course-materials/Mod-2-Hazards.pdf. Module 2 of an informative pamphlet.

United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. (2 Feb. 2017). “Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction.” Retrieved June, 2018:https://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/terminology. United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. (26 Apr. 2012) “What Is Disaster Risk Reduction?” UNISDR News. Retrieved June, 2018:www.unisdr.org/who-we-are/what-is-drr.

United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. (21 May, 2013). “Hoygo Framework for Action (HFA).” UNISDR News. Retrieved June, 2018:https://www.unisdr.org/we/coordinate/hfa.

United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. (26 Apr. 2012). “Introducing Disaster Risk Reduction and Resilience”. UNISDR News. Retrieved June, 2018:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iugLHrcs_fM.

Alcántara-Ayala, Irasema. (Oct. 2002). “Geomorphology, Natural Hazards, Vulnerability and Prevention of Natural Disasters in Developing Countries”. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Retrieved June, 2018:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222577933_Geomorphology_Natural_Hazards_Vulnerability_and_Prevention_of_Natural_Disasters_in_Developing_Countries

United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. (18 Mar. 2015). “Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, 2015-2030”. Retrieved June, 2018:https://www.unisdr.org/files/43291_sendaiframeworkfordrren.pdf

Mwangi, Patrick. (n.d.). “Ecosystem-based Disaster Risk Reduction”. ROLAC, United Nations Environmental Programme Office for Latin America and the Caribbean. Retrieved June, 2018:http://web.unep.org/regions/rolac/ecosystem-based-disaster-risk-reduction

UNESCO. (n.d.). “Understanding the Link between Environment, Livelihoods and Disaster.” Ecosystem-Based Disaster Risk Reduction:www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/special-themes/disaster-risk-reduction/geohazard-risk-reduction/policy-development/ecosystem-based-disaster-risk-reduction/.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

25

International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction. (1999). “Coping Study on Disaster Resilient Infrastructure Commissioned by the Secretariat for the International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction for the IDNDR Programme Forum 1999 “Partnerships for a safer world in the 21 st century””. United Nations. Retrieved June, 2018: https://www.unisdr.org/files/31467_copingstudydisasterresilientinfrast.pdf.

Ramsar Convention on Wetlands. (Oct-Nov 2008, Changwon). “Handbook 9: River basin management”. Edited 2010. Retrieved June, 2018: https://www.ramsar.org/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/lib/hbk4-09.pdf.

UNISDR. (12 Mar. 2013). “Disaster Impacts, 2000-2012”. Retrieved June, 2018: https://www.preventionweb.net/files/31737_20130312disaster20002012copy.pdf-13.999.

Basher, Reid. (31 Mar. 2013, Geneva). “Science and Technology for Disaster Risk Reduction: A review of application and coordination needs.” UNISDR. Retrieved June, 2018: https://www.preventionweb.net/posthfa/documents/Science-and-Technology-for-Disaster-Risk-Reduction.pdf

Boaz A, Hayden C. Pro-Active Evaluators: Enabling Research to be Useful, Usable and Used.

Evaluation.2002; 8(4):44053. UNISDR. Reducing Disaster Risks through Science: Issues and Actions, The full report of the ISDR Scientific and Technical Committee 2009. Ginebra: UNISDR, 2009. Retrieved, June, 2018:http://www.unisdr.org/files/11543_ STCReportlibrary.pdf

Asian and Pacific Training Centre for Information and Communication Technology for Development (APCICT). (May 2010). “ICT for Disaster Risk Reduction”. United Nations. Retrieved, June, 2018: https://www.preventionweb.net/files/14338_14338ICTDCaseStudy21.pdf

Laboratory of Hydraulics, Hydrology and Glaciology of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich. (1999). “Coping study on DISASTER RESILIENT INFRASTRUCTURE Cornmissioned by the Secretariat for the International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction”. INDNDR. Retrieved June, 2018: https://www.unisdr.org/files/31467_copingstudydisasterresilientinfrast.pdf