ZEF Bonn

4. Preliminary conclusion
In this essay we have developed some tentative hypothesis with regard to the causal
mechanisms responsible for disasters and the interrelationships between the various
factors at work. The approach presented here views both man-made and natural
disasters as the consequences of high vulnerability to extreme events - such as
droughts, wars, or storms. Vulnerability in turn depends not only on the magnitude
and frequency of extreme events (hazards), but also on the coping capacity.
We have developed a series of hypotheses both with regard to hazards and coping
capacities. Regarding the frequency and magnitude of extreme events, our somewhat
surprising conclusion is that, both for natural disasters and for man-made disasters
such as wars, we observe a decrease in casualties and an increase in frequency. At the
same time, at least the economic costs of natural disasters have risen over the past
decade. Our assumption is that this is because coping capacities (especially international
relief efforts) have increased over the past decades, thus allowing for a lowering
of the death toll despite an increasing number of wars and natural disasters.
However, there are severe limitations in the data base-we above all lack longitudinal
data on victims of civil wars and on civilian casualties. We also encountered a reporting
problem concerning the number of natural disasters. Much more research is
needed to confirm the general hypothesis that we derive from our exercise in trend
estimation: that the world, on average, has become a much safer place, in contrast to
the fin-de-siècle pessimism that dominates certain sectors of the published opinion.
On the other hand, our data also clearly show that the risks of exposure to disasters
are very unequally distributed over the planet. They are much higher for people
living in low income developing countries, where most major wars of the recent
decades were fought and where most of the victims of natural disasters were to be
found. Our hypothesis is that a weaker coping capacity explains this unequal pattern
of distribution:
● a higher frequency and intensity of violent political conflict destroying the institutional
capacity to react to extreme events. This higher frequency can be attributed
to the early stages of processes of nation-state formation that often
entail the politicisation of ethno-cultural differences and that may escalate into
civil wars.
● a higher degree of poverty which makes survival and prevention strategies such
as insurances inaccessible because long-term investing in mitigation of future
risks is not affordable for poor people; poverty also reduces the capacity for
institution building beyond the social capital invested in everyday social networks.
Weak institutional development in turn represents a major disadvantage
for developing adequate coping strategies.
● a more intense degradation in the natural resource bases and at the same time a
higher dependency on natural resources that both reduce the space for adaptation
and recovery in the face of extreme events. The high level of degradation
may be explained by geographic location, higher rates of population growth,
higher dependency on agriculture and lower institutional capacities to implement
conservation strategies.
Essay
The risks of exposure to disasters
are much higher for people
in low income developing
countries, where most of the
victims of natural disasters
were to be found. This unequal
pattern of distribution is due
to a weaker coping capacity in
these countries.
25